- MARKUP OF H.R. 6353, TO AUTHORIZE THE NATIONAL SERVICE ANIMALS MONUMENT CORPORATION TO ESTABLISH A COMMEMORATIVE WORK IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA AND ITS ENVIRONS, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES, ``NATIONAL SERVICE ANIMALS MEMORIAL ACT''; H.R. 6438, TO AUTHORIZE THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR TO CONDUCT A SPECIAL RESOURCE STUDY OF THE SITE KNOWN AS ``DEARFIELD'' IN THE STATE OF COLORADO, ``DEARFIELD STUDY ACT''; H.R. 6799, TO DIRECT THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR TO CONDUCT A SPECIAL RESOURCE STUDY TO DETERMINE THE SUITABILITY AND FEASIBILITY OF ESTABLISHING THE JOHN P. PARKER HOUSE IN RIPLEY, OHIO, AS A UNIT OF THE NATIONAL PARK SYSTEM, ``JOHN P. PARKER HOUSE STUDY ACT''; H.R. 7618, TO DESIGNATE THE KOL ISRAEL FOUNDATION HOLOCAUST MEMORIAL IN BEDFORD HEIGHTS, OHIO, AS A NATIONAL MEMORIAL; AND H.R. 8393, TO ENABLE THE PEOPLE OF PUERTO RICO TO CHOOSE A PERMANENT, NONTERRITORIAL, FULLY SELF-GOVERNING POLITICAL STATUS FOR PUERTO RICO AND TO PROVIDE FOR A TRANSITION TO AND THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THAT PERMANENT, NONTERRITORIAL, FULLY SELF-GOVERNING POLITICAL STATUS, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES, ``PUERTO RICO STATUS ACT''

    [House Hearing, 117 Congress]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

    MARKUP OF H.R. 6353, ``NATIONAL SERVICE ANIMALS MEMORIAL ACT''; H.R.
    6438, ``DEARFIELD STUDY ACT''; H.R. 6799, ``JOHN P. PARKER HOUSE STUDY
      ACT''; H.R. 7618, TO DESIGNATE THE KOL ISRAEL FOUNDATION HOLOCAUST
      MEMORIAL IN BEDFORD HEIGHTS, OHIO, AS A NATIONAL MEMORIAL; AND H.R.
                        8393, ``PUERTO RICO STATUS ACT''

    =======================================================================

                                     MARKUP

                                   before the

                         COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES
                         U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                        ONE HUNDRED SEVENTEENTH CONGRESS

                                 SECOND SESSION

                                   ----------

                            Wednesday, July 20, 2022

                                   ----------

                               Serial No. 117-24

                                   ----------

           Printed for the use of the Committee on Natural Resources

      MARKUP OF H.R. 6353, H.R. 6438, H.R. 6799, H.R. 7618, AND H.R. 8393

     MARKUP OF H.R. 6353, ``NATIONAL SERVICE ANIMALS MEMORIAL ACT''; H.R.
    6438, ``DEARFIELD STUDY ACT''; H.R. 6799, ``JOHN P. PARKER HOUSE STUDY
      ACT''; H.R. 7618, TO DESIGNATE THE KOL ISRAEL FOUNDATION HOLOCAUST
     MEMORIAL IN BEDFORD HEIGHTS, OHIO, AS A NATIONAL MEMORIAL; AND H.R.
                       8393, ``PUERTO RICO STATUS ACT''

    =======================================================================

                                     MARKUP

                                   before the

                         COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES
                         U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                        ONE HUNDRED SEVENTEENTH CONGRESS

                                 SECOND SESSION

                                   __________

                            Wednesday, July 20, 2022

                                   __________

                               Serial No. 117-24

                                   __________

           Printed for the use of the Committee on Natural Resources

           [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT

            Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.govinfo.gov
                                       or
              Committee address: http://naturalresources.house.gov

                               _____

                  U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
     48-133PDF               WASHINGTON : 2023

                         COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES

                          RAUL M. GRIJALVA, AZ, Chair
                    JESUS G. ``CHUY'' GARCIA, IL, Vice Chair
       GREGORIO KILILI CAMACHO SABLAN, CNMI, Vice Chair, Insular Affairs
                      BRUCE WESTERMAN, AR, Ranking Member

    Grace F. Napolitano, CA              Louie Gohmert, TX
    Jim Costa, CA                        Doug Lamborn, CO
    Gregorio Kilili Camacho Sablan,      Robert J. Wittman, VA
        CNMI                             Tom McClintock, CA
    Jared Huffman, CA                    Garret Graves, LA
    Alan S. Lowenthal, CA                Jody B. Hice, GA
    Ruben Gallego, AZ                    Aumua Amata Coleman Radewagen, AS
    Joe Neguse, CO                       Daniel Webster, FL
    Mike Levin, CA                       Jenniffer Gonzalez-Colon, PR
    Katie Porter, CA                     Russ Fulcher, ID
    Teresa Leger Fernandez, NM           Pete Stauber, MN
    Melanie A. Stansbury, NM             Thomas P. Tiffany, WI
    Nydia M. Velazquez, NY               Jerry L. Carl, AL
    Diana DeGette, CO                    Matthew M. Rosendale, Sr., MT
    Julia Brownley, CA                   Blake D. Moore, UT
    Debbie Dingell, MI                   Yvette Herrell, NM
    A. Donald McEachin, VA               Lauren Boebert, CO
    Darren Soto, FL                      Jay Obernolte, CA
    Michael F. Q. San Nicolas, GU        Cliff Bentz, OR
    Jesus G. ``Chuy'' Garcia, IL         Connie Conway, CA
    Ed Case, HI                          Vacancy
    Betty McCollum, MN
    Steve Cohen, TN
    Paul Tonko, NY
    Rashida Tlaib, MI
    Lori Trahan, MA

                         David Watkins, Staff Director
                           Luis Urbina, Chief Counsel
                   Vivian Moeglein, Republican Staff Director
                       http://naturalresources.house.gov
                                     ------

                                    CONTENTS

                                  ----------
                                                                       Page

    Markup held on Wednesday, July 20, 2022..........................     1

    Statement of Members:

        Gonzalez-Colon, Hon. Jenniffer, a Resident Commissioner in
          Congress from the Territory of Puerto Rico.................     7
        Grijalva, Hon. Raul M., a Representative in Congress from the
          State of Arizona...........................................     3
        Soto, Hon. Darren, a Representative in Congress from the
          State of Florida...........................................    12
        Velazquez, Hon. Nydia M., a Representative in Congress from
          the State of New York......................................     6
        Westerman, Hon. Bruce, a Representative in Congress from the
          State of Arkansas..........................................     2

    Appendix:

        H.R. 8393, the Puerto Rico Status Act--Bill Text.............   126
        H.R. 8393, the Puerto Rico Status Act--Spanish translation
          (unofficial)...............................................   184
        Congressional Delegation Itinerary--San Juan, Puerto Rico,
          June 2-5, 2022.............................................   240
        Congressional Forum Transcript, held in San Juan, Puerto Rico
          on June 4, 2022............................................   243
        Public comments submitted on POPVOX (May 19, 2022-July 14,
          2022)......................................................   289
        Letter from Chair Grijalva Requesting DOJ Analysis of H.R.
          1522 and H.R. 2070.........................................   342
        Department of Justice--Analysis of H.R. 1522.................   343
        Department of Justice--Analysis of H.R. 2070.................   351
        Puerto Rico Status Act--Section by Section Summary (English).   355
        Puerto Rico Status Act--Citizenship Provisions (English).....   363
        Puerto Rico Status Act--Citizenship Provisions (Spanish).....   365
        Puerto Rico Status Act--Frequently Asked Questions (English).   367
        Amendments...................................................   369
        Markup Action Report.........................................   443

    Additional Materials Submitted for the Record:

        Rep. Jose F. Aponte-Hernandez, Puerto Rico House of
          Representatives, Letter....................................   445
        Charles A. Rodriguez, Chair, Democratic Party of Puerto Rico,
          Letter.....................................................   447
        Proyecto Dignidad, Statement for the Record..................   448
        Governor Pedro Pierluisi & New Progressive Party, Statement
          for the Record.............................................   449
        Puerto Rican Independence Party, Materials...................   451
        Republican Party of Puerto Rico, Letter, Resolution and
          Memorandum.................................................   471
        Republican Party of Puerto Rico, Letter......................   478
        Organizations in Support of the Puerto Rico Status Act
          Discussion Draft, Letter...................................   480

        List of documents submitted for the record retained in the
          Committee's official files.................................   488

    MARKUP OF H.R. 6353, TO AUTHORIZE THE NATIONAL SERVICE ANIMALS
     MONUMENT CORPORATION TO ESTABLISH A COMMEMORATIVE WORK IN THE
    DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA AND ITS ENVIRONS, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES,
       ``NATIONAL SERVICE ANIMALS MEMORIAL ACT''; H.R. 6438, TO
     AUTHORIZE THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR TO CONDUCT A SPECIAL
    RESOURCE STUDY OF THE SITE KNOWN AS ``DEARFIELD'' IN THE STATE
    OF COLORADO, ``DEARFIELD STUDY ACT''; H.R. 6799, TO DIRECT THE
     SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR TO CONDUCT A SPECIAL RESOURCE STUDY
     TO DETERMINE THE SUITABILITY AND FEASIBILITY OF ESTABLISHING
      THE JOHN P. PARKER HOUSE IN RIPLEY, OHIO, AS A UNIT OF THE
    NATIONAL PARK SYSTEM, ``JOHN P. PARKER HOUSE STUDY ACT''; H.R.
    7618, TO DESIGNATE THE KOL ISRAEL FOUNDATION HOLOCAUST MEMORIAL
      IN BEDFORD HEIGHTS, OHIO, AS A NATIONAL MEMORIAL; AND H.R.
         8393, TO ENABLE THE PEOPLE OF PUERTO RICO TO CHOOSE A
       PERMANENT, NONTERRITORIAL, FULLY SELF-GOVERNING POLITICAL
     STATUS FOR PUERTO RICO AND TO PROVIDE FOR A TRANSITION TO AND
      THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THAT PERMANENT, NONTERRITORIAL, FULLY
       SELF-GOVERNING POLITICAL STATUS, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES,
                       ``PUERTO RICO STATUS ACT''

                                  ----------

                            Wednesday, July 20, 2022

                         U.S. House of Representatives

                         Committee on Natural Resources

                                 Washington, DC

                                  ----------

        The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:04 a.m., in
    room 1324, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Raul M.
    Grijalva [Chairman of the Committee] presiding.

        Present: Representatives Grijalva, Napolitano, Costa,
    Sablan, Huffman, Lowenthal, Gallego, Neguse, Levin, Porter,
    Leger Fernandez, Stansbury, Velazquez, DeGette, Brownley,
    Dingell, McEachin, Soto, San Nicolas, Garcia, Case, McCollum,
    Cohen, Tonko, Tlaib, Trahan; Westerman, Gohmert, Lamborn,
    Wittman, McClintock, Graves, Hice, Webster, Gonzalez-Colon,
    Fulcher, Stauber, Tiffany, Carl, Rosendale, Moore, Herrell,
    Boebert, Obernolte, Bentz and Conway.
        Also present: Representative Hoyer.

        The Chairman. The Committee shall come to order. We are
    meeting today to consider five pieces of legislation. All have
    been properly noticed and circulated electronically along with
    copies of timely filed amendments and will be available on the
    Committee repository at HNRCDocs@mail.house.gov. Late
    amendments are circulated electronically as well.
        Pursuant to Committee Rules, members of the Committee may
    submit written opening statements for the record. I ask that
    the Members may revise and extend their remarks on the bills to
    be considered at this markup and have those remarks included in
    the record. Without objection, so ordered.
        Without objection, the Chair may also declare a recess
    subject to the call of the Chair. Pursuant to Committee Rule
    3(i) and House Rule 11, Clause 2, I announce that I may
    postpone further proceedings today on the question of approving
    any measure or matter or adopting an amendment on which a
    recorded vote has been ordered.
        Documents, amendments, or motions must be submitted by e-
    mail from a House e-mail address. Please note that Members are
    responsible for their own microphones, and Members can be muted
    only to avoid inadvertent background noise. I strongly
    recommend that the Members joining remotely use the grid view
    and lock the timer to a location so it remains visible. Any
    Member experiencing technical problems should inform the
    Committee staff immediately.
        Before we begin, I would like to recognize the Ranking
    Member, Mr. Westerman, for his opening statement. Sir, you are
    recognized.

      STATEMENT OF THE HON. BRUCE WESTERMAN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
                  CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF ARKANSAS

        Mr. Westerman. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Republicans have
    always, or for months, called on this Committee to act quickly
    and decisively to address the pressing issues facing Americans,
    issues like sky-high energy prices, a supply chain crisis, and
    rampant inflation.
        We could be taking up legislation to address these issues
    and make life better for the people of Puerto Rico and for all
    Americans. Unfortunately, here we are again taking up
    legislation that fails to recognize the immediacy of the crises
    facing us and the people we represent. I saw a poll this week--
    it was an unbelievable poll--that said that 95 percent of
    Americans are concerned about rising energy and rising food
    prices.
        And there is no doubt that, for the residents of Puerto
    Rico, their long-term political status is important. I want to
    acknowledge the Resident Commissioner, Miss Gonzalez-Colon, for
    being a fierce advocate for the people of Puerto Rico and for
    always working hard to keep Puerto Rico front of mind for every
    Member of Congress. As I have always said, I stand ready to
    work with her to address Puerto Rico's political status in a
    manner that places the island on stable footing, ensures its
    financial stability, repairs aging infrastructure, provides
    affordable and reliable energy to its people, and sets the
    island on a solid and prosperous path. Unfortunately, the
    Democrat Majority has hijacked this important issue to advance
    their own political agendas.
        If the Committee's Majority was serious about addressing
    such a complex issue as the political future of Puerto Rico, an
    island with a population of more than 3 million Americans, they
    would not have sprung this bill on us with less than a week's
    notice. Let me say that again--less than a week's notice to
    consider a bill of this magnitude.
        The bill implicates such complex issues as U.S. citizenship
    and immigration. It not only talks about immigration policy,
    but it involves taxation, trade and foreign policy, healthcare
    and entitlement programs, just to name a few. These topics span
    a wide range of congressional committees, and it is foolish for
    us to assume we can handle everything here without even
    approaching other issue area experts to help us navigate such
    perilous waters.
        The Majority's decision to sell this bill forward without
    so much as a hearing deprives all the members of this Committee
    and the residents of Puerto Rico the opportunity to examine the
    real-world impacts of the legislation and make an informed
    decision about whether this bill truly meets the needs of the
    people of Puerto Rico. We have had less than a week to look at
    this language. But I can tell you, after looking at it, my
    colleagues and I welcome the opportunity to debate and offer
    amendments to address the many shortcomings of the legislation
    and expose how it fails the people of Puerto Rico and of the
    United States as a whole.
        In short, this legislation suffers from bad process and bad
    policy. While the Democrat Majority will tell you this bill is
    a lifeboat for the future of Puerto Rico, its many flaws
    threaten to leave this legislation shipwrecked. With that, I
    yield back.
        The Chairman. The gentleman yields.
        At this point, I will call up for consideration H.R. 8393,
    offered by myself. Without objection, this bill will be
    considered as read and open for amendment at any point.
        I now recognize myself to speak to the legislation.

      STATEMENT OF THE HON. RAUL M. GRIJALVA, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
                   CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF ARIZONA

        The Chairman. Today, members of the Natural Resources
    Committee have an opportunity to advance legislation, H.R.
    8393, the Puerto Rico Status Act, to resolve Puerto Rico's
    territory status and foster political, social, and economic
    justice for more than 3 million U.S. citizens on the island.
        The Status Act represents an offer from Congress to the
    people of Puerto Rico to make an informed choice on their
    political future by participating in a federally sponsored
    plebiscite. This bill details the transition to an
    implementation of Puerto Rico's non-territory status. Options
    such as statehood, independence, and sovereignty in free
    association with the United States will be there for voters in
    Puerto Rico to choose.
        For the first time, the House would be recognizing that
    Puerto Rico's territory status limits the island's development
    and that the status quo cannot continue. And, importantly,
    unlike past plebiscites, the Puerto Rico Status Act would honor
    the will of the majority of the voters of Puerto Rico and would
    implement the choice that they make. This legislation is a
    product of an extensive and deliberate negotiation process
    between the main sponsors of H.R. 1522, the Puerto Rico
    Statehood Admissions Act, led by Representatives Soto and
    Gonzalez-Colon and many others, and H.R. 2070, the Puerto Rico
    Self-Determination Act, led by Representatives Velazquez and
    Ocasio-Cortez and many others. Last year, the Natural Resources
    Committee held two legislative hearings for Puerto Rican
    elected government officials, legal and human rights experts,
    and residents offered testimony and feedback to the Committee
    on the details of those bills and the critical limitations of
    Puerto Rico's territory status.
        Members and staff also met individually with numerous
    advocacy groups and other stakeholders to discuss their
    proposals and suggestions. The Puerto Rico Status Act combines
    important elements of H.R. 1522 and H.R. 2070 in a compromise
    that also incorporates input from the voices across Puerto Rico
    and the status debate we believe that this discussion of those
    two pieces of legislation as the basis for negotiations and for
    the legislation that we see before us. We believe that that is
    supported by a majority of the Members in Congress.
        After several months of sensitive and delicate negotiations
    among the main sponsors, the Committee released a discussion
    draft text to the Puerto Rico Status Act. We did that earlier
    this year. Members then traveled to Puerto Rico to gather input
    on the draft legislation directly from the residents. During
    this visit, Members and staff met with leaders of Puerto Rico's
    several political parties and hosted a public forum that was
    attended by more than 400 members of the general public, of
    which over a hundred shared comments and suggestions on the
    text with the delegation.
        In addition to these in-person opportunities for public
    input, the Committee published the draft text on PopVox, an
    online submission tool that the public used to submit more than
    100 comments, all of which were reviewed and considered while
    developing the bill's final language.
        The Puerto Rico Status Act is a product of a participatory
    and informed process--it incorporates expertise and knowledge
    from a wide range of stakeholders who have grappled with the
    dilemma of Puerto Rico's second-class political status for
    decades. I am extremely grateful to all the political and
    community leaders, residents, and staff who contributed to the
    bill.
        I also want to thank House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, the
    Governor of Puerto Rico, and Representatives Velazquez, Soto,
    Gonzalez-Colon, and Ocasio-Cortez for their leadership and
    commitment to work through this process. Finding a resolution
    to Puerto Rico's political status has been one of the top
    priorities as Chairman of this Committee. It was crucial to me
    that any proposal from Congress would have to include
    decolonization of Puerto Rico and that the proposal to
    decolonize be an informed process and informed participation by
    the people in Puerto Rico.
        Congress and the citizens of Puerto Rico have, for decades,
    had numerous attempts to deal with the resolution of the
    current political status, most, if not all, ending in failure,
    non-results, and extended delays. And the status quo remains. I
    say that because we have an opportunity here to deal with the
    colonial legacy, a legacy that that vestige should not be part
    of the governance of this nation of ours and that the U.S.
    citizens of Puerto Rico deserve to have the same democratic
    principles that we believe in and swear to, be allowed to have
    their voice, their will, their vote--have the principal
    influence on what their future is.
        I have a preference. Others have preferences in terms of
    the two pieces of legislation. But in my visits to Puerto Rico
    with Members, I came very quickly to, I hope, understand that
    my preference does not reflect the will and the ability that
    Puerto Rico should have to self-determine what that future is
    going to be for them and the generations that come.
        And maybe my preference would not prevail in a plebiscite.
    What would prevail is in a democratic, free election that is
    above board, clean, that the people of Puerto Rico make a
    decision and that that decision be binding. I think that is
    important enough to say, that if my preference loses, that
    doesn't mean Puerto Rico lost. It means that they made a
    decision.
        And I might not agree with it, but they will begin the
    process of breaking the colonial relationship that this country
    has with Puerto Rico. And I think that is an important step. It
    is historic, and that is why I support it and thank my
    colleagues on the Committee for their work on it.
        This legislation is not perfect. It doesn't declare a
    winner. But the only loser is the current status, a status that
    we should all be unanimous in ending. And if there was any
    commonality on all the positions about the future status of
    Puerto Rico, one common unifying ground has been that the
    current status has to end.
        So, I urge my colleagues to join us in supporting this
    legislation and ending a vestige of colonialism that I think
    this country shouldn't be proud of. And with that, I yield
    back. Does anyone seek to be recognized on the legislation?
        Mr. Westerman. Mr. Chairman?
        The Chairman. Mr. Westerman.
        Mr. Westerman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and as you talk
    about winning and losing scenarios, I believe this legislation
    in its current form creates a losing scenario for Puerto Rico
    and the rest of the United States. And introduced less than a
    week ago, H.R. 8393, the Puerto Rico Status Act, would
    authorize a federally sponsored plebiscite to occur on November
    5, 2023, for the voters of Puerto Rico to choose from three
    status options, independence, sovereignty in free association,
    or statehood.
        Titles I through III of the bill establish the process by
    which status transition would occur. If no one option receives
    a majority vote, this bill would authorize a runoff on March 3,
    2024. As I shared in my opening statement, I cannot support
    this measure because of a wide amount and wide-ranging process
    concerns and policy implications that need a robust and
    thorough investigation.
        These issues also involve the jurisdiction of several other
    House committees. The implications of this bill have not been
    fully studied. The committee of jurisdiction with the expertise
    to craft legislation impacting complex issues of U.S.
    citizenship, taxation and entitlement programs, foreign policy,
    and many more have not yet had the opportunity to provide input
    on the many matters contemplated within the legislation.
        A question of Puerto Rico's political status is a life-
    altering decision for the people of Puerto Rico. Just as we
    would expect the people of Puerto Rico to deliberate its
    questions, understand its consequences, and accept
    responsibility for the choice, so should this Committee. The
    issues raised by this legislation are far too important for
    this Committee to act without proper deliberation.
        This bill contradicts itself, offering Puerto Rico the
    promise of independence while prescribing actions that should
    be taken by the sovereign nation. It promises trappings of U.S.
    citizenship without the responsibilities of being a part of the
    United States. It is unfortunate that we are holding a markup
    of this legislation less than 1 week after it was introduced
    instead of holding open, transparent hearings so that our
    Members and the people of Puerto Rico, more than 3 million U.S.
    citizens, can fully assess what this bill proposes and what it
    means for them and for future generations.
        If this Majority were interested in placing Puerto Rico on
    a stable footing into the future, we would be here advancing
    legislation to address the reliability of the island's energy
    grid, ensure its fiscal solvency, repair its infrastructure, or
    tackle any of the other tangible needs of the people of Puerto
    Rico.
        We should be treating these U.S. citizens with respect and
    letting a full and robust process take place to address the
    status question and its many implications for the people of
    Puerto Rico and for all Americans. Since we are not having a
    hearing, I look forward to discussing the shortcomings of the
    legislation during the amendment debate. I yield back.
        The Chairman. Just for the record, the Committee on Natural
    Resources has sole jurisdiction on this question. And we
    checked with the other committee chairs that have been
    referenced, and they concur with that. So, I just want to make
    sure for the record that this is not a bifurcated decision. The
    other chairs concurred, and this is where the decision is. So,
    it might be uncomfortable, but that is where it is.
        Miss Gonzalez-Colon. Mr. Chairman?
        The Chairman. Let me recognize Ms. Velazquez. You asked to
    be recognized or----
        Ms. Velazquez. I would like to make an opening statement at
    the appropriate time.
        The Chairman. OK. Anyone wish to be recognized?
        Miss Gonzalez-Colon. Mr. Chairman?
        The Chairman. Miss Gonzalez-Colon. Thank you. Well, it is
    not opening statements. We are speaking to the legislation.
    Just opening statement, fine.
        Ms. Velazquez. Thank you.
        The Chairman. And then I will recognize Miss Colon.

     STATEMENT OF THE HON. NYDIA M. VELAZQUEZ, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
                  CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW YORK

        Ms. Velazquez. Mr. Chairman, thank you to you and the
    Ranking Member for holding this markup today. Puerto Rico is a
    colony of the United States. Over 100 years ago, the United
    States invaded Puerto Rico and ever since, the issue of Puerto
    Rico's political status has loomed large.
        We are here today because we have a moral obligation to
    decolonize Puerto Rico. This is a human rights issue because
    the current status is unsustainable and unfair. After 9 months
    of negotiations, today we are marking up a historical piece of
    legislation. Never in my 30 years in Congress have we been able
    to come to the table to find consensus on Puerto Rico's status.
        The negotiations have been extremely difficult, around the
    clock, and emotional. However, what kept me focused during this
    process was the desire to bridge our differences so once and
    for all, Puerto Ricans would have a clear and transparent
    process on their status question. For too long, plebiscites in
    Puerto Rico have been tipped toward only one option. Instead,
    H.R. 8393, the Puerto Rico Status Act, for the first time
    clearly defines Puerto Rico's non-territorial status options:
    statehood, independence, and free association.
        Under this bill, Puerto Ricans will be able to vote on
    these options in a binding plebiscite. More importantly, this
    is the first time Congress recognizes free association as a
    choice. We also included important provisions on the right to
    U.S. citizenship for both the independence and free association
    options.
        I fought hard on this because Congress has the moral
    obligation to give Puerto Rico the tools to stand on its own
    feet should their people choose to do so. Our legislation also
    provides for an objective and nonpartisan broader education
    campaign leading up to the vote. The voters in Puerto Rico have
    the right to know, understand, and vote upon the terms and
    conditions for each of the status options.
        I want to underscore that these bills incorporate
    substantial feedback from our recent congressional visit to
    Puerto Rico. From the very beginning, I was very clear with all
    the parties at the table that we needed to listen to Puerto
    Ricans and pay close attention to their feedback. There cannot
    be a true decolonization process without the voices of Puerto
    Ricans being front and center.
        After all, it will be up to them to choose their
    decolonization option that they deem best. I trust that after
    this bill follows its legislative course, it will be Puerto
    Ricans who will be empowered to make their own decisions.
    Congress must recognize that this bill is one of many steps of
    righting the wrongs of the pain and suffering we have inflicted
    upon the island for more than 120 years.
        How could we go and preach democracy? How could we provide
    resources for other countries that have been invaded, and we
    cannot do the very least of resolving once and for all the
    political limbo that Puerto Ricans have been living in for 122
    years. My uncle, who went to Korea to fight for the freedoms of
    this country, deserves that. I would like to thank Chairman
    Grijalva for his commitment and work on this bill.
        My sincere appreciation goes to the Members on and off our
    Committee who have been instrumental in this process. But my
    special thanks goes to Commissioner Gonzalez-Colon for coming
    to the table and holding one-on-one meetings that were
    extremely difficult but fruitful. It took two Puerto Rican
    women to come to the table. I am proud we have found a path
    forward, and I ask the Committee members to vote yes on this
    bill. Mr. Chairman, thank you. I yield back.
        The Chairman. The gentlelady yields.
        Miss Gonzalez-Colon. Mr. Chairman?
        The Chairman. Representative Gonzalez-Colon.

      STATEMENT OF THE HON. JENNIFFER GONZALEZ-COLON, A RESIDENT
       COMMISSIONER IN CONGRESS FROM THE TERRITORY OF PUERTO RICO

        Miss Gonzalez-Colon. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for having
    this hearing today. This markup represents a step forward in
    Congress to assume the responsibility toward Puerto Rico. Over
    years, this Committee has conducted countless hearings on the
    issue of Puerto Rico's status with the United States as well as
    on the island's unequal treatment under Federal laws and
    programs resulting from this relationship. The territorial
    commonwealth status is the main reason why Puerto Rico still
    faces social, fiscal, and economic challenges. This bill
    reflects the compromise that Ms. Velazquez and I have reached
    to find common ground and set forward a self-determination
    process that will lead to the resolution of the Puerto Rico
    status question once and for all. And I want to say thank you,
    Nydia.
        It was not easy. It was extremely difficult, but at the
    end, the way we managed to solve the issue of Puerto Rican
    desire finalizing our status relationship in a colonial way.
    And with this compromise, I need to assure that neither of us
    got everything we wanted. Neither of us. And I know in my case
    I would very much rather be voting H.R. 1522 asking for
    statehood. But this compromise bill, that Ms. Velazquez and I
    and the rest of the Members who worked on it, is a compromise
    that will eventually achieve resolving Puerto Rico's status.
        And that is the main reason of this bill. Therefore,
    although I may, in principle, understand the reasoning behind
    some of the concerns and arguments that may be raised today, I
    will uphold my commitment to the agreement we have crafted over
    the course of several months and hard negotiations and vote
    against any amendment that may be proposed. I would like to
    thank my friend, Representative Soto, for always standing for
    us in Puerto Rico's decolonization process.
        Thank you, the Majority Leader, as well, for leading this
    way and managing these two ladies in this negotiation process.
    But I will also need to say that I miss, more than ever, my
    good friend, the late Representative, Don Young, who lived
    through and understood the inequities under the territorial
    status and the opportunities that statehood brought to Alaska.
    And that is why he became the biggest champion for Puerto
    Rico's statehood and for the need to resolve the political
    status on the island.
        Even in 1998, as Chairman of this Committee, he held
    multiple hearings on the island, sponsored and successfully
    secured passage in the House of legislation to achieve just
    that. And we are now walking in his steps. Through this bill
    and for the first time ever, Congress will be authorizing a
    Federal sanctioned binding plebiscite among the truly
    constitutionally viable non-territorial status options:
    statehood, independence, and free association.
        This bill empowers the people of Puerto Rico to vote in a
    democratic, transparent process on their future. It would allow
    them to know exactly the consequences of the choices that are
    before them through a non-partisan, well-defined voter
    education campaign and what Congress is willing to offer. This
    bill established a mechanism to implement the choice that
    reflect the will of the people of Puerto Rico.
        We have been debating our political relationship with the
    United States for more than 124 years, and this bill gives us a
    final resolution. Remaining in a subordinate and inferior
    condition for political or financial convenience is not a valid
    option. By votes over the past decade, the status quo has been
    repeatedly rejected.
        Congress must commit to real action and to end the
    territorial condition of Puerto Rico. This is a matter of
    making good the promise that our founding fathers made in the
    preamble of our Constitution in forming a more perfect union
    and the equal rights the people of Puerto Rico deserve, whom,
    for the past 105 years, have been proud American citizens with
    thousands paying the ultimate sacrifice to ensure our liberties
    and freedoms, all while being denied equal participation in the
    Federal decision-making process.
        Over the past decade, we have held three local plebiscites
    in which a clear majority of the voters have chosen statehood
    each time. I am confident that with this enactment of this
    legislation, voters will ratify their desire to join the Union.
    However, for those who believe Puerto Rico should become a
    sovereign nation, this bill will give them that option as well.
    And that is the difference between this bill and many others in
    the past. We had to make difficult choices and concessions to
    get here. But I am convinced that this legislation represents a
    serious and historic effort to decolonize Puerto Rico. It is
    not a perfect bill. I think no legislation that we pass in the
    House is. I am representing here the people of Puerto Rico who
    elected me to solve this issue and who want to end over 100
    years of inequality and second-class citizenship.
        Ironically, it will also be my only opportunity to vote on
    this matter because, as a territorial delegate, this will
    prevent me from voting on final passage on this bill or any
    other bill impacting Puerto Rico on the House Floor. For that
    reason, I truly believe this is the path forward. I want to
    thank everybody who was involved in these negotiations, and as
    Puerto Rico's sole representative in Congress, I respectfully
    ask for your support and your vote and to respect the will and
    the people of Puerto Rico. I yield back.
        The Chairman. The gentlelady yields. Let me ask for
    unanimous consent for Leader Hoyer to address the Committee.
        And if there is no objection, Leader.
        Mr. Hoyer. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and thank
    you, members of the Committee, for allowing me this privilege
    of addressing you, which I know is unusual as a non-member of
    this Committee. And I thank Mr. Westerman for his agreement.
        And I also thank you for some other things that hopefully
    you and I are going to be working on together. I went to Puerto
    Rico in 1976. I was president of the Maryland Senate at that
    point in time. There was a NCSL meeting, National Conference of
    State Legislators, which, of course, Puerto Rico was a member.
    And it first occurred to me at that point in time in 1976 that
    Puerto Rico was, for all intents and purposes, treated as a
    partner but in so many real ways, was not a partner and
    certainly not an equal partner.
        In 1986, I had come to the Congress of the United States
    and first expressed my support for statehood. But also, as I
    think all of us would agree, that is not our decision. It is
    the decision of the people of Puerto Rico whether or not they
    want to be a citizen of the United States or part of the United
    States or they want to be an independent nation.
        As a principle, America supports, strongly across the
    world, self-determination. We support, in almost every region
    of the world, the opportunity of peoples who are in a region or
    in a state to make a determination as to whether or not they
    want to be aligned with others or whether they want to be
    independent entities. That is a principle of our government,
    and of our foreign policy, and of our human rights
    perspectives.
        I want to congratulate Nydia Velazquez and Jenniffer Colon
    for their very, very tough work. I also want to congratulate
    Darren Soto. And I want to say, Mr. Chairman, the Governor of
    Puerto Rico, elected by all the people of Puerto Rico, is for
    this bill. I don't know whether he submitted a statement. I
    talked to him yesterday. He is very strongly for this bill.
        This bill may not be a perfect bill because the interests
    are very varied, and the concerns are varied. And as Miss
    Gonzalez-Colon and Ms. Velazquez have indicated, it was tough
    to get there. But we are here. And I would hope that we could
    give to the people of Puerto Rico the opportunity to express
    their view in a democratic way. That is what this bill does.
        There are a lot of nuances. There is a lot of this, that,
    and the other. But at the heart of this bill is the ability to
    give to the citizens of Puerto Rico, who also are citizens of
    the United States, the right to determine their own future.
    That is what this is about. And I know there will be amendments
    about this, that, and the other. I will tell you that I
    appreciate the position that has been expressed by the
    Representative of Puerto Rico, that if we start amending this
    bill, we will do what has happened now for decades, a century,
    we will end up nowhere.
        We will end up being a colonialist power. One of the things
    I say around the world is that no country in the world has had
    so much hegemony of power as the United States of America and
    used it so non-acquisitively. Almost every other great power
    throughout the centuries has acquired colonies, has accreted to
    themselves the natural resources of those colonies, the
    enterprise of those colonies, the economic positive aspects of
    those. America has not done that. In fact, what we have done is
    those countries that have been our opponents, we have built up
    over the years and made them part of the free world and our
    allies.
        So, Mr. Chairman, I thank you. I thank the members of this
    Committee for proceeding on this. And I thank you in
    particular, Mr. Chairman, for your working with all of the
    players to try to get to a place where everybody has been
    treated fairly. And I would hope very sincerely that this
    Committee would take a historical step of moving this forward
    so that we can put it on the Floor of the House of
    Representatives, so the House of Representatives cannot make a
    decision itself but give to the people of Puerto Rico the
    option of making a democratic choice of their own status. That
    is what America is about. And that is what, frankly, we have
    done with so many territories in our own country who have
    become states. And that is what I think we ought to give to
    Puerto Rico. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        The Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Hoyer. Let me now recognize
    Mr. McClintock. You are recognized, sir.
        Mr. McClintock. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I certainly
    respect Mr. Hoyer. But when he says that statehood is not a
    question for the American people to decide, he is fundamentally
    wrong. It is the most basic question that we can answer as a
    people. What shall comprise our country?
        And this bill is wrong in so many ways. I don't believe it
    is in the interest of the people of Puerto Rico or in the
    interest of the whole country. Let's begin with the fact that
    this provides us with a rigged election. The options don't
    include the most obvious option. That is to remain as a
    commonwealth. If none of the three options that are listed on
    the ballot gets the majority, there is a runoff. And even if
    the option that was dropped was the clear second choice of
    voters, they don't get that option either.
        And I think that it is most likely to see a narrow,
    transient majority since the last plebiscite in November 2020
    scored just 52.5 percent in favor of statehood, 47.5 percent
    opposed with just a 53 percent turnout.
        Secondly, this dismantles the Financial Oversight Board,
    and it transfers all of its assets to the Puerto Rican
    government regardless of the outcome of the vote. I opposed
    PROMESA, and I still do. But disbanding it and transferring the
    assets that the American taxpayers were promised would be
    administered by the board is a cynical, broken PROMESA. There
    is not even a CBO estimate of the cost to American taxpayers of
    admitting a chronically mismanaged and utterly bankrupt state
    government.
        The economy of Puerto Rico is expected to underperform the
    national economy, which is itself a disaster these days. For
    American taxpayers, it would mean a new state that has the
    lowest per capita income in the country, the highest debt per
    capita in the country. Its labor participation rate is 40
    percent. That is compared to 62 percent nationally.
        Forty-three percent of the population lives below the
    poverty line. And its academic performance would be the worst
    in the nation. Under this bill, the independence option would
    include the requirement, if it passed, for the United States to
    continue financially supporting Puerto Rico for another 20
    years with no say in how those funds are to be spent. Statehood
    would mean that in the next reapportionment other states will
    lose a total of four seats in the House to accommodate the
    Puerto Rican delegation. I think we should also consider the
    question of language. Although the official language of Puerto
    Rico is both Spanish and English, only about 20 percent of the
    population is fluent in our national language, meaning we would
    be admitting a state whose vast majority is isolated from the
    national political debate that is central to our democracy.
        To those who believe that statehood would solve Puerto
    Rico's financial problems, consider the fact that it would mean
    residents would be paying all Federal income taxes from which
    they are currently exempt. The GAO estimates that that amounts
    to obviously a staggering tax increase. And the GAO estimates
    that it would cost Puerto Rico 70 percent of its remaining
    manufacturing base.
        But worst of all, I believe this is a blanket abrogation of
    responsibility of Congress to make these decisions in the best
    interests of the United States. Whichever of the three options
    is chosen would be automatically enacted without any debate or
    decision by the Congress. This literally hands the
    constitutional authority reserved for the welfare of the entire
    nation to the hands of what would likely be a narrow and
    transitory majority in Puerto Rico.
        The only debate in Congress would be the debate that we are
    having this week when the nation is oblivious to the
    legislation or any of its implications. Our constituents are
    going to awaken one morning with the realization of the fait
    accompli that was quickly considered in a single week with no
    opportunity for national debate on the implications of
    admitting a new and completely bankrupt state government. I
    yield back.
        The Chairman. Mr. Soto, you are recognized.

    STATEMENT OF THE HON. DARREN SOTO, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
                       FROM THE STATE OF FLORIDA

        Mr. Soto. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Today is the day. After
    120 years, our fellow Puerto Ricans back on the island who
    pledge allegiance to our flag, pay certain Federal taxes
    already, and have served in our military all that time, dying
    for our country, for our freedom, for a country where they
    can't even vote for the President of the United States, their
    commander in chief, from the famed Borinqueneers that we, in
    such a bipartisan manner, helped honor, up until today.
        Even my trips abroad to places like Afghanistan and Iraq,
    when we were at war there, I saw the Puerto Rican flag and
    units from the island serving. It is a strange feeling to see
    Puerto Ricans in the middle of the desert and you think, what
    are they doing there? They're there to defend our freedom and
    serve our country as our families have done for 120 years.
        So, we came together. Jenniffer Gonzalez-Colon, Nydia
    Velazquez, Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez, Richie Torres, Governor
    Pierluisi, and I. Something that many people thought was
    impossible, but we had to. We must, and I want to thank Leader
    Hoyer for all the work you did to help get us together. We had
    two lengthy hearings on this issue. They went hours, and hours,
    and hours. They were in fact the most heard and litigated
    issues I have seen in this term, and in fact many of the
    Members who are complaining didn't even participate in those
    hearings.
        I also want to talk about the bipartisan nature of this.
    This has been both on the Democratic and the Republican
    platform for many, many years, up until recently sadly on the
    Republican platform, and the island is represented by a
    Republican, your colleague. This is her biggest bill. This is
    the most important bill for her, and I, and for so many others.
        I hope that you will consider that Republicans did
    participate in the negotiations. Jenniffer Gonzalez-Colon was
    point on them, and I helped her, and the rest.
        And what does this mean for the people of Puerto Rico, my
    family's native island? It means a binding election. A clear
    pathway to statehood, as well as other options, like
    independence, and independence with free association, and a
    majority wins. If none reach a majority, then it will go to a
    runoff. If it is statehood that the people of Puerto Rico
    choose, it will be a 1-year transition, full benefits and
    privileges of citizenship, two Senators, and four U.S.
    Representatives.
        If the people of Puerto Rico choose independence, they will
    be a sovereign nation separate and independent from the United
    States. It will be a 2\1/2\-year transition period. There will
    be ending of citizenship for new folks after that period of
    time, and of U.S. benefits, but all the money paid in--whether
    it is Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and others--will go
    to Puerto Rico for them to establish these programs.
        Then there's independence with free association. A 2-year
    transition. Puerto Rico would be separate from the United
    States. However, they would be able to establish a contract
    with a relationship established by that contract between the
    United States and Puerto Rico, and those born on the island
    during that compact would continue to get citizenship.
        And we've done these compacts before, Micronesia, Marshall
    Island, Palau. This is well established in Federal
    jurisprudence. Those have gone 15 to 16 years. It could go 25
    years. It is up to the subject of the negotiations between the
    United States and Puerto Rico, the length of that, and that is
    something we did by design to make sure that the sovereign
    nation of Puerto Rico in this instance and the United States
    could debate this and come up to a solution on the compact.
        So, let's come together. This is already a bipartisan bill.
    Let's pass this out of Committee, then out of the House with
    the Leader's help, and onto the Senate. The President is
    already committed to signing this bill into law, and finally we
    could come together to give true freedom and democracy to the
    folks of Puerto Rico who have fought alongside us for 120 years
    for our freedoms here in the United States. And Chairman, I
    thank you for your leadership to bring us together, and I yield
    back.
        The Chairman. Any other colleague who wishes to be
    recognized?
        Mrs. Trahan. Mr. Chairman?
        The Chairman. Yes?
        Mrs. Trahan. It is Ms. Trahan, from Massachusetts.
        The Chairman. Oh, please. You are recognized. I didn't see.
        Mrs. Trahan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'd like to start by
    thanking you, Representatives Velazquez, Soto, Gonzalez-Colon,
    and Ocasio-Cortez, as well as Leader Hoyer for your leadership
    on this issue. The Puerto Rico Status Act reflects years--truly
    years--of negotiations to resolve Puerto Rico's political
    status.
        I strongly believe that Puerto Ricans, and only Puerto
    Ricans, should determine their own status and chart a future
    for themselves. That is why I support this legislation. It
    offers Puerto Ricans three options for how to move forward:
    statehood, independence, and free association. To achieve this,
    the bill provides an objective, non-partisan, federally funded
    voter education campaign to ensure that Puerto Ricans fully
    understand the three options on the ballot.
        Additionally, the bill spells out in detail the transition
    process for each of the three potential choices Puerto Ricans
    may take. It is critically necessary that we move forward on
    this issue.
        Now, no compromise is perfect, but the fact that we came
    together to reach this consensus demonstrates the imperative to
    move forward. In the end, this bill hands the keys back to the
    people of Puerto Rico, who have lived under colonial control
    for over half a millennium. If passed, this bill provides
    Puerto Ricans with the sovereignty and self-determination that
    is essential for all. So, I urge my colleagues to support this
    historic bipartisan legislation, and I yield back. Thank you.
        The Chairman. Thank you very much, and the gentlelady
    yields. Anyone else? Sir, you are recognized.
        Mr. Rosendale. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I was going to contain
    my remarks until later on when we began the amendment process,
    but as I just heard the Majority Leader speak that we shouldn't
    even have that deliberative process, I was concerned that the
    Chair may cut it short before we've had ample time to have this
    discussion, and I am gravely concerned about these proceedings
    and if they are going to be done in a fair fashion.
        I don't think it is productive to begin the first step
    toward independence and self-determination with the United
    States curing or forgiving debt for another nation and
    financing their elections. That just doesn't seem like the
    first step that we should be taking. They're calling for the
    elimination of the very deliberative process that we were sent
    here to conduct. I cannot believe it. And then they're going to
    scold those of us who think that this is not in the best
    interest of our country and want to have that.
        I would also like to say that, how is it possible that we,
    as Congress, can defer the exclusive control of this choice to
    another country? Representative McClintock eloquently
    identified the debt and representation problems that we are
    going to be facing if this actually takes place.
        They would immediately enter into the United States with
    more representation than the entire state of Montana, and I can
    assure you that the people of Montana would not support that
    decision. So, I'm ready, willing, and able to sit here and
    consider the amendments that are going to be brought forward,
    and I hope that the Chair will allow us to at least deliberate
    on these choices. Thank you. I yield back.
        The Chairman. The gentleman yields, and I hope the
    gentleman tolerates some corrections into the record. None of
    the options forgive any debt. None. So, a robust debate should
    also be one that is factually based, so that is my only
    caution. Anyone else wish to be recognized?
        Mr. Rosendale. Would the Chair yield for a question?
        The Chairman. I'm just recognizing the next speaker, if
    there's anybody----
        Mr. San Nicolas. San Nicolas from Guam, Mr. Chairman.
        The Chairman. You are recognized, sir.
        Mr. San Nicolas. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to begin
    by making some things very clear for the record. The
    territories of this country are under the plenary power of the
    Congress. And with that, basically----
        The Chairman. I thought you had an inquiry?
        Mr. San Nicolas. Can you hear me OK, Mr. Chairman?
        The Chairman. Yes, you can speak. I couldn't hear well.
    Thank you.
        Mr. San Nicolas. OK, fine. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The
    territories of this country are under the plenary power of the
    Congress. That is very, very clear in the Constitution.
        So, when we are deliberating this measure, it is important
    for us to understand that if we are going to find any fault in
    the advancement of this legislation that has anything to do
    with the financial status of the territory, or the readiness of
    the territory to take on the responsibilities of statehood,
    that ultimately falls into our very own laps, because as the
    plenary authority over the territories, it is the
    responsibility of this Congress to administer these territories
    in a manner and a fashion that should be setting them on the
    course for entry into this country, because this country was
    not founded under the premise of us having any kind of
    permanent administering power over colonies.
        It wasn't the founding principles of this country, even
    before the Constitution itself was drafted, and after the
    Constitution itself was drafted, then Congress had plenary
    authority of territories, and any weaknesses of territories
    thereafter are faults of this Congress, ultimately, because
    this Congress has the ultimate authority of these territories.
        When H.R. 1522, the Puerto Rico Statehood Admission Act was
    introduced in this Congress, Mr. Chairman, and when H.R. 2070,
    the Puerto Rico Self-Determination Act was introduced to this
    Congress, I co-sponsored both. I co-sponsored both of them,
    because either of them represent a path forward for the
    territory of Puerto Rico out of territorial status and into a
    future that was not something that was counterintuitive to the
    founding principles of this country. I am so honored to be a
    part of this hearing and to be a part of this process.
        My own territorial status on Guam notwithstanding, because
    we are going to finally set a precedent on how territories can
    be given an opportunity in this country to really move forward
    after so many years of colonization, and for the individuals
    who sponsored and co-sponsored both measures, who have come to
    the table to compromise for this ultimate measure that we are
    going to be discussing here today, I wanted to tip my hat to
    them, because that is an example of representative democracy
    that truly takes into consideration not only the
    responsibilities of this Congress, but our responsibilities to
    our own history as a country.
        So, let us not allow ourselves to be distracted from our
    ultimate duty to our fellow Americans, our fellow Americans in
    Puerto Rico, whose very homes continue to stand on colonial
    soil.
        There is just absolutely no reason for colonies to exist in
    this country. It is the responsibility of all of us to make
    sure that we set all of our territories onto an ultimate path
    of colonial resolution. This legislation does so in a manner
    that is going to bring a compromise to various parties that for
    a very long time weren't able to finally come to the table and
    have this kind of a path forward that is going to involve
    everybody in a way that represents the universal suffrage that
    this country stands for, that is going to include all Americans
    in the territory of Puerto Rico, and is going to right a
    historical injustice, not only for the citizens of Puerto Rico,
    but for all of us who call ourselves Americans.
        It is absolutely an injustice to all Americans. Americans
    in Montana, Americans in Maine, Americans in Texas, Americans
    in Guam, Americans in Puerto Rico. It is an injustice for us to
    not resolve the territorial status of these various districts
    within our Congress and within our great country, because this
    should not be the way the United States of America moves
    forward with these inconsistencies, and how we are champions of
    freedom across the world, and hypocrites of freedom within our
    own responsibilities. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I yield
    back.
        The Chairman. Thank you, Mr. San Nicolas, appreciate it.
    Anyone else? Any other Member who wishes to be recognized?
        Mr. Sablan. Sablan, please.
        The Chairman. Mr. Sablan, please.
        Mr. Sablan. Yes, thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you very
    much for holding this hearing. I want to thank Congresswoman
    Velazquez, Ms. Colon, Mr. Soto, and Mr. Hoyer for the work that
    they have put into writing up this bill. I got here in 2008. My
    district, the Northern Mariana Islands, became a part of the
    United States in 1978, but it was a decision that was made by
    us.
        We made the decision that we chose to be the permanent
    political relationship with the United States against other
    offers, other options. It took Congress 30 years to give the
    Northern Mariana Islands a delegate position, even, and for
    that entire time, we would come here and talk to Members and
    attend hearings because that was the only option we had.
        I associate myself with the comments of Congressman San
    Nicolas. Not applying this bill today is an injustice. When I
    got here in 2009, I was already immersed in Puerto Rico. I
    mean, I had people talking to me about Puerto Rico's status,
    both elected officials, non-elected officials, and of course my
    friend, Pedro Pierluisi.
        It was not until yesterday, Mr. Chairman, when I read the
    bill that I finally said, yes, I can support this, and I asked
    him if I could be a co-sponsor. I appreciate, again, very much
    the hard work and the compromise that went into drafting this
    bill.
        It wasn't easy. There were times when Nydia would give me
    her look, and Chairman, this was a difficult path, and I
    appreciate all the hard work that went into this.
        So, when I read the bill yesterday, I said, yes, I can
    support this bill, and I signed on it, and today, I will be
    voting for the passage of this bill, and thank you very much. I
    yield back.
        The Chairman. Mr. Sablan, thank you, and as you know, we've
    been on this Committee a while, that your opinion is respected
    on both sides of the aisle, and thank you very much for those
    comments. Anyone else wish to be recognized?
        If there's no further debate, without objection, the ANS
    offered by myself is considered as read and open to amendment
    at any point. And with that, I'll let Representative
    McClintock, you have an amendment designated No. 70, and you
    are recognized for 5 minutes.
        Mr. McClintock. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This amendment
    simply allows Puerto Ricans the opportunity to vote to retain
    their current commonwealth status. That is an option that is
    not presented under this bill. The Resident Commissioner says
    that there's a mandate for statehood because 52 percent voted
    in favor of it in the most recent plebiscite, and that is true,
    but it ignores the other 48 percent who didn't, or the 43
    percent who didn't vote at all because their preferred option
    wasn't even presented.
        Why would we deprive them of the option of retaining the
    current commonwealth status? Those votes are simply being
    ignored by this bill. Currently, the President of Puerto Rico's
    Senate and the Speaker of the House, both elected officials,
    are of the popular Democratic party, which supports
    commonwealth status.
        I think the gentlelady from New York, Ms. Velazquez, said
    it best when she previously supported a similar amendment. She
    said, ``a true system of democracy does not preclude certain
    options from a ballot, nor does it structure votes in a way to
    manipulate the electorate. The process that allowed for the
    creation of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico was adopted by
    Congress. It is a legitimate form of government that is
    accepted by millions.''
        I therefore find it appalling that this Congress will
    consider precluding a commonwealth as an option for the people
    of Puerto Rico. I agree completely, and I ask for adoption of
    this amendment.
        The Chairman. The gentleman yields. Anyone wish to be
    recognized on the amendment?
        Miss Gonzalez-Colon. Mr. Chairman?
        The Chairman. Ms. Gonzalez-Colon, you are recognized.
        Miss Gonzalez-Colon. Thank you. I strongly oppose this
    amendment that is attempting to include a choice to retain the
    status quo. And the problem cannot be part of the solution.
        I have long said that the territorial status constrains
    Puerto Rico's ability to prosper, and it denies 3.2 million
    American citizens living on the island full voting
    representation in Congress, and the ability to vote, even for
    the President of the United States. In other words, as a
    territory, we have no say in the national and Federal decision-
    making process, which impacts us every day, even me, voting in
    this Committee.
        I cannot vote on the Floor of the House, even when there is
    a bill that tries to impact the island. Moreover, as a
    territory, the Federal Government can, and often does, treat
    Puerto Rico unequally under Federal laws and programs that are
    crucial to combat poverty and promote economic development, and
    actually, that is the main reason for our economical situation
    on the island. The current status quo that was not even thought
    as a permanent solution for the island.
        And while it is true that Congress can pass legislation
    today to address some of those disparities we face, it is
    similarly true that a future Congress can undo such efforts,
    and that is because we are a territory under Article IV of the
    Constitution that allows Congress to treat Puerto Rico the way
    they want, and Puerto Rico will always be at Congress' mercy.
        And that is why any effort to permanently solve Puerto
    Rico's political status must be among non-territorial options.
    Simply put, the problem cannot be, in this case, the solution.
    The Puerto Rico Status Act's main purpose is actually ending
    the condition of territorial subordination through the offer of
    non-colonial, non-territorial options, constitutionally viable
    status options. And this is not me. This is the White House--
    the Republican White House, the Democratic White House, as well
    as the Department of Justice.
        In repeated Supreme Court cases, it has been reiterated
    that the so-called commonwealth is nothing but a territory,
    lacking of any attribute of sovereignty or authority other than
    what Congress pleases to grant, or American citizens living on
    the island can be treated unequally and being discriminated
    against it. This has been ruled on matters from trade
    agreements, to double jeopardy, to social programs, to
    taxation, to regulations, to due process, to the very creation
    of the Financial Oversight Board, and to the debt of the
    island.
        Under the status quo, the ultimate decisions on major
    policy in Puerto Rico are made by bodies where we lack a body
    of representation in this Congress. This Congress has the power
    to dictate laws and regulations that govern us. Without us
    having a full voting delegation in each chamber on this body,
    and that includes altered and even reducing the scope of
    autonomy of the current status.
        The Department of Justice and the White House task force on
    Puerto Rico has repeatedly rejected the notion that some are
    selling on the island for an enhanced commonwealth, for an
    enhanced status quo. Both the Federal executive and legislative
    branches have made it clear that such an option is
    unconstitutional.
        The problem cannot be the solution. The territorial
    relationship needs to end, and the democratic choice must be
    real, permanent, non-colonial, constitutionally solid
    alternatives as provided in this bill.
        Seeking to retain the status quo is pandering to those who
    are complicit and comfortable with things as they are, and who
    benefit or profit from it, telling the people of Puerto Rico to
    be happy with crumbs, with symbolic gestures, and the
    remembrance of time spent feeding a dependent mentality that we
    cannot aspire to do something better and just.
        Continuing the status quo is exactly the wrong answer if we
    want to stand on our own two feet and finally resolve the
    unequal treatment of the American citizens that live on the
    island. Because of that reason, I oppose the amendment.
        The Chairman. The gentlelady yields. Anyone else wish to be
    recognized on Mr. McClintock's Amendment No. 70?
        Ms. Velazquez. Mr. Chairman?
        The Chairman. The gentlelady is recognized.
        Ms. Velazquez. I seek recognition on opposition to this
    amendment. This amendment will make mockery of this process,
    and you are right, Mr. McClintock. I don't know how long ago I
    supported the commonwealth, and I supported the status to be
    part of any option in any plebiscite.
        You know what changed? The Supreme Court of the United
    States, in its five most recent cases pertaining to Puerto
    Rico: Aurelius, Vaello Madero, Sanchez Valle, has made it
    extremely clear that Congress has total control over the
    destiny of Puerto Rico precisely because of the current status.
        So, what the U.S. Supreme Court decision demonstrated is
    that Puerto Rico has no power, that we, the Congress, have the
    power and authority over the people of Puerto Rico. The
    inclusion of the commonwealth as an option will only ensure
    that Puerto Rico stays with an undignified political status
    where the island is at the mercy of political changes in
    Washington and the Supreme Court. For this reason, I oppose
    this amendment, and I ask all my colleagues to vote against it.
    I yield back.
        The Chairman. The gentlelady yields. Anyone else wish to be
    recognized? The gentleman is recognized, Mr. Soto.
        Mr. Soto. Thank you, Chairman. There is no such status as a
    commonwealth. It is not in the Constitution. Puerto Rico is a
    territory. That is the opinion of this conservative Supreme
    Court and the more progressive Biden Department of Justice. I
    think that is pretty much a consensus at this point, and we are
    ending the colonization of Puerto Rico with this bill. We are
    ending the territorial status. Please vote down this amendment,
    and let our people go.
        The Chairman. The gentleman yields.
        Mr. Rosendale. Mr. Chair?
        The Chairman. Mr. Rosendale, you are recognized, sir.
        Mr. Rosendale. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Mr. Chair, I rise in
    support of this amendment. In the past week, my office and
    others in this Committee have received correspondence from the
    Puerto Rican House of Representatives and Senate who both state
    that they are opposed to this bill. This bill is a classic
    example of DC thinking we know best, despite the objections of
    the territory we are discussing. Furthermore, this bill is
    vastly different from the other two Puerto Rico status bills
    that have received hearings.
        At the very least, this bill should have had a hearing
    rather than introducing it days before deciding to report it to
    the House of Representatives for a vote. Moreover, this bill
    rejects, ignores, or omits a sizable portion of the population
    who simply want the status quo to persist. It is only one thing
    to vote on the merits of the bill, but it is quite another to
    decide on a bill that will determine the future for 3 million
    people without offering an option that many are supportive of.
    Mr. Chair, I would now yield the balance of my time to my good
    friend, Representative McClintock.
        The Chairman. The gentleman yields.
        Mr. McClintock. I thank the gentleman for yielding. We just
    heard from the Resident Commissioner and the gentlelady from
    New York why they oppose commonwealth status. That is certainly
    a legitimate point of view, but they have not explained why
    they would deny to their fellow Puerto Ricans the choice to
    decide for themselves whether or not they wanted to continue
    commonwealth status.
        That is why this system is so rigged. They are abrogating
    to themselves a decision that ought to be made by the people of
    the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, but they are not allowed to
    choose that option under this legislation. Washington doesn't
    necessarily know best, and this is certainly not a democratic
    process with a little `d'. I yield back to the gentleman from
    Montana.
        The Chairman. The gentleman yields. Sir.
        Mr. Rosendale. Mr. Chair, I think he stated it very well.
    Committee members, these residents of Puerto Rico should be
    able to take their self-determination, and if they truly want
    to acquire and establish their independence, then let's have
    that discussion about completely granting them that
    independence and not involving the parental oversight of the
    United States. And with that, I will yield back.
        The Chairman. The gentleman yields. Anyone else wish to be
    recognized on Mr. McClintock's No. 70? OK, any further
    discussion on the amendment? Hearing no further debate, the
    question is now on the McClintock Amendment No. 70. I will
    pause so those joining us remotely can unmute.
        And all those in favor of Mr. McClintock's Amendment No.
    70 indicate by saying aye.
        All those opposed, indicate by saying no.
        In the opinion of the Chair, the no's have it.
        Mr. McClintock. I'd ask for a recorded vote.
        The Chairman. And the amendment is not agreed to. Mr.
    McClintock, having requested a recorded vote, it will be
    postponed pursuant to the prior announcement. We now move to
    Representative McClintock. You have an amendment designated No.
    71 and sir, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
        Mr. McClintock. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, just like the
    commonwealth amendment, this amendment simply allows the people
    of Puerto Rico to have all options presented to them, including
    a none of the above option. While I remain hesitant to cite
    previous plebiscites, given their long history of corruption
    and voter turnout, because statehood supporters are citing the
    2020 plebiscite as the impetus of the bill, I think it is fair
    to at least remind folks what happened in the 1998 plebiscite.
        In 1998, the voters were given the options of statehood,
    commonwealth, independence, free association, and none of the
    above. Guess which option succeeded? None of the above. In
    fact, it received not just a plurality, but a majority of the
    vote on a plebiscite that had more than 70 percent turnout.
        I have to imagine that some folks in Puerto Rico are
    utterly tired of going through this over and over again. In a
    democracy, you are not bound to vote for any referendum or
    candidate which you don't support.
        In presidential elections, many Americans may not support
    the two main candidates presented to them. They can choose a
    third party or simply leave the ballot blank, but at least they
    can do so knowing the electoral college would protect them from
    being subject to the whims of a slim and transitory majority.
    No such protections exist under this bill. In fact, such
    protections are completely undermined in this bill. I think the
    voters deserve to be presented with all of the options, and not
    told from Washington which choices will be made available to
    them.
        We talk about colonialism a lot, and with respect to Puerto
    Rico, what is the colonial mentality except the government
    telling them what choices they may have available to them. I
    believe that particularly considering the history of the none
    of the above option in the Puerto Rican plebiscites, this is
    absolutely essential to assure that the true will of the
    majority is heard. So, with that, I'd ask for adoption of the
    amendment.
        The Chairman. Let me recognize myself in response to--in
    opposition to the amendment. I think none of the above is, I
    believe, the ultimate cop out. Including none of the above as
    an option on the ballot suggests that there is some other
    mystery option for permanently resolving Puerto Rico's status
    in a manner that is compatible to the Constitution, but there
    is this unknown out there that people need to vote for, and
    that is just false.
        There is no mystery ballot, no mystery option here. We know
    that such a claim is false based on the conclusions of the
    international community, the Federal courts, the executive
    branch. There is really no other viable non-territory option
    than the three to be presented on the ballot as provided by the
    underlying bill.
        The none of the above amendment is not about progress. It
    is about looking at a difficult issue and deciding to wave the
    flag and give up. Self-determination for the people of Puerto
    Rico should no longer be slowed down, stopped, delayed forever,
    simply because we underestimate the people of Puerto Rico, that
    the response is not there because it is too complicated.
        I believe that with this legislation the people and the
    citizens in Puerto Rico will recognize that they now have real
    voter empowerment, and that it means a lot with this vote. I
    think participation will be very, very high, and I also believe
    that in a fair, clean, independent election process, that all
    sides will be there, and all sides will present their case as
    we do in any democratic society. I won't be able to vote. Mr.
    Soto won't be able to vote, because the people on that island,
    citizens, they're going to get to vote.
        And I think there's an important difference. So, saying
    none of the above means that we don't respect the Puerto Rican
    people enough to know that they understand what's going on, and
    they do, and that they feel that they will be empowered to make
    a choice, but we are not going to do the choice of the present.
    We are doing the choice of the future. So, I oppose this
    amendment because it serves no purpose in the legislation. And
    with that, I yield back and ask any other Member be wished to
    be recognized on the amendment. Mr. Soto?
        Mr. Soto. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This amendment is both
    vague and untethered to the Constitution and would have a
    similar effect as the last amendment to perpetuate colonialism.
        But I want to talk a little bit about history real quick.
    Was this the type of treatment and options given to Florida, my
    home state? Or California? Oregon? Montana? Or Arkansas? No.
    They were welcomed into the Union, and it is sad that we are
    not seeing that same enthusiasm today so far, but I still
    remain hopeful, because the vote is yet to happen. I urge you
    to vote against this amendment.
        The Chairman. The gentleman yields. The gentlelady is
    recognized.
        Miss Gonzalez-Colon. Thank you. I wish to oppose amendment.
    And the reason for this, we are talking here about
    commonwealth. I mean, you have the Virginia Commonwealth. You
    have the Kentucky Commonwealth. Those are two states.
        In the case of Puerto Rico, commonwealth is just a name. We
    have a territorial status and that is under Article IV of the
    Federal Constitution. It is not a status option, and in that
    case, Puerto Rico territorial status was never intended to be
    permanent in nature, but rather a transitional accommodation
    towards eventual statehood or independence, and I'll give you
    an example of that.
        The fact that Congress granted Puerto Ricans U.S.
    citizenship in 1917 is a clear indication that the island was
    intended to be in the path of eventual statehood, particularly,
    when the year before in 1916, Congress enacted legislation
    promising Philippines independence, but never granted Filipinos
    the U.S. citizenship.
        If the projected outcome for Puerto Rico was anything other
    than statehood, why grant us U.S. citizenship in 1917? But,
    again, we are discussing here another option, which is none of
    the above, and our colleague mentions here a plebiscite in
    1998. It has been 24 years after that plebiscite.
        We have held six plebiscites in total on the island and the
    last three of them, statehood won, and again, this amendment
    runs counter to the bill's intent to resolve Puerto Rico's
    political status and one constitutional impermissible options,
    non-territorial status options.
        Including a none of the above option in the bill will
    perpetuate the territorial status. It is like the never ending
    story, which I have said has constrained Puerto Rico's social
    and economic development and denied 3.2 million American
    citizens on the island their full rights as citizens of this
    nation.
        Additionally, a none of the above option will mislead
    voters in Puerto Rico into believing there's going to be
    something else, such as to raise a promise of an enhanced
    commonwealth status, which the Department of Justice has
    repeatedly rejected as unconstitutional under both
    administrations.
        In addition, the White House, under Republican and
    Democratic administrations, has also rejected enhanced
    commonwealth proposal as unconstitutional. Again, a none of the
    above option plays into a usual obstructionist campaign that
    any proposal from Congress is a bait and switch in which no
    matter what Puerto Rico decides, Congress will just leave it
    like circling in the procedural limbo, awaiting for some ideal
    solution that someday will come. Only this time, it is
    officially so.
        None of the above renders this process meaningless and we
    cannot allow that, and therefore, I oppose this amendment.
        And one of the issues that I need to say, my colleagues
    here are mentioning the Speaker of the House and the Senate
    President of Puerto Rico. One of those was the Biden campaign
    chair on the island, and they oppose all the process of self-
    determination on the island because they want to have an
    enhanced commonwealth option that the Department of Justice
    says no because it is unconstitutional and they're trying to
    mislead the voters on the island.
        So, this bill--I would prefer to have a yes or no vote on
    statehood because people voted for that three times in a row,
    but in order to get all the options and all people represented
    here, we have a compromise allowing that to having the options
    that are valued by the Department of Justice saying they are
    constitutional and those are independence, free association,
    and statehood.
        We can have a yes or no vote on statehood. That is what I
    prefer, but in order to allow the people of Puerto Rico to make
    that decision, they're going to have all the options defined of
    what Congress is willing to allow to happen and what is
    constitutionally viable, and that is the reason I oppose this
    amendment.
        I yield back.
        The Chairman. Anyone else?
        Mr. Rosendale. Mr. Chair?
        The Chairman. Mr. Rosendale, sir, recognized.
        Mr. Rosendale. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
        How can we sit here and impose our beliefs and desires on
    the people of Puerto Rico and say that we are granting them
    self-determination? How can you declare that just supporting a
    free and fair decision when you aren't willing to make all
    options of governance available to the people of Puerto Rico?
        This is a very important option and it is troubling that it
    would be prohibited to even be offered to the citizens of
    Puerto Rico, considering that many of them have already
    demonstrated that they support it.
        So, we are not operating in a vacuum here, where we are
    just trying to make a determination if some people are or we've
    seen demonstrations where the residents do not. We already know
    and have declaration and previous votes that they do support
    it. So, to create this document and ignore that from or
    prohibit it from being considered one of their options is just
    puzzling to me.
        And I do support the amendment and I thank the
    Representative for bringing it forward.
        Thank you. I yield back.
        The Chairman. Gentleman yields.
        Anyone else?
        [No response.]
        The Chairman. Let me recognize myself, and on the issue of
    other options or the none of the above question, the previous
    amendment and this one, we have to begin from this point of
    view, this premise, that this bill is predicated and its
    unifying foundation is decolonization, period. And I think that
    should be part of the debate because that is it.
        The options that are presented are all policy, political
    options that the Puerto Rican people decide on, are all options
    that are non-colonial, so that is the premise of the bill, and
    I will continue to oppose amendments that tear at that premise,
    complicate that premise, or poison that premise.
        So, I oppose this amendment on that same principle.
        I yield back. Anyone want to be recognized?
        Mr. Westerman. Mr. Chairman?
        The Chairman. Sir. Recognized, of course.
        Mr. Westerman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        I was debating about whether even to comment on this
    amendment, and as I heard the discussion, I see a major logic
    flaw, which I think is a problem with the overall legislation,
    that this debate highlights that logic flaw. The way the
    plebiscite is designed in the legislation, it is like asking
    someone, do you want liver, broccoli, or Brussel sprouts. Now,
    there are a lot of people that like liver. There are a lot of
    people that like broccoli. There are a lot of people that like
    Brussel sprouts, but there may be some people that don't like
    any of those and they will say, ``No thanks. I'm just not going
    to eat.''
        Now, couple that with the bill that says whatever passes in
    this legislation when the plebiscite is voted on, that becomes
    the law of the land. It doesn't give Congress a chance to come
    back and view it.
        Mr. Chairman, you said that you think there will be very
    high turnout. Others think there might be high turnout. What if
    those three choices are given and there's extremely low turnout
    and Congress has already given its power away to come back and
    review that.
        So, if Mr. McClintock asks for a roll call vote on this,
    I'm not sure how I would vote on this amendment because it
    still doesn't fix the underlying problem with the bill in that
    Congress is advocating its authority to come back and review
    this process after the vote with three choices is done.
        So, I think there is a lot to consider here and I think
    this highlights why this bill has been rushed through and why
    it should be debated in a hearing. There is going to be so much
    debate because we haven't had a hearing and this markup is
    probably going to essentially be like a hearing and a markup
    without expert witnesses for us to question.
        I think there is a lot to consider here and it is hard to
    fix the underlying legislation with one amendment when there
    are so many other issues.
        I yield back.
        Mr. McClintock. Will the gentleman yield?
        Mr. Westerman. I yield to Mr. McClintock.
        Mr. McClintock. The gentleman makes precisely the point. We
    speak of colonialism. What could possibly be a more precise
    embodiment of colonialism than this Congress telling the people
    of Puerto Rico, ``Well, you can choose your future, but only
    the choices that we will allow you to make.'' That is what we
    are doing with this legislation, and the hypocrisy is profound.
        I yield back.
        Mr. Westerman. And reclaiming my time, the gentleman's
    amendment doesn't say the other option is colonialism, or a
    colony, or a commonwealth, or a territory. It says another
    option. I choose another option.
        And there may be something that somebody likes about
    independence, but not the way independence is crafted in this
    legislation. There may be something somebody likes about
    statehood, but not the way statehood is crafted in this
    legislation, and I think that just the way the legislation is
    crafted, it narrows the options and the choices down and would
    ultimately force people to possibly choose what they consider
    to be the lesser of three evils, even though some may totally
    like what they have in either of those three options.
        And I do yield back the balance of my time.
        The Chairman. Thank you very much.
        And my comments, Mr. McClintock, I don't feel that I'm
    being hypocritical or lying to you regarding the premise of
    this legislation. I wouldn't do that.
        What I am saying is that I've been straight up about that
    this is a bill to take a historic step in the decolonization of
    Puerto Rico, period. That is the premise of the bill. That is
    what I will defend in this bill. And it is no reflection of
    anything else, other than the content of this bill.
        I don't think I've hidden that opinion from the beginning
    on this. So, if I miscommunicated something to you, that was
    not the intent. I try to be as straight with all of you as
    humanly possible.
        With that, let me now ask if there's anyone that wants to
    comment on the amendment?
        [No response.]
        The Chairman. Hearing none, all those Members in favor of
    Mr. McClintock's Amendment No. 71, would please indicate by
    saying aye.
        [Chorus of ayes.]
        The Chairman. All those opposed to the amendment indicate
    by saying no.
        [Chorus of noes.]
        The Chairman. The opinion of the Chair, the noes have it,
    and Mr. McClintock has requested a recorded vote and that will
    be postponed pursuant to my prior announcement.
        Ranking Member, you are recognized. You have an amendment
    designated Westerman No. 12, sir.
        Mr. Westerman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        My amendment would ensure that the terms of the Puerto Rico
    Oversight Management and Economic Stability Act, or PROMESA, as
    we passed out of this Committee a few years ago, my amendment
    would ensure that those terms are completed before the Act
    takes place.
        Section 209 of PROMESA specifically states that financial
    oversight of the Financial Oversight Management Board will end
    for Puerto Rico when three requirements are met: (1) the
    government of Puerto Rico has adequate access to short-term and
    long-term credit markets at a reasonable investment rate to
    meet the government's borrowing needs; (2) that the government
    of Puerto Rico has developed budgets in accordance with
    modified accrual accounting standards for 4 consecutive fiscal
    years; and (3) that the expenditures made by the government of
    Puerto Rico do not exceed revenue during that year for 4
    consecutive fiscal years.
        These are reasonable expectations for any real functioning
    government, especially one that is seeking a change in its
    political status. And I will remind everyone that that was a
    bipartisan agreement when we passed PROMESA.
        According to an independent investigative report, Puerto
    Rico was in crisis in 2017, with $70 billion in debt and $49
    billion in unfunded pension liabilities. By the end of 2021,
    the Financial Oversight Management Board completed assisting
    Puerto Rico with the largest municipal debt restructuring in
    the history of the United States.
        Currently, Puerto Rico has $7 billion in restructured debt
    and the Board is working to help Puerto Rico's Electrical Power
    authority restructure $9 billion worth of debt. PROMESA ensured
    steps were taken to make Puerto Rico fiscally healthy and that
    work should be completed for the benefit of all in Puerto Rico.
    I urge support of my amendment, and I yield back.
        The Chairman. The gentleman yields.
        Mr. Westerman, I'm going to yield the chair to my colleague
    Mr. Soto, while I make a phone call that I cannot avoid for
    about 5-10 minutes, and I apologize for that.
        Mr. Soto, thank you.
        Mr. Westerman. I can take over if you need.
        The Chairman. I know you're planning on it, but we will see
    what happens.
        [Laughter.]
        Mr. Soto [presiding]. Is there any further discussion on
    the amendments?
        Ms. Velazquez. Mr. Chairman?
        Mr. Soto. Representative Velazquez, you are recognized.
        Ms. Velazquez. Thank you.
        I want to take this opportunity to let the record show that
    The Wall Street Journal just last week reported a series of
    several conflicts of interest held by consultants to the board.
    The most glaring ones are those from McKinsey, which has billed
    Puerto Rican taxpayers close to $939 million for their
    consultancy fees as part of the bankruptcy process and failed
    to disclose, very, very serious conflict of interest.
        I am the proud author of the Puerto Rico Accuracy in
    Disclosures Act, which was signed into law this past January.
    Thanks to the PRADA bill----
        Mr. Soto. The gentlelady shall suspend. Please mute for
    those who are online.
        The gentlelady is recognized.
        Ms. Velazquez [continuing]. Thanks to the PRADA bill, we
    are now learning that this company could have potentially
    benefited many of its clients due to the access it had to
    privileged information. For instance, it has been revealed now
    that Quanta Services, Inc. had engaged McKinsey as a
    consultant, while at the same time being part of the consortium
    that got awarded the privatization contract for the T and D of
    the electrical grid on the island, a privatization that I might
    add has proven to be unsuccessful and made the prize of
    electricity extremely onerous for Puerto Ricans.
        In fact, I stand today in solidarity with the thousands of
    Puerto Ricans on the street today demanding holding Luma
    accountable.
        So, I want to ask my colleague, do you think it is fair for
    the people of Puerto Rico to remain in an indefinite colonial
    limbo while the board clumsily gets its act together?
        The members of this Committee should unanimously reject
    prolonging the life of a board that has been allowed for more
    than 6 years to have unchecked conflicts of interest that are
    hurting the people on the island. The decolonization of Puerto
    Rico goes hand in hand with the restructuring of its fiscal and
    economic infrastructure, and Congress has a constitutional and
    moral obligation to act on both fronts, which it has so far
    failed to do so.
        For this reason, I oppose this amendment. I urge Members to
    vote no, and I yield back.
        Mr. Soto. The gentlelady yields back. Any other Members
    wish to be recognized?
        The gentleman from Montana is recognized.
        Mr. Rosendale. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'm going to revert
    back to my opening statements, and I do not think it is
    productive to begin the first step toward independence and
    self-determination with the United States curing or forgiving
    the debt and financing the elections, and the Chair corrected
    me and said they are not going to be forgiving debt.
        Well, you may use different terminology and classify it as
    restructuring. That is forgiving debt. Let's call it what it
    is. And I do not think it is fair to the citizens of the United
    States, the current citizens of the United States, to absorb
    that and then to have it forced upon them without even having
    anything to say about it whatsoever as this legislation would
    provide.
        So, at minimal we need to make sure that the PROMESA Act
    and the provisions of that are actually being met before we
    would continue this process.
        So, I do support the Representative from Arkansas'
    amendment. Thank you. I yield back.
        Mr. Westerman. Will the gentleman yield?
        Mr. Rosendale. Yes, I will yield.
        Mr. Westerman. I thank the gentleman. I think the
    gentlelady made a valid point talking about how maybe there
    needs to be some oversight and transparency of PROMESA, but we
    have yet to have an oversight hearing in this Committee. I
    believe there is one scheduled for September.
        So, shouldn't we wait and have that oversight hearing and
    find out if there really are problems, instead of rushing this
    bill through today? Couldn't we at least wait until we actually
    have the hearing?
        And I will remind everybody that it is the Majority's
    responsibility to schedule hearings. We could have had a
    hearing at any time on the oversight of PROMESA, yet we
    ironically have one scheduled 2 months from now when we are
    going to make this major vote today.
        I yield back to the gentleman.
        Mr. Soto. Any other Member wish to be recognized?
        Mr. McClintock. Mr. Chair.
        Mr. Soto. The gentleman from California is recognized.
        Mr. McClintock. If I could, I would like to ask perhaps the
    Ranking Member, my understanding of this bill is regardless of
    what option is chosen, the mere passage and enactment of this
    bill disbands the Oversight Board and transfers all of the
    assets that were given to Puerto Rico with the understanding
    that they would be administered by this board. All of those
    assets are turned over to the Puerto Rican government.
        Whatever happens on the plebiscite, that is an automatic
    provision in this bill, and all of those funds that the
    American people were promised that came out of their wallets,
    that they were promised would be administered by the Oversight
    Board, will now go to the government of Puerto Rico.
        Am I correct in that understanding?
        Mr. Westerman. I believe the gentleman has read the bill
    and understands the language. As I understand it, if this bill
    were passed in its current form, it would dismantle PROMESA.
        Mr. McClintock. I support the amendment wholeheartedly.
    Thank you.
        Mr. Soto. The gentleman yields back. Any other Members wish
    to be recognized on the amendment?
        Miss Gonzalez-Colon. Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Soto. The gentlelady from Puerto Rico is recognized.
        Miss Gonzalez-Colon. I oppose the amendment and I will be
    simple with this. The debt has already been restructured and
    the U.S. taxpayers have not borne the cost. It is the local
    government of Puerto Rico and the local taxpayers who are
    paying for the Oversight Board. I just want to make that clear,
    because some people may believe that it is the U.S. Government
    who is the one paying the oversight contracts and advisors, but
    the one who is paying that bill is the government of Puerto
    Rico, just to make that clear. That is the reason I oppose the
    amendment.
        Mr. Soto. The gentlelady yields back. Does any other Member
    wish to be recognized?
        Mr. San Nicolas. Mr. Chairman? San Nicolas from Guam.
        Mr. Soto. The gentleman from Guam is recognized.
        Mr. San Nicolas. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think it is
    important for us to remember that PROMESA is an aberration of
    colonialism.
        The whole reason why PROMESA had to be enacted to begin
    with was because Puerto Rico was a territory and therefore
    unable to avail of the existing municipal bankruptcy laws that
    were already in place for various reasons, and actually
    utilized by various other municipalities across the country
    when they did face financial difficulty.
        So, it is ironic that now we are going to be using PROMESA,
    an aberration of colonialism, to perpetuate colonialism because
    we are going to say that its provisions need to be met before
    going to actually entertain a plebiscite vote to resolve the
    status conundrum that is the current Commonwealth of Puerto
    Rico.
        And I think it is further ironic, Mr. Chairman, that we
    would suggest that Americans living on American soil should
    have their political status called into question with respect
    to their ability to respond to PROMESA, when really, would we
    put the same questions to Americans who are undergoing a
    municipal restructuring anywhere else in this country?
        Would we therefore suggest that they should be stripped of
    their state rights because they are availing of municipal
    bankruptcy laws, whether it is Orange County in California or
    any of the other various jurisdictions anywhere else in the
    country that had faced financial difficulty?
        And then let's look at the fundamental question of the
    outcome that ultimately resulted in PROMESA. We are talking
    about a territory that did not have the same kind of coverage
    on Medicaid for so many years, a territory that does not have
    supplemental security income for its most vulnerable. And both
    of those were financial questions that strained the finances of
    Puerto Rico because of their political status.
        So, we just have political status problem layered on top of
    political status problem, PROMESA, lack of parity in funding.
    And now we are going to turn those very same things, those
    political status problems, and use it to say we are not going
    to now resolve your political status because those problems are
    now being administered by PROMESA, which by the way, is a
    creation of the Congress.
        And Mr. Chairman, we really should not use PROMESA as a
    reason to not move forward this legislation, unless we are
    going to apply the same principles and the same logic to any
    other municipal financial challenges, and I really do not think
    that that is a good precedent to set for Americans.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
        Mr. Soto. The gentleman yields back. Does any other Member
    wish to be recognized?
        In that case, I recognize myself for 5 minutes.
        First, the bill makes clear in the event a plebiscite
    results in statehood, that contracts, obligations, liabilities
    and debts of the territory of Puerto Rico shall continue.
        In addition, the bill states that in the event a plebiscite
    results in favor of independence or independence with free
    association, the nation of Puerto Rico shall recognize and give
    effect to all orders and judgments rendered by the United
    States for territories.
        And I would also argue that this bill makes fiscal sense
    for the United States. Right now, Puerto Rico is already
    getting many programs at equal funding as states, whether it
    was under the American Rescue Plan or under the Infrastructure
    Law.
        If Puerto Rico chooses statehood, they would then be paying
    Federal income tax to help fray those costs, much like all of
    our constituents make every day. In addition, if they chose
    independence or independence with free association, they would
    no longer be the financial obligation of the United States.
        So, in either event, I would argue that this makes fiscal
    sense for taxpayers across the nation.
        And with that, is there any other further discussion to the
    amendment?
        Hearing no further debate, the question is on Westerman
    Amendment No. 12. I will pause so Members joining remotely can
    unmute.
        All those in favor, say aye.
        All those opposed, say no.
        In the opinion of the Chair, the noes have it, and the
    amendment is not agreed to.
        Mr. Westerman. Mr. Chair, I would request the ayes and
    nays.
        Mr. Soto. A recorded vote has been requested. This vote
    will be postponed pursuant to the Chair's prior announcement,
    and I'll yield back to the Chairman.
        The Chairman [presiding]. We now move to the amendment
    designated No. 75.
        Representative McClintock, you are recognized, sir.
        Mr. McClintock. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Under the bill
    before us, Congress surrenders all further say in the most
    important and consequential decision that we can make, the
    permanent admission of a new state to the Union. We simply
    surrender this decision to a carefully rigged selection process
    to be voted on only in Puerto Rico.
        And, by the way, that selection process offers the people
    of Puerto Rico only those options that the majority has also
    pre-chosen for them. Can you pronounce colonialism?
        Once this bill passes, Congress would have no further say
    in the process. This is irresponsible and it is a complete
    abdication of the responsibility we have to our constituents
    and to the whole country on a question so fundamental to its
    future.
        The amendment that is before us says that the issue has to
    return to Congress for a national debate that we owe to the
    American people if statehood is chosen from among the three
    pre-selected options. And because of the profound question it
    presents to us, this amendment calls for a two-thirds vote for
    ratification.
        I know this is a departure from the past. The Constitution
    requires only a majority. But in the last century we have
    waited to admit new states until an overwhelming consensus for
    admission has been formed throughout the country.
        I would remind you that Alaska and Hawaii were admitted
    with 78 percent vote in the House and 83 percent in the Senate.
    I believe Congress should fully debate the question of
    statehood before it is ratified, and it should be by an
    overwhelming majority, a two-thirds vote.
        I yield back.
        The Chairman. The gentleman yields. Anyone wish to be
    recognized on Mr. McClintock's Amendment No. 75?
        Mr. Soto, sir.
        Mr. Soto. The opposition is right in the gentleman from
    California's own admission, which is that none of this is
    required by the Constitution, and it hasn't been used for other
    states, so why would we do it for Puerto Rico? We didn't do it
    for Alaska or Hawaii, our most recent states, and it is just a
    further barrier.
        The Constitution is clear. We technically would not even
    need an election. Congress shall admit new states. But we are
    doing this because it is within the jurisprudence and tradition
    of our nation. But adding additional requirements on it is an
    affront to what our forefathers had intended in the
    Constitution.
        The Chairman. The gentleman yields.
        Miss Gonzalez-Colon. Mr. Chairman?
        The Chairman. The gentlelady is recognized.
        Miss Gonzalez-Colon. Thank you. I wish to oppose the
    amendment, and the reason for that is that the Puerto Rico
    Status Act provides a process for voters to ratify their choice
    as future status, including a run-off to make a majority
    decision clear.
        Admission or recognition of any change in status of a
    territory is carried out by an Act of Congress, and I need to
    be clear on that, which requires a straight majority in both
    houses--a disposition of a territory or admission of a state
    does not require a Constitutional amendment, nor an
    international treaty, and have never been treated as such, not
    even when the then independent nation of Texas sought
    admission.
        Title III of the Act is an admission act contingent on the
    people voting for statehood with the same criteria of admission
    as were in the case of Alaska and Hawaii. In neither case was
    there a requirement that after the people voted Congress had to
    again approve of their choice, much less by a two-third of
    majority of both houses.
        Further, the Constitution and the precedent for 37 states
    that were admitted into the nation do not support the idea that
    admission of a territory into statehood or any other change in
    status mandates a congressional supermajority. As such, a
    supermajority has never been required.
        The amendment seeks to impose a hurdle in Puerto Rico's
    path that has not been placed for any state. I will oppose
    this, or any amendments to an amendment, that seeks to block
    execution of this act after the people of Puerto Rico have
    voted, whatever the choice it may be.
        And I maybe respect the intention of my colleagues, because
    I do know Representative McClintock introduced last year a
    resolution calling for an amendment of the U.S. Constitution
    requiring a two-thirds yes vote in both chambers in order to
    admit a new state.
        And that is another proposal that has not been discussed
    here. Perhaps we need to say that if that rule had been in
    place back in 1959 when Alaska was getting into admission,
    Alaska would not be a state today because of that provision.
        So, I think we need to be consistent. We cannot ask
    something that was never asked of other states or other
    territories, not even Texas at the time when it was an
    independent nation.
        And the vote in Alaska at that time that we were mentioning
    here, that vote was 210 to 166, just 55 percent of the vote.
    So, they were way short of the two-thirds of the vote to admit
    Alaska as a state.
        So, I just want to make that clear. I think if politicians
    in Puerto Rico who favor the status quo and have perfected the
    dark art of seeking to undermine the legitimacy of any status
    process or vote they lose or refuse to participate in, like
    they did in 2012 where the people of Puerto Rico were asked by
    the question that the intergovernmental office of the White
    House asked, and it was Bush and Obama's administration and
    Clinton administration proposing the question, that was a
    question about plebiscite, do you want to remain as a territory
    of the United States? The people of Puerto Rico said no. They
    rejected the current territorial situation.
        And then after that, 61 percent voted for statehood among
    the rest of the options. And then we got another plebiscite in
    2017 with the same question, status. And then in 2020. So, we
    already held six plebiscites, all local.
        That is the reason this bill is so different. It would
    allow for the first one ever to have a federally mandated
    plebiscite with binding resolutions that would secure not
    having a permanent territorial condition to Puerto Rico or
    perpetually relegate the people of Puerto Rico to second-class
    citizenship that is not representative of what we are as a
    great nation.
        Because of that, I yield back.
        The Chairman. The gentlelady yields. Anyone else?
        Mr. Westerman. Mr. Chairman.
        The Chairman. Mr. Westerman, sir.
        Mr. Westerman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This amendment is
    rather simple. It requires that Congress certify the results of
    the plebiscite. And we could have a debate on whether that
    should be two-thirds vote or a majority vote, but I think the
    underlying principle is that Congress should certify any
    results before admitting a state. The Territory Clause of the
    Constitution gives Congress plenary power over U.S.
    territories.
        When previous territories became states, Congress acted. We
    have not relinquished our duties. Congress has legislated in
    various ways to confirm statehood. Congress has never provided
    a federally sponsored self-executing plebiscite a political
    status. This is unprecedented in our nation's history. Congress
    is constitutionally required to take final action on the
    outcome of the plebiscite. This amendment ensures Congress does
    not abdicate its duties under the Constitution to ``make all
    needful rules and regulations respecting the territory
    belonging to the United States.''
        Just the fact that we are having a debate today on the
    constitutionality of the language that again was published last
    Friday, and we are voting on such an important issue today
    again tells me that we should be having more hearings. We
    should be having constitutional experts come in. We should have
    more time to review this, and we shouldn't rush into
    unprecedented territory in our nation's history just on a wing
    and a prayer. I support this amendment, and I yield back.
        The Chairman. The gentleman yields.
        Mr. Soto, do you wish to be recognized on this amendment?
    No. Anyone else?
        Hearing no further debate on Mr. McClintock's Amendment No.
    75, all those in favor of the amendment, please indicate by
    saying aye.
        All those opposed, indicate by saying no.
        In the opinion of the Chair, the noes have it, and the
    amendment is not agreed to.
        The gentleman has requested a recorded vote, and the vote
    is postponed pursuant to prior announcements.
        The Chairman. Representative Boebert, you have an amendment
    designated No. 4, and you are recognized for 5 minutes.
        Mrs. Boebert. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This amendment that
    I have introduced here would strike the authorization of the
    appropriations for the proposed referendum and for creating new
    voter education materials. My first concern with this provision
    is that it authorizes ``such sums as may be necessary'' to
    achieve these ends. We don't know how much the scheduled vote
    and the voter education materials would cost, which Congress
    should know if we are authorizing Federal dollars to be spent
    on this.
        Can I have order in the Committee? More to the point we
    unfortunately do not have a CBO score for this bill. The
    members of this Committee should not be expected to vote on
    this bill without having all the information we need to make an
    informed decision. And my second concern is that we are using
    Federal funds for this. Last Wednesday morning, the Bureau of
    Labor Statistics reported that the latest inflation rate, a
    record breaking 9.1 percent over the last 12 months, the
    Consumer Price Index for all items went up by 1.3 percent in
    June. The rate of inflation for food is now at 10.4 percent,
    the inflation rate for energy commodities is at 60 percent, and
    the inflation rate for fuel oil is now at 98.5 percent.
        If the residents of Puerto Rico feel strongly about
    changing their status, it stands to reason that the government
    of Puerto Rico should foot the bill. We shouldn't be
    authorizing Federal funding for voter educational materials and
    for running this scheduled vote for Puerto Rico. I urge my
    colleagues to vote in favor of my amendment, and I yield back.
        The Chairman. The gentlelady yields back. Thank you.
        Anyone wish to be recognized on Representative Boebert's
    Amendment No. 4?
        Mrs. Boebert. Mr. Chairman, it is Boebert.
        The Chairman. Boebert. Thank you.
        Ms. Velazquez. Mr. Chairman?
        The Chairman. I have trouble with vowels. Yes.
        Ms. Velazquez. I seek recognition in opposition to that
    amendment.
        The Chairman. The gentlelady is recognized.
        Ms. Velazquez. The process we are discussing today must
    guarantee that the people of Puerto Rico are fully informed
    about the options available. We included a federally funded
    voter education because it is our duty to provide a democratic
    transparent process. We must clearly establish what Congress is
    able and willing to offer. So, when the gentlelady asked about
    not scoring the CBO, well, I will say that after 120 years of
    colonialism, of having subjects, of exploiting the island of
    Puerto Rico that is the score that we need to know in order to
    provide a process that we allow for the Puerto Rican people for
    once and for all to define what is it that they want to
    support.
        What is it? What will be the political option of their
    choosing? That is the score that we need to know here today,
    that it is time for us, the U.S. Congress, who have ruled for
    so many years that they are given the resources and the tools
    that they need in order to make an educated choice. I yield
    back.
        The Chairman. Anyone else?
        Mr. Soto.
        Mr. Soto. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am sure the gentlelady
    appreciates the importance of educating Puerto Rican voters on
    this, and while this authorizes it, it will still have to go
    through Appropriations, and there will have to be bipartisan
    support for it to go forward. So, here today we are just doing
    the authorization, but we want to make sure everybody
    understands all the repercussions, so I oppose the amendment.
        The Chairman. Anyone else?
        Mr. Graves, sir.
        Mr. Graves. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Chairman, first of all, I want to thank Congresswoman--
    should I say Congresswoman J Go--for all of her efforts on
    representing the citizens of Puerto Rico. She has been tireless
    in her efforts since she got here in trying to promote an
    opportunity for the citizens of Puerto Rico to be given the
    chance of some degree of self-determination. And I have a
    tremendous amount of respect for her and the hard work that she
    has been doing trying to promote that opportunity.
        Mr. Chairman, the legislation we are talking about today
    was introduced on Friday. This is potentially creating the
    opportunity for statehood or other options, as you know, under
    this bill. Introduced on Friday, and here it is--what is
    today--Wednesday? Wednesday, and we are marking up a bill to
    potentially allow a territory to become a state or independent.
    I mean, this is crazy. This is absolutely crazy in this
    condensed amount of time to do something as consequential as
    this.
        There are constitutional questions. There are questions
    about U.S. taxpayer investment. And Ms. Boebert is exactly
    right on this. It is just one of the many, many things that
    needs to be thought out and needs to be considered. Yes, we
    have had a hearing on this topic but not on this bill. This is
    huge, and we are just going to come in in just days and make a
    flippant decision on something as big as this. The public, the
    American public, the Puerto Rican public, this entire country
    deserves the opportunity to make sure that we understand the
    consequences and understand exactly what this bill does.
        Now, Mr. Chairman, I also want to make note that here we
    are in July, in fact toward the end of July, and I am just
    going to pick a number and say that this may be the hundredth
    bill that we have done that is not energy, that is not energy.
    It is the hundredth bill we have done that is not solving the
    energy affordability crisis. People can't afford to refuel
    their cars. People can't afford to pay their electricity bills
    that we are seeing a doubling and tripling. This Committee has
    jurisdiction over the solutions.
        My friend, the Chairman, tweeted out last week a picture of
    me from this Committee and saying that Republicans have offered
    no solutions, which is absolutely incredible. As a matter of
    fact, I want to remind the Chairman that during the previous
    administration, emissions went down an average of 2.5 percent a
    year. Under the Biden administration, they have gone up 6.3
    percent. So, if we are going to talk about facts and data,
    which I know some people in this Committee are afraid of, if we
    are going to talk about facts and data, President Trump did a
    better job on emissions than President Biden did.
        Talking about energy affordability, President Trump smoked
    President Biden, technical term, in regard to energy
    affordability. Gas prices were nearly half what they are today.
    Natural gas prices were nearly one-third. You are forcing
    people into energy poverty. You are forcing people into it, and
    you are doing nothing, you are doing absolutely nothing,
    ignoring this Committee's jurisdiction, ignoring our
    responsibility, and instead bringing up a lot of other bills
    today that just aren't priorities.
        And I want to be clear so my words aren't minced. The
    Puerto Rico situation is a priority, but to try to rush
    something like this through that no one understands even the
    constitutionality of it is crazy. If you want to go back, Mr.
    Chairman, on every opportunity that I had because you won't
    allow us to debate energy bills in this Committee, I am going
    to remind you that this energy crisis that this country is
    experiencing, every single American is experiencing, is self-
    imposed. It was self-imposed by the Biden administration. It is
    self-imposed by this Committee's failure to act.
        And, unfortunately, we have proposed dozens and dozens of
    bills and solutions, and the Committee has refused to even have
    hearings on them. So, let's be very clear. You own the crisis
    as much as this President does. You own it, and it is awful
    that we are in this situation today that Americans are forced
    to choose between refueling their car and buying groceries.
    They can't afford to pay their electricity bill, that the
    President is going to Saudi Arabia and asking them for energy
    when it is dirtier than U.S. energy.
        They are negotiating with Iran to release their energy. I
    think the quote yesterday was that, ``The world needs Iran's
    energy.'' Yes, like a hole in our head. This is unbelievable
    that we can have the president of our country out there
    advocating for the interests of other countries and, in the
    case of Iran, terrorist nations that are funding terrorist
    activities contrary to the interests of Israel, the United
    States, and the Middle East. Unbelievable that this is
    happening. I yield back.
        The Chairman. Anyone else wish to be recognized on
    amendment designated No. 4?
        Mr. Neguse. Mr. Chairman.
        The Chairman. Mr. Neguse, sir.
        Mr. Neguse. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, I didn't intend to
    speak on this amendment, but I have to provide a little bit of
    rebuttal to my colleague and my good friend from Louisiana who
    seemed a little all over the place there, on the one hand sort
    of saying that this Committee is not bringing up bills that are
    priorities but then simultaneously saying that Puerto Rico,
    that this particular bill is a priority, complaining that it is
    somehow being rushed, notwithstanding the year-long negotiation
    process that Miss Gonzalez-Colon, Mr. Grijalva, Ms. Velazquez,
    and Mr. Soto had been engaged in, of course with a wide range
    of stakeholders, notwithstanding the two, not one, but two
    legislative hearings on this particular issue that were held
    over the course of the last year and a half.
        I am not sure if my colleague had a chance to participate
    in one or two of those hearings, but they were certainly very
    informative and robust notwithstanding the fact that we have an
    amendment process today where I think my colleagues have
    suggested no less than 17 amendments that the Committee is
    visibly debating as we speak. So, I certainly think that I
    would concur with the statements that my colleague and my
    friend made at the outset of his remarks regarding the work
    that Miss Gonzalez-Colon has done and our shared respect, I
    suppose, for her work and her tenacity in bringing forward this
    bill along with the other colleagues that I've mentioned.
        And I would hope that my colleague would join me once we
    have finished this long debate process in supporting this bill.
    I trust that he will given the statements that he made at the
    outset regarding his colleague on the other side of the aisle.
    I think this is a good bill. I think that our colleagues on
    both sides of the aisle have worked in good faith to negotiate
    a reasonable compromise that, as you said, provides the people
    of Puerto Rico with some degree of self-determination. I think
    it is a bill we ought to pass. I look forward to debating the
    rest of these amendments, but would hope that we could remain
    focused on the bill that is before the Committee. And with
    that, I would yield back.
        The Chairman. The gentleman yields.
        Anyone else wish to recognized?
        Dr. Hice. Mr. Chairman.
        The Chairman. Sir, you are recognized.
        Dr. Hice. Thank you. This is anything but a good bill. This
    is a horrible bill, and to imply somehow that we have had
    multiple hearings--we have had hearings on the topic, no one on
    this side has said otherwise--we have not had any hearings on
    this bill that was dropped Friday, and here we are dealing with
    an issue of enormous magnitude of statehood for Puerto Rico,
    and this is our first hearing on this bill. That is absolute
    insanity, and since you brought up by name, my friend from
    Louisiana, I am going to yield some time to him.
        Mr. Graves. Thank you. First, my friend from Colorado,
    thank you for hosting us in your state a few years ago.
    Certainly appreciated that and enjoyed the time working with
    you. I want to apologize for confusing you in my statement. Let
    me see if I can go back through it again. No. 1, I appreciate
    the work of Congresswoman J Go. I think she is great, and I
    think she is tireless in her efforts to fight for and represent
    the citizens of Puerto Rico.
        No. 2, we are talking about a bill that was introduced on
    Friday that is taking a territory and millions of people and
    potentially making them independent, making them a state. This
    is something that all Americans, not just Puerto Ricans, all
    Americans should have an incredible interest in. This is not
    something that should be rushed, and as Mr. Hice just noted,
    this deserves a hearing.
        Yes, we have had hearings on this topic. We have not had a
    hearing on this bill. Zero hearings on this bill. And as had
    been discussed today, the constitutionality of this bill has
    been called into question.
        No. 3, I commented that I support Ms. Boebert's amendment,
    and it is indicative of what happens when you rush legislation,
    and it hasn't been thought through.
        No. 4, I just want to remind everybody in this Committee
    and everybody in this country this is the single committee in
    the U.S. House of Representatives that has jurisdiction over
    solving the energy crisis. We are the ones that have
    jurisdiction over energy exploration and production, yet the
    only energy bills we have done are ones that have been to
    actually prevent, prevent renewable energy from taking place in
    the United States.
        We did a bill last week, or whatever, did a bill to ban--
    and I wish Mr. Stauber was here--I think it is 75 percent of
    the nickel, copper, cobalt, and platinum minerals that are
    available in the United States, and maybe I am wrong on the
    number, but I will say approximately a lot, and we banned it.
    So, it is no to renewable energy, and just in case folks
    weren't clear there earlier we had a hearing on a bill related
    to New Mexico withdrawing mineral resources. So, apparently it
    is no to renewable energy. It is pretty clear that it is no to
    conventional fuels like oil and gas. It is no to coal.
        So, I guess I am just trying to figure out what in the hell
    the energy strategy is. President Obama said all of the above.
    Apparently, you all say none of the above. And all I know is
    that people that we represent across this country cannot afford
    the energy crisis that this Administration and this Democrat
    leadership in the House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate
    and the White House have thrust this nation into.
        And the embarrassment of watching our President go fist
    bump Saudi Arabia to ask them for oil, now negotiating with
    Iran because we want their oil, this is like a TV show. I can't
    even believe this is really happening. This is the President of
    the United States that stood up and swore to defend the
    Constitution of the United States, not to other countries, yet
    he is carrying out policies to enrich our opposition, our
    enemies, those that are killing American citizens in the Middle
    East such as Iran through their surrogates. I mean, this really
    is unbelievable.
        Mr. Neguse. Will the gentleman yield?
        Mr. Graves. This is actually Mr. Hice's time, and I am
    going to yield back to him.
        Dr. Hice. I will yield.
        Mr. Neguse. I thank the gentleman from Georgia. Gentleman
    from Louisiana, do you intend to vote for the bill today?
        Mr. Graves. At this point, I don't. But let me be clear. It
    is not because I'm necessarily opposed to the objective. It is
    because there are so many questions about this bill to rush
    through something like this in such a short period of time--let
    me ask you, were you involved in negotiations for the last
    year?
        Mr. Neguse. To me? Can I take the time?
        Mr. Graves. Please.
        Mr. Neguse. I was not. I trust the judgement of Miss
    Gonzalez-Colon and the Chairman, and I appreciate their
    leadership on this initiative which is why I am proud to vote
    for the bill.
        Mr. Graves. Mr. Westerman, were you involved in
    negotiations for the last year as Ranking Member of the
    Committee?
        Mr. Westerman. I was not.
        Mr. Graves. How about them apples. You weren't. He wasn't.
    I wasn't. They weren't. So, I appreciate your----
        Mr. Neguse. My colleague we both respect was. Miss
    Gonzalez-Colon was and I think she did a terrific job.
        Mr. Graves. That is right. I have a tremendous amount of
    respect for her, and she has been an incredible fighter. But I
    have an obligation to the people at home, and I don't just
    defer this responsibility to others.
        The Chairman. Time is expired.
        Anyone else wish to be recognized on the amendment?
        Mr. Westerman. Mr. Chairman.
        The Chairman. Mr. Westerman.
        Mr. Westerman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. As my friend the
    gentleman from Louisiana often does, he raises some thought
    provoking questions, and apparently I need to start reading
    Twitter because I didn't know that Republicans didn't have
    solutions. Could there be fake news on Twitter, Mr. Graves?
        Mr. Graves. Both of Mr. Grijalva's followers commented on
    it.
        Mr. Westerman. We have never marked up a Republican bill in
    this Congress. How do you know we don't have solutions when we
    don't mark up our legislation? I understand we are in the
    Minority. That is part of the gig, and the Majority has been
    gracious to roll a few crumbs off the table and give us a UC
    bill. We often have to fight to get an acceptable ratio on
    those UC bills, and I appreciate that from the Chairman. But I
    do believe Republicans have solutions.
        We have solutions to the problems that Americans care about
    actually. We even have solutions for Big Cats, but the Majority
    didn't want to work with us on the actual solution to put the
    jurisdiction to fix Big Cats under APHIS where it belongs. But
    that is beside the point. We shouldn't have been talking about
    Big Cats. We should have been talking about big inflation, big
    food cost, big energy cost and the absolute abdication of
    responsibility by this Administration to develop our resources.
        So, we have solutions. We just need an opportunity to
    present those solutions, and hopefully some day we will get a
    chance to have hearings on bills like that. Now, there must be
    this new progressive idea out there on what Congress is about.
    I heard it in the Infrastructure and Jobs Act how we had this
    bipartisan bill and how it was negotiated in a bipartisan way.
    That bill never went to a single committee in the House of
    Representatives.
        Mr. Graves and others, Mr. Webster and I serve on the
    Transportation and Infrastructure Committee. You had the
    largest infrastructure spending bill in the history of the
    world that didn't even get a hearing in the House. Now, it was
    negotiated by Members of Congress outside of Congress, but the
    last time I checked Congress is a deliberative body. I
    appreciate the work that Representative Gonzalez-Colon has done
    and the others who have negotiated outside of this hearing room
    on this topic, but you know what? Who cares? In the big
    picture, who cares?
        This is supposed to be a transparent process. We are
    supposed to have those negotiations and those hearings on TV
    open to the public, open to the press so that the citizens of
    this country know what is going on. I keep hearing about it is
    bipartisan, and it has been negotiated, but it hasn't been
    debated in the open. This isn't a hearing today. This is a
    markup. We have not had a hearing on the language in this bill.
        Mr. Neguse. Would the gentleman yield?
        Mr. Westerman. I have some other stuff to say. If I have a
    few minutes, I will yield to my friend from Colorado. Back to
    this amendment. I support this amendment because it would
    prevent Federal funds from being used for the plebiscite and
    for voter educational materials. Puerto Rico's status is a
    question that drives civic engagement in Puerto Rico's
    territorial politics and brings out passion and emotions.
        Several plebiscites on political status have occurred in
    Puerto Rico, most recently in 2020. Because only the people of
    Puerto Rico would be able to vote in the plebiscite proscribed
    in the legislation, the Puerto Rican government is the most
    appropriate entity to pay for the ballots and voter educational
    materials. How much would it cost? We don't know because we are
    rushing, and this bill has been moved too quickly. And because
    it hasn't had a hearing, if you haven't heard that yet, there
    is no CBO score for this bill.
        Any estimates regarding how much the plebiscite detailed in
    this bill could cost are a little more than a guess. The
    unknown cost here is yet just another reason to have a hearing
    on this bill, to slow down and give it some time. We need to
    know the full cost of the legislation along with a lot of other
    questions we have about the legislation. I do urge support of
    this amendment----
        Ms. Velazquez. Would the gentleman yield?
        Mr. Westerman [continuing]. And I yield to my friend from
    Colorado who asked for time.
        Mr. Neguse. I yield to the gentlewoman from New York.
        Ms. Velazquez. Ranking Member, I have a lot of respect for
    you, but I think to say that we should not pay for voter
    education is just beyond any comprehension. We have subjected
    the people of Puerto Rico to 120 years of exploitation,
    colonialism. That should not have a price tag. This is not
    funding a program. This is the intent of Congress to once and
    for all resolve an issue that has kept--you are here willing to
    talk about Puerto Rico's----
        Mr. Westerman. Reclaiming my time that has expired.
        The Chairman. Gentleman reclaims. Time has expired. I very
    quickly recognize myself. One of the reasons explicit and
    implicit in this discussion is as Miss Gonzalez-Colon pointed
    out, Mr. Soto pointed out, everybody, there have been various
    plebiscites on the island, and the issue sometimes has come up
    as a means to unravel those elections that they weren't clean,
    that they were stacked at the beginning; i.e., rigged, that not
    enough people participated.
        And the reason for the authorization and the election thing
    is also that we assure the people of Puerto Rico that this is a
    clean and transparent election. That is one of the rationales.
    It hasn't been spoken to, but it is understood. I mean, if you
    look at and read everything that happened in previous
    elections, inevitably that is a charge and that is an
    accusation going into that process which then taints any
    results that come out.
        So, in order to preserve the importance and the
    significance of this process and vote for the Puerto Rican
    people that is part of the authorization to give them that
    assurance that nobody is going to tamper, that their opinion is
    going to count, and that their free will as voters----
        Mr. Rosendale. Would the Chair yield to a question?
        The Chairman. I was going to yield to my friend, Mr.
    Neguse. When he is done, he can yield to you if there is time.
    That is not a problem.
        Mr. Neguse. I thank the Chairman. Just one quick point with
    much respect to my colleague and friend the Ranking Member, but
    I am a little bit confused about his descriptions of televised
    congressional negotiations. I mean, perhaps that has happened
    in the past. I don't remember the Ways and Means Committee
    engaged in televised congressional negotiations on the 2017 tax
    bill. Maybe it happened. Or on the criminal justice bill for
    that matter. I appreciate the gentleman's point, altruistic as
    it may be, but that certainly has not been my experience in
    terms of how this House has functioned under Republican and
    Democratic majorities for the better part of the last 30, 40
    years.
        I take the gentleman's point regarding the legislative
    hearing, but I think it is just again important. Let us not
    diminish the legislative hearings that this Committee did have.
    I recognize they were not specifically on this numbered bill,
    but I also recognized that there was robust, lengthy discussion
    about the various components that this bill now incorporates,
    including all the various options that would or could be
    available to the people of Puerto Rico.
        So, again understand the gentleman's point that he would
    like a specific legislative hearing. He has made that all too
    clear. But let's also recognize that there have been numerous
    opportunities for the members of this Committee to educate
    themselves about the components of this bill because they have
    been debated ad nauseam for years by this Committee, including
    multiple times in the 117th Congress. And although I am eager
    to answer any question that Mr. Rosendale might have, I know
    Ms. Velazquez, Mr. Chairman, I think was looking for additional
    time as well. So, I will yield back to the Chairman.
        The Chairman. Sir.
        Mr. Rosendale. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Just a question. We
    have heard a litany of excuses for the bad debt that has been
    acquired by the country and the declarations of victimization
    of why they can't afford to pay their current bills----
        The Chairman. We are on the topic of addressing the
    amendment.
        Mr. Rosendale. On the amendment. And this is going directly
    to the amendment. We are talking about debt, and we are talking
    about expense. So, my question is, Mr. Chairman, as we heard
    about all these discussions, conflict of interest, wouldn't it
    be considered a conflict of interest for the United States to
    be paying for these elections and the education of the voters
    in Puerto Rico anyway? Couldn't that be construed as a conflict
    of interest and where those funds are actually being directed
    and what subjects and topics are being supported or opposed?
        The Chairman. Referencing my extensive legal background
    having watched Perry Mason growing up, I feel that I am in a
    position to absolutely and assertively answer your question. I
    don't believe it is a conflict of interest. That would have to
    be a challenge, but I don't believe so. And legal counsel
    reviewed the legislation and thought so as well. It is in the
    eye of the beholder sometimes, sir, but that is as far as I can
    dig in my legal background. Thank you. Mr. Neguse. Ms.
    Velazquez, I'm sorry.
        Ms. Velazquez. I don't need time anymore. Thank you.
        The Chairman. The gentlelady yields. I answered your legal
    question as well, I guess.
        Miss Gonzalez-Colon. Mr. Chairman.
        The Chairman. Miss Gonzalez-Colon, you are recognized.
        Miss Gonzalez-Colon. Thank you. I oppose this amendment,
    and I need to clear the record for an instance here. Saying
    that the past plebiscites were rigged is wrong. We held those
    plebiscites with general elections on the island where all
    political parties participated and oversee this process.
    Actually, because of people who lost and their belief in those
    elections and their choice was not the winner, many of them
    were challenging the result, and we know about that. When
    people don't like the results of an election, they call it many
    ways. That is not the case of the last six plebiscites in
    Puerto Rico.
        And the reason this amendment will hurt the process is that
    we are trying to have here a process that is for the first time
    federally sponsored. That means this is not local people of
    Puerto Rico saying, ``You know what? You will have statehood
    without paying taxes,'' or, ``You know what? You will have
    independence with all Federal funds and all Federal U.S.
    citizenship,'' or, ``You will have free association with all of
    the Commonwealth or all the U.S. citizens' rights and
    privileges without paying taxes.''
        This amendment would allow the Federal Government to
    fulfill that promise of educating the people, telling them as
    it is the options that are in front of them while they are
    voting so that there is nobody being misled in this process.
    And that is the reason it is so important that it is not a
    political party, that is not a local government. It is the
    Federal Government telling the people this is what we are
    willing to offer. This is what we are willing to do. And this
    is not the first time money has been allocated to the education
    process.
        Actually, a few years ago when the money was approved for
    another plebiscite, money still is in the Department of
    Justice. I think there is over $5 million already there that
    are not being used for educational purposes of another
    plebiscite on the island. And yet, again, we did another
    Federal plebiscite when the Navy went out of Vieques, and there
    was another educational campaign paid by Federal taxpayers'
    money.
        So, saying that this is outrageous is wrong, and I truly
    believe that we need to have the facts on this issue. I think
    we cannot mislead the people of the island what are the options
    they have in front of them, what are the responsibilities that
    are going to be there because there are going to be
    consequences. There is going to be a result. After we have a
    vote, this is it. If you choose independence, you will have
    independence. If you choose statehood, you will have it, and
    all those options come with a consequence.
        So, saying that there should be no education whatsoever
    will hurt the process, will hurt the transparency that this
    bill is creating, and for that reason I am opposing the
    amendment. And I yield back.
        The Chairman. Anyone else?
        Mr. Obernolte. Mr. Chairman.
        The Chairman. Sir, you are recognized.
        Mr. Obernolte. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
        I just have to say I find this hearing deeply frustrating
    today. For the record, I support statehood for the people of
    Puerto Rico. I think many of us here on the dais do. But the
    details matter especially if we are putting other options like
    being an independent state or free association on the table.
        We need to talk about and define exactly what we mean for
    each one of those options, or else a plebiscite on those
    options is meaningless. It is a very complicated topic, so to
    suggest that we ought to accept a bill as fully baked that was
    negotiated behind closed doors and also to suggest that no one
    on this dais has meaningful contributions to make in
    improvement of the bill I think is very misguided, hence my
    frustration. I would like to yield the balance of my time to
    the Ranking Member.
        Mr. Westerman. I thank the gentleman. We keep having this
    discussion about hearings. I would be glad to yield some time
    to anybody on either side of the dais except the people who are
    virtual because I refuse to yield time to people who do not
    come to the Committee for a meeting. But if anybody would like
    to tell me----
        The Chairman. Limits their options, doesn't it?
        Mr. Westerman. I open it up to anybody who can tell me when
    we had a hearing on the independence option as outlined in this
    bill.
        Miss Gonzalez-Colon. Mr. Chairman. Can I have the time?
        Mr. Westerman. I yield.
        Miss Gonzalez-Colon. This is not the first time this
    Committee has conducted hearings on independence, free
    association, the current status, or statehood. We have more
    than a hundred in the history of this Committee dealing with
    the issue of Puerto Rico. We have hundreds of witnesses in that
    chair explaining, providing even speeches regarding those
    options. The options we are having in this bill are not new.
    They have been discussed for a hundred years, most of them.
        So, saying that this bill is the result of H.R. 2017 and
    H.R. 1522, and those two bills had a lot of public hearings
    here with a lot of people who submitted for the record and
    others that were here as witnesses. This Committee has
    discussed the issue of the colonial situation of the island for
    many, many years. We just want to say that this bill
    specifically did not have a hearing that is one thing. Saying
    that the content of this bill has not been discussed many
    times, a hundred times is a different one. With that, I thank
    the Ranking Member. I yield back.
        Mr. Westerman. Again, I appreciate the gentlelady's passion
    and work. I just know that neither of the two bills that had
    hearings in this Congress had the independence option on them.
    I have only been here almost 8 years, and again, what happens
    in one Congress isn't binding for what happens in another
    Congress. But I know in this Congress, the hearings we have had
    on bills did not include the independence option. I yield back
    to the gentleman from California.
        Mr. Obernolte. I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
        The Chairman. The gentleman yields. Any more----
        Miss Gonzalez-Colon. Mr. Chairman, Jenniffer here. I just
    want to correct one. I said that it was $5 million in balance
    in the Department of Justice for the educational process. I
    need to correct myself. It is a $2.5 million balance in the
    Department of Justice for the educational campaign. I yield
    back.
        The Chairman. Thank you.
        Hearing no further debate on Amendment No. 4, I ask all
    Members who are in favor of the amendment to please indicate by
    saying aye.
        I will now ask all Members opposed to indicate by saying
    no.
        In the opinion of the Chair, the noes have it, and the
    amendment is not agreed to.
        Mr. McClintock. Mr. Chairman, on that question I request
    the yeas and nays.
        The Chairman. The gentleman requests a recorded vote, and
    that is postponed pursuant to the prior announcement.
        Representative McClintock, you have Amendment No. 74. Sir,
    you are recognized for 5 minutes.
        Mr. McClintock. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        A common language is imperative in any democracy because it
    is the means by which citizens debate and discuss the decisions
    that directly affect the life of the nation. Freedom of speech
    is meaningless if citizens cannot talk to each other and
    understand each other. Seventy-six percent of Puerto Ricans,
    according to one recent poll, thought it would be unacceptable
    that English might become their official language. According to
    one survey, about 80 percent of Puerto Ricans cannot speak
    English fluently. As one nation, we have to be able to talk to
    each other. In addition, command of English is essential to
    compete and succeed in an English-speaking country. Puerto
    Rican students already score several grade levels below their
    mainland peers. That problem would only be exacerbated if they
    were granted statehood without assuring that they can fully
    assimilate into American society.
        Language is not addressed in this bill for a simple reason.
    A crucial part of the statehood movement is to assure that
    Spanish would continue as the predominant language of
    government under statehood. Statehood is incompatible with
    separatism. We are either one nation or we are not. The
    admission of Oklahoma, New Mexico, Arizona, and Louisiana all
    came with conditions that schools and government functions be
    conducted in English. Those states were able to deal with that
    perfectly well. Puerto Rico's Federal Representative, the
    Resident Commissioner, is required to be able to read and write
    in English. Why is that? It is because without this
    requirement, she would be entirely isolated from the national
    debate. The same is true of every citizen, which is why we
    require English proficiency as a condition of citizenship.
        With that, I would ask for adoption of the amendment.
        The Chairman. The gentleman yields. Anyone else wish to be
    recognized?
        Mr. Soto.
        Mr. Soto. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to give a
    vision of what the future of Puerto Rico will look like should
    they choose statehood, and you can see it right in my hometown
    in Orlando and Kissimmee in Central Florida where our students,
    regardless of race or background, are learning both English and
    Spanish. They are really being trained to be superior to do
    business and to be professionals throughout the northern and
    southern hemisphere. They are going to be able to do business
    in Northern Canada, across the United States, in Central
    America, in the Caribbean, in South America. So, when we see
    Puerto Rico going forward, you are going to see more and more
    people being able to be speak great English and great Spanish,
    just like Jenniffer Gonzalez-Colon, whose English is far better
    than my Spanish, by the way.
        Although yo trato cada dia.
        So, I think as we are looking at this issue, looking to
    Europe, looking to other areas, we want to embrace not only
    English, but encourage Americans to learn more than one
    language. This will give them economic opportunities throughout
    the world. When people train in the military and in the CIA and
    all these other opportunities, we do everything we can to train
    them in other languages.
        So, I don't view this as Puerto Rico being condemned just
    to speak Spanish. I view this as a future where you are going
    to have bilingual populations just like in Central Florida that
    are going to improve the economic prosperity of our nation and
    finally get more folks to learn several languages for economic
    prosperity and for our ability to maintain our leadership
    across the global stage. And I oppose this amendment.
        The Chairman. Anyone else?
        Miss Gonzalez-Colon. Mr. Chairman?
        The Chairman. Miss Gonzalez-Colon?
        Miss Gonzalez-Colon. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        I oppose this amendment. First, I think this amendment is
    unnecessary. Under current law, English currently is already
    one of Puerto Rico's two official languages, just to make that
    for the record, along with Spanish. And this has been the case
    ever since 1993. This wouldn't change under statehood.
        Moreover, the United States does not have, and has never
    had, an official language at the Federal level. Neither the
    Constitution nor current Federal law designate or mandate an
    official language; nor does the Constitution say that English
    would be the primary language for a territory to become a
    state. Instead, the adoption of an official language, if any,
    is a power reserved to the states under the 10th Amendment.
        In 1978, for instance, Hawaii amended their state
    constitution to recognize both English and Hawaiian as official
    languages. In 2014, Alaska adopted legislation designating 20
    Alaskan Native languages as official languages with English.
    And most recently in 2019, South Dakota recognized an official
    Indigenous language alongside with English.
        Moreover, even though in past Congresses, some tried to
    impose certain language requirements as a condition for
    statehood, it is likely these actions were unconstitutional,
    violating the Equal Footing Doctrine and infringing on state
    sovereignty. And even then, the new states used their powers
    under the 10th Amendment to reject these impositions.
        That was the case with New Mexico. Despite congressional
    attempts to mandate that public education be conducted solely
    in English, the territory of New Mexico drafted a state
    constitution that included provisions protecting the rights of
    the Spanish-speaking population and essentially making Spanish
    an official language equal to English. Those provisions were
    not rejected by Congress and did not prevent New Mexico from
    becoming a state in 1912. Therefore, if each state has the
    power to adopt its official language under the 10th Amendment,
    why should it be any different for Puerto Rico?
        As a Republican, I truly believe in state rights. I truly
    believe that the Federal Government should not be imposing or
    regulating the state's lives. Language is an issue that the
    states need to speak and conduct their business in. In our
    case, since 1993, Spanish and English are the official
    languages of the territory.
        This proposed amendment also fails to recognize that the
    United States is a linguistic diverse nation. Approximately 380
    languages are spoken by U.S. residents, including Spanish,
    which as a matter of fact, is spoken by 41 million people in
    our country. That means that the United States has the second
    largest population of Spanish speakers in the world. According
    to the Census data, 21 percent of the U.S. population speak a
    language different than English at home. And this number is
    significantly higher in a state like California where it stands
    at 43.9 percent, Texas at 35.1 percent, and Florida at 29.4
    percent.
        Of course, I strongly believe that we should improve the
    teaching of the English language. I agree with you on that. And
    in the case of Puerto Rico and across the rest of the nation,
    not just for the island. In fact, I can attest that English
    proficiency has increased among younger generations of the
    island, not because of the Department of Education, but
    particularly thanks to social media. And we must do a better
    job of spreading bilingual education, and I stand ready to work
    with my colleagues on ideas to achieve better English in all
    our states. However, this amendment imposes conditions in
    Puerto Rico that have not been imposed to any other state.
    Interfering with the state's powers under the 10th Amendment is
    not the way to do it.
        Let me conclude by saying that being an American is not
    about where you come from or what language you speak. Each
    state and each community across our country has their own
    identity and culture, but they have shared a set of ideals,
    love, liberty, equality, and justice, that make us all
    Americans. And Puerto Ricans have been proud American citizens
    since 1917. We have been contributing to every facet of
    American life and have stood side by side with our fellow
    citizens in building this country. More than 200 people from
    the island have honorably served our U.S. military and fought
    for their great nation, speaking Spanish in Korea, speaking
    Spanish in Vietnam, speaking Spanish in Iraq, and in any other
    theater of war. Nobody asked them in what language they were
    fighting, because they were fighting for our nation.
        With that, I yield back.
        The Chairman. Anyone else wish to be recognized?
        Ms. Leger Fernandez. Mr. Chair?
        The Chairman. Who seeks recognition?
        Ms. Leger Fernandez. Representative Leger Fernandez.
        The Chairman. Representative, you are recognized.
        Ms. Leger Fernandez. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
        I rise in strong opposition to this amendment, and I thank
    Representative Colon for raising the fact that in New Mexico we
    do have in our constitution the protection of the teaching of
    Spanish as a language. And indeed, in New Mexico we were very
    early on promoting the importance of multiple languages to both
    enhance identity as well as enhance the ability to work in the
    future, and enhance one's identity and cultural affiliation,
    which is a good thing, not a bad thing.
        New Mexico, in 1973, passed the Multicultural Bilingual
    Education Act requiring that home languages, whether it be
    Tewa, Towa, Tiwa, Keres, Apache, Dine Navajo, or Spanish be
    taught in our schools if those languages are spoken at home. In
    New Mexico, we have multiple languages that are spoken by our
    tribes, by our pueblos, by the Navajo Nation, by the Apache
    Nation, as well as the Spanish speakers who have lived in New
    Mexico for 300 to 400 years. And we were not denied statehood
    because of our ability to master more than one language.
    Indeed, we were allowed in.
        I will say that there were many years where we could have
    been allowed in and were not, partially because we did speak
    Spanish here and there was bigotry. But that bigotry eventually
    gave way and we were allowed in in statehood in the 1900s as we
    just heard.
        So, I think that today is--you know, a hundred years ago
    that bigotry existed that prevented New Mexico from entering
    into a statehood because of the fact that we did speak multiple
    languages. And I hope that now a hundred years later that
    bigotry is still in the rearview mirror because this should not
    be a requirement for Puerto Rico to make its own decision about
    what it wants to be. And in the end, this is all about self-
    determination, and that is why I am in such favor of this bill
    and opposed to this amendment.
        Thank you, Mr. Chair. I yield back.
        The Chairman. Is there anymore debate on----
        Mr. Rosendale. Mr. Chair?
        The Chairman. Sir, you are recognized.
        Mr. Rosendale. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
        I support this amendment. While serving in the State
    Legislature in Montana, I supported funding to teach and retain
    Native American languages to make sure that they were
    preserved. But that is not what we are discussing here.
    Throughout the morning, we have heard the cries to treat Puerto
    Rico admission the same as we have other states. Why is it when
    it comes to one of the most important elements which provides
    clearer communication amongst a population and participation in
    this very body that we are going to disregard it? The
    proponents of this legislation continue to pick and choose
    previous provisions for statehood like a menu to accommodate
    their own goals. And that is not what is going to be
    consistent, and that is not what I can return to the people of
    Montana and share with them and show that there has been some
    type of special provision that is put in place. So, again, I
    would like to say that I do support this amendment and I think
    it would work toward making admission, if in fact it was
    accomplished, consistent.
        I yield back. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
        The Chairman. The gentleman yields. Anyone else?
        Ms. McCollum. Mr. Chair? This is McCollum.
        The Chairman. Ms. McCollum, you are recognized.
        Ms. McCollum. I am fully informed and prepared to vote on
    this issue, and I think all of us are. I just want to add two
    caveats to this.
        In Minnesota, when we had people who were refugees that
    came and we knew they were applying for citizenship and passing
    the test and excited about participating, most of our counties
    that knew that we had people who maybe spoke Vietnamese, Laos,
    Somali, Ethiopian, I mean at any one of my schools at any time
    or in the ERs in the Twin Cities, depending upon the day, 7 to
    46 different languages could be spoken. We included voter
    information because we welcomed, we embraced people. We wanted
    to make sure everybody could participate once they were a
    citizen.
        And then the Congress, the U.S. Congress, after the brave
    service of many of the Hmong people helping our servicemen and
    women during the Vietnam War who were refugees over here,
    because there had been no written language originally in Hmong,
    we made accommodations for them to be able to take the
    citizenship test.
        So, folks, we do make accommodations. We do do things. And
    if we want everybody to participate, we should give everybody
    the toolbox to make them fully participate.
        And Mr. Chair, I am going to take back the time, because as
    I said, I am fully informed, and I am prepared to vote. I think
    everyone is.
        I yield back.
        The Chairman. The gentlelady yields. Anyone else?
        I will now ask all Members in favor of the McClintock
    Amendment No. 74, if so to please indicate by saying aye.
        All those Members opposed to the amendment, please indicate
    by saying no.
        In the opinion of the Chair, the noes have it. The noes
    have it.
        The gentleman has requested a recorded vote and it is
    postponed as per prior instructions.
        Representative McClintock, you now are recognized for
    Amendment No. 72.
        Mr. McClintock. Thank you.
        Mr. Chairman, this amendment requires that the plebiscite
    be decided by a two-thirds vote with respect to the state
    status option. We have to understand something. Statehood is
    forever. It is irrevocable. And it shouldn't be decided on a
    slender majority that could shift at any time.
        Here is the record of plebiscites in Puerto Rico. In 1967,
    60.4 percent voted for the commonwealth option, an option that
    is not even allowed to the voters under this bill.
        In 1991, it was proposed, in essence, free association.
    That was defeated 45 to 53.
        In 1993, again, the commonwealth option that has
    specifically denied the people of Puerto Rico under this bill
    received the plurality of the vote at 48.6.
        In 1998, as I mentioned earlier, none of the above, another
    option, not allowed to the people of Puerto Rico under this
    bill. None of the above took 50.3 percent of the vote.
        In 2012, 61.2 percent voted for statehood, but 500,000
    blank ballots were simply ignored by the state government.
        In 2017, 97 percent voted for statehood, but that was only
    because of a boycott by the non-statehood parties, and as I
    said earlier, only a 23 percent turnout in that election.
        And most recently in 2020, with a 53 percent turnout,
    statehood was voted by a slender majority, 52\1/2\ to 47\1/2\
    percent. That is the record of votes in Puerto Rico.
        Now compare that to the votes in Alaska and Hawaii. In
    1958, 84 percent of the voters in Alaska voted in favor of
    admission to the Union. Eighty-four percent.
        In 1959, 94 percent of the voters in Hawaii did the same
    thing. And turnout was exceptionally high in both elections.
        So, admitting a state for all eternity on a slender
    majority sets the stage for civil unrest and even secession if
    a small percentage of the population change their minds.
        The supporters of statehood say there is a mandate, but
    perhaps Senate Democrat Leader Chuck Schumer said it best.
    Asked about the results of the 2020 plebiscites, Schumer said,
    there is no consensus, there is division. That is correct,
    which is precisely why we can't let a simple majority of the
    electorate dictate Puerto Rico's future in a structured vote
    that denies them the options that in the past they have
    supported.
        I yield back.
        The Chairman. The gentleman yields.
        Anyone wish to be recognized on the amendment?
        Miss Gonzalez-Colon. Mr. Chairman?
        The Chairman. Miss Gonzalez-Colon?
        Miss Gonzalez-Colon. Thank you.
        I strongly oppose this amendment. The Puerto Rico Status
    Act already established that the winning status option must
    obtain the majority of the ballot vote cast in the referendum.
    If no option received a majority, the bill requires a run-off
    plebiscite between the two top options. And actually this is
    one of the amendments that we have a lot of differences, Ms.
    Velazquez and I, because I truly understand that we should have
    just a plurality of the vote. They convinced me that in order
    to have a proper plebiscite, we should at least have a majority
    of the vote and that was the provision that was included there.
    And this bill ensures the winning status option is supported by
    a majority of the voters and not just of the plurality.
        In fact, I will argue that the bill already imposes a
    higher electoral threshold to address Puerto Rico's political
    status than most elections throughout the United States,
    including on the island, which typically only requires a
    plurality of the vote to win.
        A super majority vote requirement on the other hand would
    allow a minority to block the will of the majority of the
    voters, no matter how clear or solid that majority may be. It
    also defeats the whole purpose behind this bill, which is to
    resolve once and for all Puerto Rico's political status dilemma
    among constitutionally viable non-territorial options. As a
    statehood supporter, I can also say that imposing a super
    majority vote requirement will also go against precedent and
    lacks both legal and historical basis.
        Article IV, Section 3 of the Constitution which empowers
    Congress to admit new states does not require any kind of
    majority support prior to admission. And Congress has never
    mandated a jurisdiction meet a specific level of electoral
    support to trigger the admission process. So, additionally, all
    that has been needed is a majority of the electorate which
    favors statehood, not a super majority.
        However, of the 37 states that have been admitted into the
    Union, only 17 held any kind of statehood referendum,
    plebiscite, or poll. Of these 17, 10 of those states only held
    one referendum, whereas the remaining 7 held multiple votes.
        In five of those seven states, Maine, Iowa, Wisconsin,
    Oregon, and Washington, statehood was supported by a minority
    of the votes up until the very last election in which a
    majority of the vote was finally obtained.
        And in the cases of Wisconsin, Nebraska, and Colorado,
    Congress even enacted statehood legislation without an
    electoral majority mandate. In these three territories,
    Congress acted even though the results of the last status
    referendum showed that at least more than 50 percent of the
    citizens in those areas voted against admission.
        So, you get facts here about admitting states. And this all
    goes to show that a super majority has never been a requirement
    for statehood. Why should it be any different in the case of
    Puerto Rico?
        Without speaking for any of the other bill sponsors, I can
    say that I am confident that once this bill is enacted, the
    people of Puerto Rico would overwhelmingly ratify their desire
    for full equality with our fellow Americans in the 50 states.
    As we previously expressed in 2012, 2017, and 2020, and of
    course people who lost those plebiscites are going to be
    speaking against it. And that is a reality. The last plebiscite
    was held in conjunction with general elections on the island,
    and it was not a 55 percent participation. It was more than 65
    percent of participation in that poll, because, if you are not
    aware, in the case of Puerto Rico our main sport is politics.
    And that means the people love to participate in the debates on
    the island and they go to the primaries in a higher percent
    than any other state.
        Having said that, and we previously expressed in those
    referendums and the level of support, statehood is increasing
    dramatically, as it happened in Hawaii, as it happened in
    Alaska, after Congress enacted their admission act. By imposing
    a super majority vote requirement would be unfair and
    unprecedented as I just explained it, and that is the reason I
    oppose this amendment.
        I will say thank you, and I yield back.
        The Chairman. The gentlelady yields back.
        Are the Members prepared to vote? Any further debate?
    Because they have called votes and after this voice vote on Mr.
    McClintock's amendment, I will recess to deal with the vote
    series and then reconvene immediately thereafter.
        If there is no further debate, the question is on
    McClintock Amendment No. 72.
        All those in favor, please indicate by saying aye.
        All those opposed, no.
        In the opinion of the Chair, the noes have it.
        The gentleman has requested a recorded vote, and that is
    postponed pursuant to prior announcement.
        With that, we will be in recess and the staff will provide
    your offices with an update about timing. So, the Committee is
    now in recess subject to the call of the Chair.
        [Recess.]
        The Chairman. Let me now turn to the Ranking Member, Mr.
    Westerman, you have an Amendment No. 7, sir. You are
    recognized.
        Mr. Westerman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Several provisions
    in Titles I and II of this bill would place requirements on
    what would be the new sovereign nation of Puerto Rico. This
    amendment would strike these provisions as they would not be
    enforceable. There is no U.S. court that would or could ever
    enforce provisions in this bill that propose to dictate to a
    new nation how it should structure its new government. The U.S.
    Congress cannot demand that a foreign government hold a
    Constitutional Convention or dictate that they should have a
    Constitution, let alone that would be included in it, or what
    would be included in it, or even require a new nation to join a
    joint transition committee.
        Those are decisions for the people of the new sovereign
    nation to make, not the U.S. Congress. If Puerto Rico voters
    choose independence, that is saying they do not want to be a
    part of the U.S. Federal system, or have the U.S. Congress
    determining what they should be doing as a sovereign nation
    moving forward. The voters of Puerto Rico should understand
    that forging a new nation is not something that can be
    legislated from Congress, it is the work of the nation's
    people. These provisions have no enforceability, and should be
    stricken from the bill. I urge support of my amendment, and I
    yield back.
        The Chairman. Thank you. The gentleman yields. Anyone else
    wish to be recognized on Mr. Westerman's amendment?
        Ms. Velazquez. Mr. Chairman?
        The Chairman. Ms. Velazquez, you are recognized.
        Ms. Velazquez. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. What this amendment
    is trying to achieve is denying Puerto Rico's inalienable right
    to form its own constitutional government if the people were to
    choose independence as an option. The United States cannot deny
    this right to any country. We cannot call ourselves the beacon
    of democracy while at the same time denying Puerto Rico's right
    to be an independent nation under international law. This
    amendment intends to set up for failure the option of
    independence, and I will never agree to that. I oppose this
    amendment, and I yield back.
        The Chairman. The gentlelady yields. Anyone else wish to be
    recognized? Hearing no further debate, the question is on Mr.
    Westerman Amendment No. 7.
        All those Members in favor of the amendment, please
    indicate by saying aye.
        All those Members opposed to the amendment, indicate by
    saying no.
        In the opinion of the Chair, the noes have it, and the
    amendment is not agreed to.
        Mr. Westerman. Mr. Chairman, I request the yeas and nays.
        The Chairman. Mr. Westerman having requested a recorded
    vote, that is postponed pursuant to prior announcement. Mr.
    Westerman, you have an amendment designated No. 2, and again,
    you are recognized for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Westerman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This amendment
    would strike provisions of the bill that require continued U.S.
    payments to the newly created foreign government of Puerto Rico
    if the voters choose either independence or free association.
        If the people of Puerto Rico vote for independence, that
    means they are rejecting access to the U.S. Federal system, our
    laws, and our resources. Any foreign aid provided from the
    United States to Puerto Rico following its establishment as a
    sovereign nation is a question of international diplomacy to be
    negotiated between the governments of the United States and
    Puerto Rico, and then approved by Congress.
        U.S. taxpayers should not be responsible for sustaining the
    benefits of U.S. programs to Puerto Rico if the people of
    Puerto Rico choose to separate themselves from the United
    States. I'll note that foreign aid is not in the jurisdiction
    of this Committee, which is essentially what these block grant
    payments would be.
        Any foreign aid to a new nation should be negotiated with
    the United States, recommended by the Federal agencies charged
    with this task, such as the Department of State, and the U.S.
    Agency for International Development, and considered by the
    congressional committees with the jurisdiction and expertise to
    effectively analyze the issue. If the people of Puerto Rico
    vote for sovereignty in free association, that is still a vote
    for separating from the United States. The United States has
    always negotiated compacts with nations in free association.
        The terms of those compacts for economic payments, common
    defense provisions, and travel and work authorizations, have
    always resulted from a bilateral process between the United
    States and the freely associated state. We cannot bind the
    outcomes of international negotiations and agreements with a
    sovereign state before such agreements have been negotiated.
    And we certainly cannot bind a new foreign government through
    U.S. legislation. This is definitely putting the cart before
    the horse. I urge support of my amendment, and I yield back.
        The Chairman. The gentleman yields. Anyone else?
        Ms. Velazquez. Mr. Chairman?
        The Chairman. The gentlelady is recognized.
        Ms. Velazquez. Thank you. In the 1950s, low-income Puerto
    Rican women were used as guinea pigs to test the now widely
    used birth control pill. As Professor Gabriela Soto Laveaga
    from Harvard once said, because of its semi-colonial status
    with the United States, the ability to test on these women's
    bodies seemed like these territories are an extension of us.
    And from 1956 to 1957 and from 1966 to 1968, Puerto Rico was
    home to the storage and testing of the Agent Orange. Military
    practices in the island of Vieques and Culebra that have
    destroyed part of the ecosystem, and what about the Ponce
    Massacre in 1937?
        I could go on and on throughout the decades citing the
    abuse and neglect that the United States has inflicted upon the
    island, but let's focus on recent memory. In 2017, the failure
    and indifference of the Federal Government resulted in more
    than 5,000 Puerto Ricans dying in the aftermath of Hurricane
    Maria, ensuring a transfer of block grants and other Federal
    allocations under the independence and free association options
    is quite literally the bare minimum. If we want to get serious
    about righting the wrongs of colonial rule, we would openly be
    discussing reparations.
        What this bill aims to accomplish, or this amendment, is to
    give Puerto Ricans, if they choose independence or free
    association, the tools and timetable to transition to
    international sovereignty by standing on their own two feet. I
    strongly oppose this amendment, and I urge Members to vote no.
    I yield back.
        The Chairman. The gentlelady yields. Anyone else? Hearing
    no further no debate, the question is now on the Westerman
    Amendment No. 2.
        Again, all those Members in favor of the amendment, please
    indicate by saying aye.
        All those Members opposed, please indicate by saying no.
        In the opinion of the Chair, the noes have it, and the
    amendment is not agreed to.
        Mr. Westerman. I request the yeas and nays.
        The Chairman. The gentleman has requested a recorded vote,
    postponed as per previous announcement. Representative Tiffany,
    you have an amendment designated No. 10, sir, and you are
    recognized.
        Mr. Tiffany. OK. This is Amendment No. 10?
        The Chairman. Yes.
        Mr. Tiffany. OK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My amendment
    would remove the travel and work authorization provisions
    should Puerto Rico choose to implement either the status of
    independence or sovereignty in free association. From what I
    read in the bill, citizens of a new nation of Puerto Rico will
    be able to travel and work in the United States for either a
    set period of 25 years under the independence option, or for
    the duration of the first articles of free association under
    the free association status option.
        That seems like special terms for a foreign nation that
    should go through a vetting process with the State Department,
    and maybe the Department of Homeland Security. At the very
    least, this Committee and other committees with jurisdiction
    over immigration and work authorization should be given the
    option to understand the provisions and figure out what the
    implications would be. From where I sit, if the people of
    Puerto Rico want to be independent, then that means there is no
    special treatment and no special benefits from the U.S. Federal
    system. That includes for travel and work authorizations.
        And if a new nation of Puerto Rico chooses to be a freely
    associated state, then travel and work authorizations would
    presumably be able to be negotiated through a bilateral
    process, as the other freely associated states have done. Any
    choice by the people of Puerto Rico for independence or
    sovereignty in free association should start them on the same
    playing field as a foreign nation, and then they get to
    negotiate with the United States.
        We should not be hampering possible future negotiations the
    United States may have to engage in with a possibly new foreign
    country, even with one that has a historical connection to the
    United States. The people of Puerto Rico should know that
    choosing to be their own sovereign nation means there are
    changes in how people can travel between the United States and
    Puerto Rico. I urge my colleagues to support my amendment, and
    I yield back, Mr. Chair.
        The Chairman. The gentleman yields. Any other Member wish
    to be recognized on Mr. Tiffany's Amendment No. 10?
        Ms. Velazquez. Mr. Chairman?
        The Chairman. The gentlelady is recognized.
        Ms. Velazquez. Thank you. The provision that Mr. Tiffany
    intends to strike was heavily negotiated in a bipartisan
    fashion. Allowing Puerto Rican citizens to work and travel
    freely between Puerto Rico and the United States is an
    agreement that the United States already has in place with
    places like Palau, which as this Committee knows, currently has
    a compact of free association with the United States.
        With this provision, we will not be reinventing the wheel,
    and as I have previously stated throughout this markup, this is
    one of the many provisions to right the wrongs that Puerto Rico
    has been subjected to. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
        The Chairman. The gentlelady yields. Anyone else? Hearing
    no further debate, the question is on Tiffany Amendment No. 10.
        All those Members in favor of the amendment, please
    indicate by saying aye.
        Thank you. All those Members opposed, please indicate by
    saying no.
        In the opinion of the Chair, the noes have it, and the
    amendment is not agreed to.
        Mr. Tiffany. Mr. Chairman, may we have a recorded vote?
        The Chairman. The gentleman has requested a recorded vote,
    and that is postponed pursuant to the prior announcement made.
    Representative Tiffany, you have Amendment No. 9, and once
    again, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Tiffany. Thank you. This amendment would strike the
    citizenship transition period should the residents of Puerto
    Rico choose the free association option through the plebiscite
    authorized by this bill.
        From what I understand, this section creates an exception
    to the previous subsection that stops the extension of U.S.
    citizenship to children born in Puerto Rico to at least one
    parent who was made a U.S. citizen under Section 302 of the
    Immigration and Nationality Act after independence is declared.
        During a transition period thats only limit is the duration
    of the first articles of free association, U.S. citizenship is
    extended to some children born in a new nation of Puerto Rico,
    but only if they have two parents who are both U.S. citizens as
    long as one of which has had the required residency in the
    United States under Section 301, Subsection C of the
    Immigration and Nationality Act. Is that not already the case
    in our immigration law? And if this bill changes that, why does
    only this status option have a ``transition period''? Why isn't
    there also a transition period in Title I? Perhaps the Chair
    could explain this in the bill.
        I would like these questions answered. I think this further
    reinforces why this bill should have a hearing in this
    Committee, and I'd like to see other committees with
    jurisdiction over immigration, tax policy, and entitlements, to
    name a few to have input on this bill. As a member of the
    Judiciary Committee, I think it is critical for their analysis
    as well. It is a messy proposition for a U.S. territory where
    all persons are born U.S. citizens under Section 302 of the
    Immigration and Nationality Act to achieve independence, and
    then figure out the mechanics of what happens with the granting
    of U.S. citizenship. We should know what the effect of these
    sections will be before we vote on this bill.
        From where I sit, if the people of Puerto Rico want to be
    independent, then that means there is no special treatment and
    no special benefits from the U.S. Federal system, and Puerto
    Rico should not get a special transition time just because they
    may choose sovereignty in free association with the United
    States rather than just independence.
        All the other freely associated states went through
    bilateral negotiations with the United States to determine what
    economic benefits, defense provisions, and travel and work
    authorizations they would have, and none of them were granted
    the U.S. citizen status to their residence. We need to make
    sure that it isn't happening here without full vetting from the
    committee of jurisdiction. I urge my colleagues to support the
    amendment, and I yield back.
        The Chairman. The gentleman yields. Anyone wish to have
    further discussion on Mr. Tiffany's amendment?
        Ms. Velazquez. Mr. Chairman?
        The Chairman. Ms. Velazquez.
        Ms. Velazquez. Thank you. May I remind this Committee and
    the gentleman, Mr. Tiffany, that in the Supreme Court case of
    Afroyim v. Rusk, a U.S. citizen cannot lose his or her
    citizenship unless they are willing to surrender it. So, it
    means we cannot take it away. Puerto Rico currently has 3.5
    million citizens who will retain their citizenship under the
    articles of free association. More importantly, ensuring that
    citizenship rights can be transferrable for deliberation of the
    articles of free association was an integral part of this
    negotiation.
        After 123 years of colonialism, the bare minimum the United
    States can do for Puerto Ricans is to ensure citizenship is
    guaranteed if Puerto Rico chooses to vote for free association.
    In that event, it will be the first time in history that the
    United States enters a relationship with a territory where all
    its inhabitants are currently U.S. citizens. I cannot support
    this amendment, and I ask the members of the Committee to vote
    no.
        I yield back.
        The Chairman. The gentlelady yields. Anyone else wish to be
    recognized?
        Mr. Westerman. Mr. Chairman?
        The Chairman. Mr. Westerman.
        Mr. Westerman. Mr. Chairman, the option in here for
    independence is unprecedented. If it were to be chosen, it
    would be the first time in history where American citizens have
    voted to form a country that is not part of America anymore.
    And nobody--I don't think--Mr. Tiffany, I don't want to put
    words in his mouth, but I don't think he said we are taking
    citizenship away from anybody. The way the language is written
    is it allows a transition period where people who are born in
    Puerto Rico become U.S. citizens, and they wouldn't even have
    to have U.S. citizen parents for that to happen.
        So, I support Mr. Tiffany's amendment because in the event
    that the U.S. citizens of Puerto Rico were to choose
    sovereignty in free association, this amendment would remove
    the provision contained in the bill that would provide a
    transition period. That is what we are talking about. The
    transition period for those born in the new nation of Puerto
    Rico under certain circumstances. The United States has laws
    that determine how citizenship is granted. Extending U.S.
    citizenship to those born in a sovereign-foreign nation to non-
    U.S. citizens is, like I said, unprecedented.
        If free association is chosen, there should be no
    transition period that allows for U.S. citizenship to be
    extended to individuals born to non-U.S. citizens. This is
    consistent with the other freely associated states where U.S.
    citizenship is not granted to residents and benefits are
    negotiated through compact. The people of Puerto Rico should
    understand what choosing independence or sovereignty entails.
    That is separation from the U.S. Federal systems and their
    related benefits. I support this amendment, and I yield my
    remaining time to the gentleman from Wisconsin.
        Mr. Tiffany. I thank the Ranking Member for the time. First
    of all, I'd like to associate myself with his remarks, and I
    would just also add the process question here. I sit on the
    Judiciary Committee. There needed to be a better vetting in
    regards to this bill, a more comprehensive vetting in regards
    to this issue to make sure that everything is sorted out, and I
    think that is part of the reason these questions are coming up
    here, is once again, the bill being pushed through that has not
    had that complete vetting, and that is unfortunate, and I yield
    back my time to the gentleman from Arkansas.
        Mr. Westerman. I yield back the balance of my time.
        The Chairman. Thank you. The gentleman yields. Anyone else
    wish to have any comments on Mr. Tiffany's No. 9? Ms.
    Stansbury? Thank you.
        Ms. Stansbury. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I stand this
    morning in strong opposition to this amendment, and this entire
    debate about citizenship. It is clear the Puerto Rican people
    are citizens of the United States, and I've been actually
    shocked by much of the discussion this morning. As a New
    Mexican, I want to say unequivocally that I stand with Puerto
    Rico and the Puerto Rican people in their right for statehood,
    self-determination, and their ability to determine their own
    future, their economy, and their political status. Puerto
    Ricans have fought for our military and died. They pay their
    Federal taxes but do not have the ability to have their voices
    heard.
        This is not democracy, and this is unjust. Our Congress,
    this Committee, have a responsibility to act now to join the
    Puerto Rican people in supporting their efforts to choose their
    own future, and this bill will create the pathway to make that
    happen, and this amendment is, I believe, antagonistic to that
    effort.
        As a New Mexican, I stand in full support of this bill. Our
    own state faced the same struggle for over 60 years after the
    treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo was signed between the United
    States and Mexico in 1848, New Mexicans sought statehood for
    over six decades, and the same debates that are being had in
    this Committee this morning on citizenship, on language, on
    culture, on history, were heard in the U.S. House of
    Representatives for 60 years before New Mexico was granted the
    ability to become a U.S. state. So, I am shocked to sit here
    today and hear this debate. Our people were left in limbo for
    generations relegated to territorial status as their lands,
    their waters, and their resources were open for development,
    and our communities were unable to have their voices heard.
        So, I stand in strong support and strong solidarity. This
    bill is long overdue. I want to thank the Chairman and
    congratulate Representatives Velazquez, Soto, and Resident
    Commissioner Gonzalez-Colon for your incredible leadership and
    congratulate you on coming together to create this bill, and I
    want the Puerto Rican people to know that as a New Mexican, I
    stand in solidarity with your fight and will be here to the
    end.
        The Chairman. The gentlelady yields. Anyone else wish to be
    recognized?
        Mr. Rosendale. Mr. Chair?
        The Chairman. Sir, you are recognized.
        Mr. Rosendale. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Again, I think that
    every one of these amendments goes to the simple fact that this
    piece of legislation was not vetted before it was brought
    before this Committee for markup today, and that is why so many
    of these Members on our side of the aisle are bringing these
    amendments up, because there are all these outstanding
    questions, and we don't have the answers to them, and we are
    not getting those answers today.
        Again, I hear a bunch of explanations about why we should
    ignore the process with which a state is considered or brought
    into the Union, but I'm not hearing a lot of good, solid
    reasons why we should be ignoring this. With that, I would like
    to yield the balance of my time to my good friend from
    Wisconsin, Mr. Tiffany.
        Mr. Tiffany. Mr. Chairman, it is disappointing that the
    gentlelady from New Mexico left, because I was going to yield
    time to her for her to share with us what was the process that
    New Mexico went through? How many committees of jurisdiction
    reviewed this? What was that process? Because it is the first
    that I realized that New Mexico took 60 years, and perhaps you
    know that answer, and I would certainly yield time to you, Mr.
    Chairman, or anyone else on the Committee if they know the
    answer to that, what was the process in New Mexico? How many
    committees? Did the Judiciary Committee hear this? Did various
    other committees review this through the process of creating
    the state of New Mexico?
        It is not easy to become a state of the United States of
    America, but it is also not impossible, and there have to be
    strong processes put in place. There are good people in Puerto
    Rico, but you have to go through the processes in order to be
    able to make that happen and be able to answer the questions.
    So, I'll yield back to the gentleman from Montana.
        Mr. Rosendale. Thank you, Representative Tiffany, and
    again, Mr. Chair, while you do not like the word of just
    eliminating or forgiving the debt, I know a lot of the people
    in this room would like to call the restructuring of that debt
    something different, but when I look at the taxpayers across
    the United States, and more specifically, the ones in Montana,
    when we start talking about absorbing in some form or fashion
    that debt, I just was directed to come up here and oppose that.
    So, with those final words, I would yield the balance of my
    time.
        The Chairman. The gentleman yields. Anyone else wish to be
    recognized?
        Ms. McCollum. Mr. Chair?
        The Chairman. Ms. McCollum, you are recognized.
        Ms. McCollum. I just want to make one comment. After the
    hurricane swept through in Puerto Rico, I went down there with
    a delegation to do some oversight. We would never have allowed
    the devastation and the continued lack of support that Puerto
    Rico received, that I and my constituents saw firsthand, in any
    of our states. We wouldn't have allowed it. There's still
    repair work that needs to be done. This is a big factor into
    why Puerto Rico is still struggling to get right. We had
    hearings, we did all kinds of issues on restructuring the
    Puerto Rican debt and everything that was going on down there,
    and we didn't do it in a way that solved the problem.
        That is why Puerto Rico needs to be having this opportunity
    to vote, having this opportunity to get out from underneath the
    U.S. Congress not being supportive of Puerto Rico in the way
    that we should with our fellow citizens, and continuing Puerto
    Rico not to be able to be sufficient enough with what we should
    be doing in Puerto Rico with our fellow citizens so that they
    can get out from underneath this debt.
        So, we've been talking about debt all day. We've been
    talking about second languages and everything all day. Mr.
    Chair, I won't speak again on this, because we've heard all
    these arguments since this morning, and once again, I am fully
    informed, and I am prepared to vote, Mr. Chair. I hope we can
    be moving on. Thank you.
        The Chairman. The gentlelady yields. Anyone else wish to be
    recognized on the Amendment No. 9?
        If not, I will ask all those Members in favor of the
    amendment to indicate that by saying aye.
        All those Members opposed to the amendment, please indicate
    by saying no.
        In the opinion of the Chair, the noes have it, and the
    amendment is not agreed to.
        Mr. Tiffany. Mr. Chairman, may we have a recorded vote on
    Amendment No. 9?
        The Chairman. The gentleman requests a recorded vote on his
    amendment, and it will be postponed as per prior announcement.
    Representative Hice, you have an amendment designated No. 45,
    and you are recognized for 5 minutes.
        Dr. Hice. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and I
    apologize for not being able to be there this afternoon in
    person. I have multiple plates that we are spinning here. But
    listen, I want to reiterate what was just stated yet again,
    that we've spent a lot of time today talking about the process
    of this bill, but that is important because the process
    matters. It matters a great deal. We have had zero hearings
    about this bill, and as Mr. Tiffany just brought up so
    eloquently, becoming a state of the United States should be and
    is a process.
        It is not something that happens when a bill is dropped on
    Friday, and we are supposed to vote on it on Wednesday. That is
    not the process. This is the only committee that this bill has
    been assigned to at this point, and we have not even had a
    hearing on it, and there are just a great deal of concerns, and
    I'm sure you are aware of those at this point, but this bill
    does not even give an option for those in Puerto Rico who
    support remaining a territory.
        This bill does not have the support of the Speaker of the
    House of Puerto Rico. It does not have the support of the
    President of the Senate in Puerto Rico, and why we are coming
    here behind this with such a rush and with such vigor is a bit
    concerning to me. Regarding specifically the amendment--my
    first amendment here--it would require that the government of
    Puerto Rico does not accept any funds from China if Puerto Rico
    chooses independence or free association. The thinking here in
    the bottom line is just to try to make sure that the United
    States keeps China out of our sphere of influence.
        At this particular time, I believe that is extremely
    critical to our nation's national security, and we need to do
    everything we can to ensure that Chinese influence does not
    gain greater traction. So, this bill just basically would
    prevent China from paying off the debts of Puerto Rico, and
    thereby getting a foot in the door, and I would urge my
    colleagues on both sides to support this amendment. I yield
    back.
        Ms. Velazquez. Will the gentleman yield?
        Dr. Hice. Sure. Yes, I do yield, but if the Chairman will
    allow.
        The Chairman. You have 2 minutes, sir. Do you yield? That
    is fine.
        Ms. Velazquez. I just have a question, an inquiry. Why just
    China and not adding Russia?
        Dr. Hice. That is a good point, and I would agree with you
    on that. This is something that I believe we need to debate and
    discuss. Certainly, China right now is having a huge movement
    globally, and that is why I specifically mentioned China, but I
    fully agree with you, Russia's involvement here, likewise, I
    believe needs to be considered and prevented. I would be happy
    to work with the gentlewoman to include Russia.
        The Chairman. Any other Member wish to address the
    amendment?
        Mr. Rosendale. Mr. Chair?
        The Chairman. The gentleman is recognized.
        Mr. Rosendale. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Mr. Chair, I rise in
    support of the amendment. The United States should not allow
    the territory to hastily vanquish its current status and assume
    autonomy only to see it venture from a U.S. friendly territory
    to a sovereign that is financially beholden to an economic and
    military threat like China, and I would be more than glad to
    work with the amendment sponsor, Representative Hice, and the
    other side of the aisle, Ms. Velazquez to make sure that we do
    add Russia so that we can accomplish that.
        To be beholden to an economic and military threat is quite
    problematic. The United States must have assurances that this
    isn't going to take place. Furthermore, this would send a clear
    message to Latin America that the United States remains
    vigilant to the threat of China and communism. The recent
    election of Leftist Gustavo Pedro in Colombia adds another
    country to China's influence in Latin America. China has been
    investing heavily in Central and South America for years with
    offers on economic trade, infrastructure programs, and loans
    from its banks, and we do not need to see them spread their
    tentacles into other areas. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I yield back.
        The Chairman. Does anyone else wish to be recognized?
    Hearing no further discussion on the amendment, the question is
    on the amendment.
        All Members in favor, please indicate by saying aye.
        All Members opposed, please indicate by saying no.
        In the opinion of the Chair, the noes have it, and the
    amendment is not agreed to.
        Dr. Hice. Mr. Chairman, request the yeas and nays please,
    sir.
        The Chairman. A recorded vote has been requested, and that
    is postponed pursuant to the prior announcement. Representative
    Hice, you have Amendment No. 46 now, and you are recognized for
    5 minutes.
        Dr. Hice. OK. Can you hear me?
        The Chairman. Yes.
        Dr. Hice. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This second amendment
    also deals with our national security and would require all of
    the United States national security assets to be maintained in
    Puerto Rico if it votes for independence. We have a number of
    bases in Puerto Rico. We have Fort Buchanan; Camp Santiago, an
    Army Base; we have Fort Allen, an Army Base; Coast Guard Air
    Station Borinquen; we have Coast Guard Station San Juan; and
    any other assets that the Secretary of Defense or Homeland
    Security believes is necessary. We just need to make sure that
    these remain U.S. bases and that we maintain them.
        So, this amendment would protect our military investments
    that we have in Puerto Rico. The bases in question offer
    important strategic advantages for our armed services. The
    Coast Guard bases are key for timely responses to incidents
    that happen throughout the area, and obviously these bases
    provide strategic needs for the area of protection from others
    abroad. So, it is important that we address our military assets
    in Puerto Rico, and I would encourage, again, my colleagues on
    both sides of the aisle to support this amendment.
        The Chairman. The gentleman yields back. Anybody wish to be
    recognized? Let me recognize myself on this one. I oppose the
    amendment and urge a no vote. The underlining bill already
    protects U.S. national interests, including national security
    through the Commission, which will resolve these issues.
        If the voters of Puerto Rico choose independence, U.S.
    military assets such as equipment would continue to belong to
    the United States. Now, to the extent that this amendment
    requires that the United States gets to maintain military
    infrastructure or bases in an independent Puerto Rico, I
    believe that is inappropriate. It should be up to the nation of
    Puerto Rico whether they want to, if they chose to be--whether
    they want to let the United States continue operating military
    bases on their land, just like many of our allies do. This
    amendment is punitive.
        This requirement should not be preconditioned to Puerto
    Rico if their voters choose independence. And like I said,
    there are three options in front of the Puerto Rican voters,
    but this one effectively punishes one of those options by
    making it a requirement that cuts at the very heart of what
    independent and self-determination would mean if that was the
    choice. I urge my colleagues to vote no and reject Amendment
    No. 46.
        Anyone else want to enter into a discussion on this
    amendment? Hearing no further debate----
        Mr. Rosendale. Mr. Chair, I will, if no one else is going
    to speak.
        The Chairman. You are recognized.
        Mr. Rosendale. Thank you very much. I think this, again,
    goes directly to the heart of this entire conversation, and
    that is we are going to be put in a position where we could be
    forced to have negotiations with a country after they have
    voted for their own independence.
        And with your newly acquired legal experience that you were
    proclaiming earlier today, I would say that while I appreciate
    it, I don't know that I want to place our nation's security in
    jeopardy because of it.
        I mean, Puerto Rico could literally vote, because it is one
    of the options, to claim their own independence, complete
    independence from the United States, and then we would be put
    in a position where we would have to start negotiating about
    the terms and conditions of bases and the ownership thereof,
    instead of addressing that right now. And that could be very,
    very problematic.
        I have negotiated many, many contracts over my years, and I
    can tell you, if the deal has already been struck prior to
    beginning those negotiations, it is problematic. That is like
    entering into a contract, signing it, and then going back to
    your legal counsel and asking them what they think about it.
        Legal counsel can no longer modify that contract once it
    has been signed, once it has been entered into, once all of the
    parties have executed it. And by signing off on this
    legislation without making the determination about how those
    properties and those possessions will be handled, then we very
    easily could be turning those over to an independent state.
        I yield back.
        Dr. Hice. Would the gentleman yield?
        The Chairman. The gentleman yielded back. Who seeks
    recognition?
        Dr. Hice. This is Mr. Hice.
        Mr. Rosendale. I would yield to Mr. Hice, if the Chair
    would allow.
        The Chairman. But you already yielded back, sir. I am
    sorry.
        Mr. Rosendale. OK. Thank you.
        The Chairman. You are welcome.
        Any further discussion on Amendment No. 46, Mr. Hice's
    amendment?
        All Members in support of the amendment, please indicate by
    saying aye.
        All those Members opposed to the Hice amendment, please
    indicate by saying no.
        In the opinion of the Chair, the noes have it, and the
    amendment is not agreed to.
        Dr. Hice. Request yeas and nays, please.
        The Chairman. Mr. Hice would request a recorded vote, I am
    assuming?
        Dr. Hice. That is correct. Yes, sir.
        The Chairman. OK. That is postponed based on prior notice.
        Now we go to--Representative Hice, you have an amendment
    designated No. 47, and you are recognized for 5 minutes.
        Dr. Hice. Thank you. Yes. There has been a lot of
    discussion today about paying back the debts, and that is what
    this amendment would do specifically. Look, we need to make
    sure that we are taking steps to ensure that we are fiscally
    responsible in this country, and that would include if we are
    bringing in another state into the Union. It would be totally
    irresponsible to admit a state into the Union with the current
    financial status that Puerto Rico has.
        And I just believe that before any action is taken on
    behalf of Puerto Rico, the government there needs to prove that
    it has solved these issues and dealt with the debt that they
    are carrying. No other state--in my research--ever that became
    a state of this great country was in such poor financial
    condition before being admitted into this Union.
        And, look, I was there years ago when we were dealing with
    PROMESA as well, and there is no question in my mind that
    Puerto Rico has made some steps toward trying to become
    financially sound. But there are still many steps left to be
    taken. And the Commonwealth there, the government, quite
    frankly has a long record of problems that have negatively
    impacted Puerto Ricans and their future successes.
        So, look, PROMESA we got through in 2016, but we have to
    make sure that debts are dealt with and that Puerto Rico is
    financially sound. After 6 years now of PROMESA, they still
    have not completed the debt restructuring. It is still an
    incomplete process. There is a lot of work yet to be done in
    this regard, and I believe it is not only fiscally responsible
    but our duty in protecting the entrusted taxpayer funds of this
    nation to make sure that Puerto Rico's debts are paid in full
    before statehood is ever allowed.
        And with that, I will yield back.
        The Chairman. Anyone want to speak to the amendment?
        Mr. Bentz. Yes, Mr. Chair.
        The Chairman. The gentleman is recognized.
        Mr. Bentz. Mr. Chair, as I listened with great interest to
    the debate today, and as an attorney who has worked on any
    number of complex litigation and complex commercial
    transactions, I view that which I am looking at with a great
    deal of skepticism.
        This is not to understate the significant efforts taken by
    those who have testified in support of the bill. I appreciate
    the need to do something clear and final when it comes to
    Puerto Rico. I get it. But as a lawyer who has spent huge
    amounts of time on matters dramatically smaller than this one,
    I am astounded at the lack of clarity as to many of the issues
    that we see on the face of the bill and the literally hundreds
    of others that do not appear here. And some of them are being
    raised, as with Mr. Hice's Amendment No. 47--a good amendment
    and one that certainly needs attention, not unlike the one we
    just finished discussing--a good amendment and one that needs
    attention.
        In my law practice, we have checklists. I don't really have
    one for creating a state out of a territory, but I am going to
    guess it is pages long. And I wonder what was used to put this
    particular document together.
        It is shocking to me that we would be looking at something
    so important and so incredibly challenging on such short
    notice. It is a slap in the face to the people of Puerto Rico,
    and I mean it. And I am not a person of Puerto Rican descent.
        I have every inclination to try to help the folks there
    reach a solution, but when I hear constant references to
    reparations as kind of a threat to make us support this bill, I
    ask, where do reparations appear? Are they addressed here? Or
    are they merely to be held out there as something that could be
    brought into play when the time serves, or something to justify
    that which is not already in the bill because, well,
    reparation.
        This is not to say that there were not things bad that
    happened. There were. There are. But the question is, why
    aren't they addressed here as opposed to merely vague
    references?
        If you are going to do this, you should be doing it right.
    And I am not saying that you shouldn't be doing it. Of course,
    this issue deserves attention, but it deserves the type and
    quality of attention that a transfer of 3 million people and an
    incredible history that goes with it--we have heard bits and
    pieces of it throughout the last several hours.
        What I am trying to say here is, as I have said about many
    other things since I joined this august group of Congressfolk a
    year and some half ago, let's do it right. And I do not want to
    understate the work that you folks have already done. I
    appreciate it. But it reminds me of when people came into my
    law office with a document that they had put together, and I
    would say, ``This is a great start.''
        But if we are serious about doing something that is going
    to stick, then it needs to be done with a great deal more
    attention, not just to the amendment that I initiated regarding
    that I urge support of the amendment.
        And I yield my time, to the extent there is any left, back.
        The Chairman. The gentleman yields back. Is there any
    further discussion on the amendment?
        Miss Gonzalez-Colon. Mr. Chairman?
        The Chairman. The gentlelady is recognized.
        Miss Gonzalez-Colon. Thank you. I strongly oppose this
    amendment. This is proposing to impose Puerto Rico a burdensome
    hurdle that has not been required for any other territory, and
    it also delays the implementation of this legislation.
    Requiring the payment in full of all debt on the date of
    enactment, before any action can be taken, not even a vote, is
    a condition that has never been imposed on any territory. Why
    should Puerto Rico be different to that?
        If the people of Puerto Rico choose statehood, the
    legislation already provides that all debts and obligations of
    the territory, and any judgments and settlements to which the
    territory is part, will become those of the new state. There is
    clearly that language in the bill.
        Puerto Rico is already paying the debt. In the plan of
    adjustment approved before the Court earlier this year,
    bondholders and the territory have settled already on a
    reduction of outstanding debt from $70 billion to $34 billion.
    And this includes general obligation debt, public building
    debt, retirement system bond, sales tax obligation, and water
    authority bonds.
        Power authority and highway authority bonds are now in
    negotiation as we speak, and debt service has gone down from 25
    percent of yearly revenues to 6 percent of yearly revenues as
    well. And for the second consecutive year, Puerto Rico has
    passed a fully balanced budget, and the government of Puerto
    Rico has enacted legislation that enables the plan of
    adjustment.
        A few minutes ago--I think it was another amendment--some
    people were saying that this bill does not reflect the views of
    the Speaker of the House in Puerto Rico or the President of the
    Senate. Let's make some data clear for the people that are here
    in the committee room. Statehood--let's say the Speaker of the
    House in Puerto Rico was selected in the last election by
    12,000 votes--and, actually, the Speaker of the House is the
    Biden campaign chair, just to let that be known on the island.
    And the Senate President of Puerto Rico was elected by 71,000
    votes: 71,000 people in Puerto Rico voted for the Senate
    President and 12,000 people voted for the Speaker of the House.
        A total of 427,000 people voted for the Governor of Puerto
    Rico, who is supporting this bill, and 512,000 people voted for
    me, and I do represent the people of Puerto Rico in this
    Congress, and I have been elected twice now because of this
    same issue of status.
        But let's forget about the persons. Let's forget about the
    Governor, Speaker of the House, me. Statehood got 655,000
    votes, and yet some people here want to say that 12,000 votes
    from Speaker of the House are more important than the will and
    the direct vote of the people of the island? I assure you,
    nobody in your district is going to believe that a person who
    got less votes than you is going to have more power than you.
        Having said that, the territory's current obligations will
    continue to be those on the new state or new nation of Puerto
    Rico, if we let the people choose. None will be charged to a
    U.S. taxpayer. All states have long-term debts, and actually
    20- to 30-year bond outstanding even today. Many states have
    underfunded pensions. Many have subdivisions and municipalities
    that have gone into bankruptcy.
        Are we going to declare Detroit is no longer part of the
    United States because of that? Why demand that Puerto Rico be
    free and clear before we are even getting in? Why treat Puerto
    Rico differently?
        And for years, I have heard some of my colleagues say that
    any discussion of the issue of Puerto Rico self-determination
    should be put on hold until the island's economic and fiscal
    crisis is resolved. At least, you know, this is one of those
    amendments.
        And I think this amendment is completely wrong and
    misguided, and I will tell you why. Puerto Rico mayor's
    economic problems are rooted precisely on the long-standing
    unequal treatment that the island receives as a territory, and
    this should come as no surprise as any political or economic
    model funded on the basis of perpetual civic disenfranchisement
    and equality is not sustainable.
        And, again, we can talk about FMAP, how Puerto Rico has
    funded just 55 percent. With the rest of the states, it is 89.
    And then we have half of the population living under the
    poverty level line. And I am certain that no single one of my
    colleagues in this Committee will accept a territory
    established like Puerto Rico for their own constituents. Yet, I
    am here representing my people, looking to have a final
    solution on our status.
        I know none of you will change the status of Puerto Rico
    for your district. I know that by a fact. Then why not
    respecting the long history of 124 years under the U.S. flag of
    American citizens on the island that are not willing to accept
    such a relationship either.
        I yield back.
        The Chairman. The gentlelady yields. Anyone else?
        Mr. Rosendale. Just one comment, Mr. Chair, if I could.
        The Chairman. The gentleman is recognized.
        Mr. Rosendale. Thank you. By the end of 2021, the Financial
    Oversight Board established by PROMESA had completed assisting
    Puerto Rico in restructuring $33 billion in debt down to $7
    billion, serving as the largest municipal debt restructuring in
    the history of the United States.
        One more time. By the end of 2021, the Financial Oversight
    Board established by PROMESA had completed assisting Puerto
    Rico in restructuring--in my words that is forgiving, I know
    that you don't like to say that, but it is forgiving--$33
    billion in debt down to $7 billion, serving as the largest
    municipal debt restructuring in the history of the United
    States.
        I think this amendment is very necessary.
        I yield back.
        The Chairman. The gentleman yields. Anyone else?
        Mr. Westerman. Mr. Chairman?
        The Chairman. Mr. Westerman.
        Mr. Westerman. Mr. Chairman, I would like to revisit some
    comments that were made earlier. I think it was the gentlelady
    from Minnesota on the Zoom who seemed to be in a bit of outrage
    about the way Puerto Rico has been treated, and specifically
    talked about how they were treated after the hurricane. And
    maybe I can give her an opportunity to clarify that.
        I wish Mr. Graves from Louisiana was here. But I did a
    little checking on the numbers, and according to FEMA, since
    2017, Puerto Rico has received about $68 billion in relief aid.
    I am not saying they didn't need it. I am just saying that is
    what they have received. I believe Mr. Graves' state of
    Louisiana has received about $12 billion.
        There are Members from Florida here. You have had some
    hurricanes and disasters. I wonder if anybody has information
    on how much better the states have been treated in that regard
    than Puerto Rico. And if anybody would like to clarify what
    they mean about the way we have treated Puerto Rico after a
    hurricane.
        Ms. Velazquez. I could.
        Mr. Westerman. I will yield to the gentlelady.
        Ms. Velazquez. It has been demonstrated, especially
    throughout some of the research and investigations, that
    President Trump withheld money appropriated by this Congress to
    Puerto Rico, just because he didn't believe that Puerto Ricans
    deserve all that money.
        So, because of that, people died. Those are the facts. It
    is not about the amount of money that was appropriated or
    allocated. It is about how the President--and I challenged the
    Secretary of HUD in one of the hearings--and the OIG also
    concluded that money was withheld.
        Mr. Westerman. I believe we also----
        Ms. Velazquez. Thank you for yielding.
        The Chairman. Does the gentlelady yield back?
        Mr. Westerman. Reclaiming my time, I believe we also in
    Congress changed the Medicaid laws to allow more Medicaid
    funding to flow to Puerto Rico without imposing the Federal
    income tax. And I still find it hard to believe how you can say
    somebody has been treated unfairly when they have received way
    more funding than any state has received on disaster aid. I
    believe New York got $12 billion from Sandy.
        So, I just take exception to the fact that Congress, that
    the Federal Government, has played favorites with states and
    that Puerto Rico has been mistreated with disaster funding when
    the amount of funding is way, way out of proportion to what has
    gone to Puerto Rico versus what has gone to states who have had
    similar disasters. I yield back.
        The Chairman. Any other comments?
        You know, Mr. Westerman--I am recognizing myself--the
    Medicaid adjustment was a parity. It was about merely reaching
    a level where citizens of Puerto Rico were receiving a level of
    parity with every other State in the Union. So, that was one.
        And the response to the disasters--and there were compiled
    disasters--and the money that was done toward disaster relief,
    and the oversight that was provided here, without a doubt it
    was money needed. It was money late, but it was money needed.
        So, in responding to a disaster, this is not a gift to the
    people of Puerto Rico--``Oh, by the way, a hurricane destroyed
    almost everything that you know, but we are going to be
    charitable to you and help you out a little bit.'' This is a
    response that we make to American citizens, to territories, and
    to states every time there is a natural disaster of which none
    of us have any control. And it was a response. It was needed.
    We all visited afterwards--this Committee delegation--and every
    penny that was spent in Puerto Rico was deserved.
        If money was misused, it was a consequence of other kinds
    of corruption. But no, the money that I saw, the delays that I
    saw, and the effect that it had on the people there was
    tremendous, it was profound, and it has affected every recovery
    effort since then, including the economic ones.
        So, no, I don't think there is anything to compare to. You
    know, New York gets X amount; Louisiana gets that amount, good.
    If they deserved more, they should have gotten more. But let's
    not make those comparisons, and let's not forget that this was
    a natural disaster over which Congress had no control, other
    than to assure that the response happened. And I am not going
    to relitigate what the previous administration did or did not
    do. That is history, it is fact.
        But I do think this amendment is not needed, and it creates
    a double standard for Puerto Rico that doesn't exist anywhere
    else.
        Mr. Westerman. Will the gentleman yield?
        The Chairman. I was just going to yield to Mr. Soto.
        Mr. Soto. I will take my own time soon.
        The Chairman. Of course.
        Mr. Westerman. Well, I think you made my point, Mr.
    Chairman. It wasn't our side that said that somebody was
    treated unfairly. It was your side of the dais that said Puerto
    Rico was treated unfairly. And we never said Puerto Rico didn't
    need that relief funding. Congress actually voted on the funds
    that went to all these disasters.
        But I think it is unfair to make the argument that they
    were treated unfairly as compared to states, when I think they
    were treated very generously, and Congress stepped up and met
    the needs with funding for the disasters that were there.
        I yield back.
        The Chairman. Mr. Soto?
        Mr. Soto. Thank you, Chairman, for the edification of the
    committee, a brief history on the economics of Puerto Rico.
        When Teddy Roosevelt was charging up San Juan Hill, Puerto
    Rico was mostly a small farm economy, where most people had
    land, they had their family farms, they were very resilient,
    and the peso was about of equal value to the dollar around
    1898.
        And then they were conquered by our nation; 2 to 3 years
    later, after taxes were imposed on the island that didn't exist
    before the conquest by the United States, there was a huge
    consolidation. Hundreds of thousands of families lost their
    land to taxes they couldn't pay, and it was consolidated among
    corporations from the mainland. And it basically became a sugar
    plantation for U.S. interests. And for many, many years, people
    lived very poorly there because of that.
        Finally, there is the 936 exemption that was an Act of
    Congress. And it all goes back to what Representative San
    Nicolas said, which is that, with plenary power, the
    fingerprint of Congress is all over the history and rise and
    fall economically of Puerto Rico. So, with the 936 exemption
    that allowed American companies to pay just Puerto Rico
    corporate taxes in lieu of Federal taxes--again, a bill passed
    by the Congress--huge amounts of manufacturing were brought to
    the island as a result of that. And Congress giveth, Congress
    taketh away.
        The 936 exemption was eventually pulled back. By then,
    Puerto Rico had--over 3.4, 3.5 million people had been
    prosperous, had a broad corporate and manufacturing economy.
    And overnight, after that 936 exemption was taken away, half
    the manufacturing left for places like Ireland and other
    places. So, Congress again taketh away.
        And what are we left with? An island of 3.5, 3.6 million
    people that has had half their manufacturing, half their jobs,
    high-paying jobs, disappear. I know, because that is why my
    family from Puerto Rico moved to central Florida around 1996.
        And then from there, all these programs that they were
    funding for years collapsed, from SNAP, which they call NAP
    down there, to the Medicaid program they have down there, to
    the hospital systems. Mass exodus has happened. There were 3.6
    million people there. There are now 3.2 million people.
        So, when we are talking about--and then the debt
    accumulated from there as a result of the 936 exemption being
    taken away, which was a patch in itself. The debt accumulated
    to try to maintain the same standard of living they had during
    that time period. But that is not what happened. Debt
    accumulated. Bad decisions by the Congress and by leaders on
    the island accumulated debt just to keep the same benefits and
    lifestyle that they had down there.
        Instead of just addressing the debt through a bankruptcy,
    the Congress--again, with their plenary power--before I got
    here decided to intervene once again with PROMESA and really
    squeezed the island.
        So, when I am talking about all these debts, note that this
    just didn't come from nowhere. This is a result of many time
    periods from taxes that crushed family farms to a 936 exemption
    that gave Puerto Rico an economic sugar high, to a collapse,
    and then people just trying to keep the same programs they had
    going after Congress took it away. A debt is accumulated. So,
    the Congress has as much fingerprint over this as leaders on
    the island.
        We all have to keep that in mind, and it goes back again to
    San Nicolas' point: under the plenary power we have an
    obligation to these territories. This Committee specifically
    does.
        I know a lot of you haven't had to dig too deep into it,
    but it is important to know that history as you are looking at
    that debt, and you are looking at PROMESA and all these other
    things, the role that it has taken over the years.
        And all this gets back to the main point. It is a messy
    status for it to be a territory. This is the main problem,
    which is why we are here today. If they are a state, they will
    be paying income taxes. They will have two Senators, four
    Members of Congress. They will get treated just like many other
    states. And, by the way, this is a state that would have triple
    to double the number of constituents of many states that
    already exist. And if it went independent, it would no longer
    be our financial obligation.
        So, if you really, really care about the long-term fiscal
    interest of the United States, this bill addresses them by
    getting rid of this plenary power quagmire that exists with it
    being a territory. And let's either Puerto Rico decide to break
    from the Union or become a state and be fully participating
    both in its revenue and in its benefits.
        With that, I yield back.
        The Chairman. Does anyone wish to add to the amendment
    discussion on No. 47?
        If not, let me ask my colleagues, all those Members in
    favor of the Amendment No. 47, please indicate by saying aye.
        All those opposed, indicate by saying no, please.
        In the opinion of the Chair, the noes have it, and the
    amendment is not agreed to.
        Dr. Hice. I ask for the yeas and nays.
        The Chairman. The gentleman requested a recorded vote, and
    that is postponed, pursuant to previous notice.
        Representative Hice, you now have an amendment designated
    No. 48, and you are recognized, sir, for 5 minutes.
        Dr. Hice. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This amendment goes just
    a little bit, a step further from the one that we just had
    discussion on.
        The bill at hand does not clarify what would happen to the
    debt in Puerto Rico, should they vote for independence. So,
    this amendment would offer clarification to that issue. It
    would ensure that, no matter how the people of Puerto Rico
    voted, that the debts to the United States would be repaid.
        This bill, as there have been so many comments today, this
    bill overall still needs a lot of work. I believe it needs to
    go back to the drawing board. Once again, I am deeply
    concerned, as are many of my colleagues, with the lack of
    transparency in this process, and the whole process is very
    frustrating.
        How in the world do we not even allow the people of Puerto
    Rico to vote to remain a territory? That is head scratching to
    me. I don't understand how we can come to this.
        But this amendment would bring clarification and require
    that, regardless of the outcome of whatever vote Puerto Rico
    holds, the debts owed to the United States would be paid back.
        And I yield.
        The Chairman. The gentleman yields. Any further discussion
    on the amendment?
        Sir. You are recognized.
        Mr. Rosendale. Mr. Chair, the contracts are in place now.
    We cannot ignore the debt that has been acquired right now.
        I was absolutely thrilled to just hear my colleague from
    across the aisle, Representative Soto, recognize that crushing
    taxes are bad for anyone's economy. And I hope, as we move
    through the balance of this year, that he will embrace that
    concept as his colleagues potentially try to bring some
    additional taxation to the United States.
        Mr. Soto. Will the gentleman yield?
        Mr. Rosendale. In one moment.
        But the agreements that are in place now have not been
    properly acknowledged and recognized. And if this vote was to
    take place, and Puerto Rico was to declare and claim their
    independence, there are still a lot of outstanding issues.
        And, again, this has not gone through Judiciary, it has not
    gone through the proper channels to make sure that they have
    been addressed. So, I would support this amendment.
        With that, I will yield to Mr. Soto.
        Mr. Soto. I think I may speak in a bipartisan fashion for
    Mr. Webster and I. We believe in low taxes in the great state
    of Florida.
        Mr. Rosendale. Amen. Thank you for that input.
        With that, I will yield back, Mr. Chair.
        The Chairman. Thank you very much.
        I happen to believe that some people that don't pay their
    fair taxes should be part of the crowd that does pay taxes. But
    that is another subject, I guess, for another committee.
        Mr. Soto. We are still a donor state every now and again to
    the Federal Government.
        The Chairman. Is there any further debate on Mr. Hice's
    amendment No. 48?
        Miss Gonzalez-Colon. Mr. Chairman?
        The Chairman. Who seeks recognition?
        Miss Gonzalez-Colon. Jenniffer----
        The Chairman. You are recognized.
        Miss Gonzalez-Colon. Yes, just to make and add important
    data here.
        Puerto Rico paid $4 billion in Federal taxes last year,
    just to make that clear. And all the provisions included in the
    bill handles how taxation is going to be in all of the
    alternatives, including independence, including free
    association, and including statehood. All of those provisions
    included taxes, because the Joint Committee on Taxation
    actually recommended some of those provisions when we were in
    the talks and negotiations of this bill. So, I just wanted to
    add that. I think this amendment is kind of like the same one
    that was just considered by the Committee.
        But I need to add to something that Mr. Grijalva and Mr.
    Soto just said about the inequalities on the island. When we
    see the bankruptcy on the island for the last years, it is not
    because Puerto Rico decided to go into bankruptcy. It was
    because, in order to provide Federal mandates like Medicare and
    Medicaid, Puerto Rico was underfunded by the Federal Government
    to attain and manage those provisions. We just are receiving 55
    percent per dollars, 55 percent FMAP of Medicare and Medicaid
    because, for the case of the territories, we don't use the same
    formula as the states.
        So, that means that the Federal Government and the Federal
    agencies can actually choose and select what is the percentage
    of funding that they are going to provide to the U.S. citizens
    living on the island.
        Ms. Velazquez. Will the gentlelady yield for just 1 second?
        Miss Gonzalez-Colon. Right----
        Ms. Velazquez. It would be good to remind the Members again
    the plenary powers of this Congress that gives and take away,
    because that was not always the case when it came to Medicare
    and Medicaid.
        Miss Gonzalez-Colon. And reclaiming my time, what
    Congresswoman Velazquez is just saying is that--let's give you
    an example: Prior to Hurricanes Irma and Maria, the FMAP for
    Puerto Rico was 55 percent. And I am grateful, during the House
    and the Senate, we approved to go to 100 percent, and even
    President Trump signed a 100 percent FMAP for 2 years because
    of the situation on the island. But we went back again to 75
    because of the COVID provisions.
        What that means is that tomorrow Congress can change that
    and go back to 55 percent. And what are the people of Puerto
    Rico going to do when they don't have insurance for the low-
    income families that are living on the island, not even that
    number is the same of low income that you use in Mississippi,
    or use in Hawaii, because low income in Hawaii could be $30,000
    to $40,000, but to qualify in Puerto Rico for those programs,
    it could be less than $15,000. Even teachers are included in
    this program when you go to Mississippi or Hawaii. The teachers
    in Puerto Rico cannot even be in Medicaid.
        What I am saying by this is that, in order to manage 10 of
    the 17 Federal programs on the island, the government of Puerto
    Rico had a lot of debt, and issued a lot of bonds to pay for
    those services. I am not saying this is all. What I am saying
    is our problems are deeply rooted in the lack of provisions for
    equal footing like the rest of the state and many Federal
    programs that we need to comply with Federal mandates.
        Mr. Rosendale. Will the gentlewoman yield for just a
    moment?
        Miss Gonzalez-Colon. Yes, let me finish.
        And that is a reality, and that is the reason you see me
    here every time asking for a provision in Energy and Commerce,
    asking in Ways and Means to have provision for Puerto Rico.
    Because in the case of states, it has automatically been
    approved. In the case of the territories, we need to have those
    amendments approved every 2 years.
        So, imagine having a state like Puerto Rico, with 3.2
    million American citizens. I do the job of four Members of the
    House for Puerto Rico. You just represent 750,000 of your
    constituents. I represent 3.2 million without their resources,
    without two Senators. And then we try to impose the people of
    the island the responsibility to fulfill all Federal programs
    without the money. And if we are not complying to do that, then
    we are incurring in debt.
        I agree with you in terms of the $33 billion and cutting to
    $7 billion. We know that we need to manage and continue to work
    on our debt. And I believe in low taxes, as well. And I do
    believe in paying Federal taxes, as well. And that is the
    reason I urge everybody to see this bill as the only one
    provision actually allowing Puerto Rico to have all taxation
    laws like many other states.
        And I will yield to you.
        Mr. Rosendale. Thank you. I thank the gentlewoman.
        I would just like to say that there is no other state that
    has the provision that allows them to file bankruptcy. The
    states do not have that provision. So, you have already taken
    advantage--Puerto Rico has already taken advantage of a debt
    removal relief that no other state has the ability to.
        And every state does have the problems with Medicaid
    payments and the share that they have to make as far as a
    matching amount. And they have these same provisions.
        So, all you are doing is making an argument, from my
    standpoint, on why it is going to be a very large incentive for
    the government, the existing government for Puerto Rico, to
    push their population to vote to support statehood, because it
    is going to be a financial windfall to make sure that their
    debt is removed, that they get full Social Security benefits,
    and that it helps them more financially.
        So, with that, I would yield back.
        The Chairman. The gentleman yields.
        Does anyone else wish to comment on Mr. Hice's Amendment
    No. 48?
        If not, all those Members in favor of the amendment, please
    indicate by saying aye.
        All those Members opposed, indicate by saying no.
        In the opinion of the Chair, the noes have it, and the
    amendment is not agreed to.
        Dr. Hice. I ask for the yeas and nays, please.
        The Chairman. A recorded vote has been asked for and
    postponed, as per the instructions.
        Mr. Hice, Representative, you are recognized for 5 minutes
    for amendment designated No. 49.
        Dr. Hice. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We have had a lot of
    discussion about debts and amendments in that regard. I would
    like to change directions a little bit and talk about an
    important issue regarding extradition.
        If Puerto Rico votes for independence, I believe the United
    States must ensure that it keeps close legal ties with Puerto
    Rico. One part in that relationship is an extradition treaty.
        And look, we don't need criminals hiding in a safe haven in
    Puerto Rico. We still need to have that relationship with
    Puerto Rico to extradite individuals who commit crimes here in
    the United States, and vice versa. This amendment addresses
    that issue, again, an issue that is not dealt with in the bill.
    This amendment would ensure that the United States and Puerto
    Rico remain close moving forward, and this is just one step in
    that direction.
        Again, I believe this amendment yet again illustrates the
    multiple issues that this bill does not address. And I think we
    must slow down and deal with a multitude of issues that are
    neglected in this. And an extradition treaty, I believe, is one
    of those, so I would ask my colleagues to support this.
        And I yield back.
        The Chairman. The gentleman yields back. Any further
    discussion on the amendment?
        If there is no further discussion and no debate, the
    question is on the Hice amendment No. 49.
        All those in favor, indicate by saying aye.
        All those Members opposed, indicate by saying no.
        In the opinion of the Chair, the noes have it, and the
    amendment is not agreed to.
        Representative Hice, you now have amendment designated No.
    50. You are recognized, sir, for 5 minutes.
        Dr. Hice. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This particular
    amendment here would say that any debts that are related to
    FEMA should be paid back, and I believe that is very, very
    important.
        We have heard a lot about the issues with the hurricane
    that came through, with Hurricane Maria. I believe this is an
    important amendment, Mr. Chairman. I believe it is something
    that--look, it is the American taxpayer that is on the hook
    with this. We understand natural disasters, and we are a
    compassionate people in the United States. But I believe we
    need to be responsible, as well, and I believe Puerto Rico
    needs to be responsible to pay this back.
        But given the discussions of the day, I am willing to
    withdraw this amendment at this time. But I do believe it is an
    important issue that needs further discussion in the future.
    But I will withdraw this amendment.
        The Chairman. The gentleman withdraws. So ordered.
        If there is no further comment on this one, we will move on
    to the next one.
        And it appears that is it for amendments. We have a series
    of rolled votes.
        Mr. Westerman, I am going to call about, so that your staff
    and our staff can collectively notify all the Members that we
    are going to begin the rolled votes and the final passage, and
    make sure that everybody that can and should be here is here.
    And I don't want anybody saying that they weren't notified that
    we had started our roll and our votes.
        So, with your indulgence, we are in recess, subject to the
    call, which should be in about 10 minutes. And I apologize for
    that, but last time I got complaints from both sides that they
    were not notified, and I thought we did, but now we are going
    to make sure.
        So, thank you.
        [Recess.]
        The Chairman. The Committee comes to order. We now return
    to the previously requested recorded votes.
        As a reminder, under House regulation, Members who are
    joining us remotely must be visible in order to vote. There
    will be no exceptions for technical issues if voting remotely.
        Members attending virtually should also answer the Clerk by
    saying your name first, and then your vote. This allows the
    camera enough time to switch to you, and it allows us to help
    reduce confusion, and to actually expedite the votes that are
    needed to finish up this particular piece of legislation.
    Everybody's cooperation is more than welcome, and let's see how
    it goes.
        The item is H.R. 8393, and the question is on the
    unfinished business, the amendment to the ANS, the amendment
    designated McClintock No. 70. A recorded vote has been
    requested.
        The Clerk will read the names--the Clerk shall now call the
    roll.
        Ms. Locke. Mr. Grijalva?
        The Chairman. No.
        Ms. Locke. Mr. Grijalva votes no.
        Mr. Westerman?
        Mr. Westerman. Aye.
        Ms. Locke. Mr. Westerman votes aye.
        Mrs. Napolitano?
        Mrs. Napolitano. No.
        Ms. Locke. Mrs. Napolitano votes no.
        Mr. Gohmert?
        [No response.]
        Ms. Locke. Mr. Costa?
        [No response.]
        Ms. Locke. Mr. Lamborn?
        Mr. Lamborn. Aye.
        Ms. Locke. Mr. Lamborn votes aye.
        Mr. Sablan?
        Mr. Sablan. No.
        Ms. Locke. Mr. Sablan votes no.
        Mr. Wittman?
        Dr. Wittman. Wittman votes aye.
        Ms. Locke. Mr. Wittman votes aye.
        Mr. Huffman?
        Mr. Huffman. No.
        Ms. Locke. Mr. Huffman votes no.
        Mr. McClintock?
        Mr. McClintock. Aye.
        Ms. Locke. Mr. McClintock votes aye.
        Mr. Lowenthal?
        Dr. Lowenthal. Lowenthal votes no.
        Ms. Locke. Mr. Lowenthal votes no.
        Mr. Graves?
        [No response.]
        Ms. Locke. Mr. Gallego?
        [No response.]
        Ms. Locke. Mr. Hice?
        Dr. Hice. Hice votes yes.
        Ms. Locke. Mr. Hice votes aye.
        Mr. Neguse?
        Mr. Neguse. No.
        Ms. Locke. Mr. Neguse votes no.
        Mrs. Radewagen?
        [No response.]
        Ms. Locke. Mr. Levin?
        Mr. Levin. No.
        Ms. Locke. Mr. Levin votes no.
        Mr. Webster?
        Mr. Webster. Yea.
        Ms. Locke. Mr. Webster votes aye.
        Ms. Porter?
        [No response.]
        Ms. Locke. Miss Gonzalez-Colon?
        Miss Gonzalez-Colon. No.
        Ms. Locke. Miss Gonzalez-Colon votes no.
        Ms. Leger Fernandez?
        Ms. Leger Fernandez. Leger Fernandez votes no.
        Ms. Locke. Ms. Leger Fernandez votes no.
        Mr. Fulcher?
        [No response.]
        Ms. Locke. Ms. Stansbury?
        Ms. Stansbury. No.
        Ms. Locke. Ms. Stansbury votes no.
        Mr. Stauber?
        Mr. Stauber. Stauber votes no.
        Ms. Locke. Mr. Stauber votes no.
        Ms. Velazquez?
        Ms. Velazquez. Velazquez votes no.
        Ms. Locke. Ms. Velazquez votes no.
        Mr. Tiffany?
        Mr. Tiffany. Aye.
        Ms. Locke. Mr. Tiffany votes aye.
        Ms. DeGette?
        Ms. DeGette. DeGette votes no.
        Ms. Locke. Ms. DeGette votes no.
        Mr. Carl?
        Mr. Carl. Carl, no.
        Ms. Locke. Mr. Carl votes no.
        Ms. Brownley?
        [No response.]
        Ms. Locke. Mr. Rosendale?
        Mr. Rosendale. Rosendale, yes.
        Ms. Locke. Mr. Rosendale votes aye.
        Mrs. Dingell?
        Mrs. Dingell. Dingell votes no.
        Ms. Locke. Mrs. Dingell votes no.
        Mr. Moore?
        Mr. Moore. No.
        Ms. Locke. Mr. Moore votes no.
        Mr. McEachin?
        Mr. McEachin. McEachin votes no.
        Ms. Locke. Mr. McEachin votes no.
        Mr. Herrell?
        [No response.]
        Ms. Locke. Mr. Soto?
        Ms. Herrell. Herrell votes yes.
        Ms. Locke. Ms. Herrell votes aye.
        Mr. Soto?
        Mr. Soto. Soto votes no.
        Ms. Locke. Mr. Soto votes no.
        Mrs. Boebert?
        [No response.]
        Ms. Locke. Mr. San Nicolas?
        Mrs. Boebert. Boebert votes aye.
        Ms. Locke. Mrs. Boebert votes aye.
        Mr. San Nicolas?
        Mr. San Nicolas. San Nicolas votes no.
        Ms. Locke. Mr. San Nicolas votes no.
        Mr. Obernolte?
        Mr. Obernolte. Aye.
        Ms. Locke. Mr. Obernolte votes aye.
        Mr. Garcia?
        Mr. Garcia. Garcia votes no.
        Ms. Locke. Mr. Garcia votes no.
        Mr. Bentz?
        Mr. Bentz. Yes.
        Ms. Locke. Mr. Bentz votes aye.
        Mr. Case?
        [No response.]
        Ms. Locke. Ms. Conway?
        Ms. Conway. Ms. Conway votes aye.
        Ms. Locke. Ms. Conway votes aye.
        Ms. McCollum?
        Ms. McCollum. McCollum votes no.
        Ms. Locke. Ms. McCollum votes no.
        Mr. Cohen?
        Mr. Cohen. No.
        Ms. Locke. Mr. Cohen votes no.
        Mr. Tonko?
        Mr. Tonko. Tonko votes no.
        Ms. Locke. Mr. Tonko votes no.
        Ms. Tlaib?
        Ms. Tlaib Tlaib votes no.
        Ms. Locke. Ms. Tlaib votes no.
        Mrs. Trahan?
        Mrs. Trahan. Trahan votes no.
        Ms. Locke. Mrs. Trahan votes no.
        The Chairman. Are there any Members not recorded, Clerk?
        Ms. Brownley. Mr. Chairman, Ms. Brownley votes no.
        The Chairman. How is Ms. Brownley recorded?
        Ms. Locke. Ms. Brownley votes no.
        Ms. Porter Mr. Chair, this is Representative Porter. How am
    I recorded?
        Ms. Locke. Ms. Porter is not recorded.
        Ms. Porter. Ms. Porter votes no.
        Ms. Locke. Ms. Porter votes no.
        Dr. Hice. How is Mr. Hice recorded?
        The Chairman. How is Mr. Hice reported?
        Ms. Locke. Mr. Hice is recorded as a yes.
        Mr. Fulcher. Mr. Chairman, Fulcher is aye.
        Ms. Locke. Mr. Fulcher votes aye.
        Ms. Herrell. How is Representative Herrell recorded?
        The Chairman. Recorded as a yes?
        Ms. Locke. Ms. Herrell is recorded as a yes. I do not have
    a visual.
        Mr. Gohmert. Gohmert votes aye.
        Ms. Locke. Mr. Gohmert votes aye.
        The Chairman. Any Members wish to change their vote or
    record their vote?
        With that, the vote is closed and the Clerk shall report.
        [Pause.]
        Ms. Locke. Mr. Chair, on this vote the yeas are 15 and the
    nays are 27.
        The Chairman. The amendment fails.
        We move to the amendment designated McClintock No. 71, and
    the Clerk shall call the roll.
        Ms. Locke. Mr. Grijalva?
        The Chairman. No.
        Ms. Locke. Mr. Grijalva votes no.
        Mr. Westerman?
        Mr. Westerman. Aye.
        Ms. Locke. Mr. Westerman votes aye.
        Mrs. Napolitano?
        Mrs. Napolitano. Napolitano, no.
        Ms. Locke. Mrs. Napolitano votes no.
        Mr. Gohmert?
        [No response.]
        Ms. Locke. Mr. Costa?
        [No response.]
        Ms. Locke. Mr. Lamborn?
        Mr. Lamborn. Aye.
        Ms. Locke. Mr. Lamborn votes aye.
        Mr. Sablan?
        Mr. Sablan. Sablan votes no.
        Ms. Locke. Mr. Sablan votes no.
        Mr. Wittman?
        Dr. Wittman. Wittman votes aye.
        Ms. Locke. Mr. Wittman votes aye.
        Mr. Huffman?
        Mr. Huffman. No.
        Ms. Locke. Mr. Huffman votes no.
        Mr. McClintock?
        Mr. McClintock. Aye.
        Ms. Locke. Mr. McClintock votes aye.
        Mr. Lowenthal?
        Dr. Lowenthal. Lowenthal votes no.
        Ms. Locke. Mr. Lowenthal votes no.
        Mr. Graves?
        [No response.]
        Ms. Locke. Mr. Gallego?
        [No response.]
        Ms. Locke. Mr. Hice?
        Dr. Hice. Hice, yes.
        Ms. Locke. Mr. Hice votes aye.
        Mr. Neguse?
        [No response.]
        Ms. Locke. Mrs. Radewagen?
        [No response.]
        Ms. Locke. Mr. Levin?
        Mr. Levin. No.
        Ms. Locke. Mr. Levin votes no.
        Mr. Webster?
        Mr. Webster. Yea.
        Ms. Locke. Mr. Webster votes aye.
        Ms. Porter?
        Ms. Porter. Porter votes no.
        Ms. Locke. Ms. Porter votes no.
        Miss Gonzalez-Colon?
        Miss Gonzalez-Colon. No.
        Ms. Locke. Miss Gonzalez-Colon votes no.
        Ms. Leger Fernandez?
        Ms. Leger Fernandez. No.
        Ms. Locke. Ms. Leger Fernandez votes no.
        Mr. Fulcher?
        Mr. Fulcher. Fulcher is aye.
        Ms. Locke. Mr. Fulcher votes aye.
        Ms. Stansbury?
        Ms. Stansbury. No.
        Ms. Locke. Ms. Stansbury votes no.
        Mr. Stauber?
        Mr. Stauber. Stauber, no.
        Ms. Locke. Mr. Stauber votes no.
        Ms. Velazquez?
        Ms. Velazquez. Velazquez, no.
        Ms. Locke. Ms. Velazquez votes no.
        Mr. Tiffany?
        Mr. Tiffany. Aye.
        Ms. Locke. Mr. Tiffany votes aye.
        Ms. DeGette?
        Ms. DeGette. DeGette votes no.
        Ms. Locke. Ms. DeGette votes no.
        Mr. Carl?
        Mr. Carl. No.
        Ms. Locke. Mr. Carl votes no.
        Ms. Brownley?
        Ms. Brownley. Ms. Brownley votes no.
        Ms. Locke. Ms. Brownley votes no.
        Mr. Rosendale?
        Mr. Rosendale. Rosendale, aye.
        Ms. Locke. Mr. Rosendale votes aye.
        Mrs. Dingell?
        Mrs. Dingell. Dingell votes no.
        Ms. Locke. Mrs. Dingell votes no.
        Mr. Moore?
        Mr. Moore. Moore votes no.
        Ms. Locke. Mr. Moore votes no.
        Mr. McEachin?
        Mr. McEachin. McEachin votes no.
        Ms. Locke. Mr. McEachin votes no.
        Ms. Herrell?
        Ms. Herrell. Ms. Herrell votes yes.
        Ms. Locke. Ms. Herrell votes aye.
        Mr. Soto?
        Mr. Soto. Soto votes no.
        Ms. Locke. Mr. Soto votes no.
        Mrs. Boebert?
        [No response.]
        Mr. Costa. Costa votes no.
        Ms. Locke. Mr. Costa votes no.
        Mr. San Nicolas?
        Mr. San Nicolas. San Nicolas votes no.
        Ms. Locke. Mr. San Nicolas votes no.
        Mr. Obernolte?
        Mr. Obernolte. Aye.
        Ms. Locke. Mr. Obernolte votes aye.
        Mr. Garcia?
        Mr. Garcia. Garcia is a no.
        Ms. Locke. Mr. Garcia votes no.
        Mr. Bentz?
        Mr. Bentz. Aye.
        Ms. Locke. Mr. Bentz votes aye.
        Mr. Case?
        [No response.]
        Ms. Locke. Ms. Conway?
        Ms. Conway. Ms. Conway votes aye.
        Ms. Locke. Ms. Conway votes aye.
        Ms. McCollum?
        Ms. McCollum. McCollum, no.
        Ms. Locke. Ms. McCollum votes no.
        Mr. Cohen?
        Mr. Cohen. No.
        Ms. Locke. Mr. Cohen votes no.
        Mr. Tonko?
        Mr. Neguse. Mr. Chair? How is Mr. Neguse recorded?
        The Chairman. Mr. Neguse?
        Ms. Locke. Mr. Neguse is not recorded.
        Mr. Neguse. Neguse votes no.
        Ms. Locke. Mr. Neguse votes no.
        Mr. Tonko?
        Mr. Tonko. Tonko--Mr. Tonko from New York votes no.
        Ms. Locke. Mr. Tonko votes no.
        Ms. Tlaib?
        Ms. Tlaib. Votes no.
        Ms. Locke. Ms. Tlaib votes no.
        Mrs. Trahan?
        Mrs. Trahan. Trahan votes no.
        Ms. Locke. Mrs. Trahan votes no.
        Mr. Gohmert. Gohmert votes aye.
        The Chairman. Any Member wish to record their vote?
        Mr. Gohmert. Gohmert votes aye.
        The Chairman. How is Mr. Gohmert recorded?
        Ms. Locke. Mr. Gohmert is not recorded.
        Mr. Gohmert. Gohmert votes aye.
        Ms. Locke. Mr. Gohmert votes aye.
        The Chairman. Any other Member?
        Mrs. Boebert. Boebert votes aye.
        The Chairman. How is Mrs. Boebert recorded?
        Ms. Locke. Mrs. Boebert is not recorded.
        Mrs. Boebert. Boebert votes aye.
        Ms. Locke. Mrs. Boebert votes aye.
        The Chairman. If there is no one else who wishes to record
    their vote, the vote is closed, and the Clerk shall report.
        Ms. Locke. Mr. Chair, on this vote the yeas are 14 and the
    nays are 28.
        The Chairman. The amendment fails, and we move to amendment
    designated Westerman No. 12, and the Clerk shall call the roll.
        Ms. Locke. Mr. Grijalva?
        The Chairman. No.
        Ms. Locke. Mr. Grijalva votes no.
        Mr. Westerman?
        Mr. Westerman. Aye.
        Ms. Locke. Mr. Westerman votes aye.
        Mrs. Napolitano?
        Mrs. Napolitano. Napolitano, no.
        Ms. Locke. Mrs. Napolitano votes no.
        Mr. Gohmert?
        [No response.]
        Ms. Locke. Mr. Costa?
        Mr. Costa. No.
        Ms. Locke. Mr. Costa votes no.
        Mr. Lamborn?
        Mr. Lamborn. Aye.
        Ms. Locke. Mr. Lamborn votes aye.
        Mr. Sablan?
        Mr. Sablan. No.
        Ms. Locke. Mr. Sablan votes no.
        Mr. Wittman?
        Dr. Wittman. Wittman votes aye.
        Ms. Locke. Mr. Wittman votes aye.
        Mr. Huffman?
        Mr. Huffman. No.
        Ms. Locke. Mr. Huffman votes no.
        Mr. McClintock?
        Mr. McClintock. Aye.
        Ms. Locke. Mr. McClintock votes aye.
        Mr. Lowenthal?
        Dr. Lowenthal. Lowenthal votes no.
        Ms. Locke. Mr. Lowenthal votes no.
        Mr. Graves?
        Mr. Graves. Graves, yes.
        Ms. Locke. Mr. Graves votes aye.
        Mr. Gallego?
        [No response.]
        Ms. Locke. Mr. Hice?
        Dr. Hice. Hice, yes.
        Ms. Locke. Mr. Hice votes aye.
        Mr. Neguse?
        Mr. Neguse. No.
        Ms. Locke. Mr. Neguse votes no.
        Mrs. Radewagen?
        [No response.]
        Ms. Locke. Mr. Levin?
        Mr. Levin. No.
        Ms. Locke. Mr. Levin votes no.
        Mr. Webster?
        Mr. Webster. Yes.
        Ms. Locke. Mr. Webster votes aye.
        Ms. Porter?
        Ms. Porter. Porter votes no.
        Ms. Locke. Ms. Porter votes no.
        Miss Gonzalez-Colon?
        Miss Gonzalez-Colon. No.
        Ms. Locke. Miss Gonzalez-Colon votes no.
        Ms. Leger Fernandez?
        Ms. Leger Fernandez. No.
        Ms. Locke. Ms. Leger Fernandez votes no.
        Mr. Fulcher?
        Mr. Fulcher. Fulcher is aye.
        Ms. Locke. Mr. Fulcher votes aye.
        Ms. Stansbury?
        Ms. Stansbury. No.
        Ms. Locke. Ms. Stansbury votes no.
        Mr. Stauber?
        Mr. Stauber. Stauber, yes.
        Ms. Locke. Mr. Stauber votes aye.
        Ms. Velazquez?
        Ms. Velazquez. Velazquez votes no.
        Ms. Locke. Ms. Velazquez votes no.
        Mr. Tiffany?
        Mr. Tiffany. Yes.
        Ms. Locke. Mr. Tiffany votes aye.
        Ms. DeGette?
        Ms. DeGette. DeGette votes no.
        Ms. Locke. Ms. DeGette votes no.
        Mr. Carl?
        Mr. Carl. Yes.
        Ms. Locke. Mr. Carl votes aye.
        Ms. Brownley?
        Ms. Brownley. Ms. Brownley votes no.
        Ms. Locke. Ms. Brownley votes no.
        Mr. Rosendale?
        Mr. Rosendale. Rosendale, aye.
        Ms. Locke. Mr. Rosendale votes aye.
        Mrs. Dingell?
        Mrs. Dingell. Dingell votes no.
        Ms. Locke. Mrs. Dingell votes no.
        Mr. Moore?
        Mr. Moore. Moore votes aye.
        Ms. Locke. Mr. Moore votes aye.
        Mr. McEachin?
        Mr. McEachin. McEachin votes no.
        Ms. Locke. Mr. McEachin votes no.
        Ms. Herrell?
        Ms. Herrell. Ms. Herrell votes aye.
        Ms. Locke. Ms. Herrell votes aye.
        Mr. Soto?
        Mr. Soto. Soto votes no.
        Ms. Locke. Mr. Soto votes no.
        Mrs. Boebert?
        [No response.]
        Ms. Locke. Mr. San Nicolas?
        Mr. San Nicolas. San Nicolas votes no.
        Ms. Locke. Mr. San Nicolas votes no.
        Mr. Obernolte?
        Mr. Obernolte. Aye.
        Ms. Locke. Mr. Obernolte votes aye.
        Mr. Garcia?
        Mr. Garcia. Garcia votes no.
        Ms. Locke. Mr. Garcia votes no.
        Mr. Bentz?
        Mr. Bentz. Aye.
        Ms. Locke. Mr. Bentz votes aye.
        Mr. Case?
        [No response.]
        Ms. Locke. Ms. Conway?
        Ms. Conway. Conway votes aye.
        Ms. Locke. Ms. Conway votes aye.
        Ms. McCollum?
        Ms. McCollum. McCollum votes no.
        Ms. Locke. Ms. McCollum votes no.
        Mr. Cohen?
        Mr. Cohen. No.
        Ms. Locke. Mr. Cohen votes no.
        Mr. Tonko?
        Mr. Tonko. Tonko votes no.
        Ms. Locke. Mr. Tonko votes no.
        Ms. Tlaib?
        Ms. Tlaib. Tlaib votes no.
        Ms. Locke. Ms. Tlaib votes no.
        Mrs. Trahan?
        Mrs. Trahan. Trahan votes no.
        Ms. Locke. Mrs. Trahan votes no.
        The Chairman. Any Members that wish to be recorded or
    change their vote?
        Mrs. Boebert. Boebert votes aye.
        Ms. Locke. Mrs. Boebert? Mrs. Boebert votes aye.
        Mrs. Boebert. Yes, Boebert votes aye.
        The Chairman. Any other Member? If not, the vote is closed,
    the Clerk shall report.
        Ms. Locke. Mr. Chair, on this vote the yeas are 18 and the
    nays are 25.
        The Chairman. The amendment fails, and we move to
    McClintock Amendment No. 75. The Clerk shall call the roll.
        Ms. Locke. Mr. Grijalva?
        The Chairman. No.
        Ms. Locke. Mr. Grijalva votes no.
        Mr. Westerman?
        Mr. Westerman. Aye.
        Ms. Locke. Mr. Westerman votes aye.
        Mrs. Napolitano?
        Mrs. Napolitano. Napolitano, no.
        Ms. Locke. Mrs. Napolitano votes no.
        Mr. Gohmert?
        [No response.]
        Ms. Locke. Mr. Costa?
        Mr. Costa. No.
        Ms. Locke. Mr. Costa votes no.
        Mr. Lamborn?
        [No response.]
        Ms. Locke. Mr. Sablan?
        Mr. Sablan. No.
        Ms. Locke. Mr. Sablan votes no.
        Mr. Wittman?
        Dr. Wittman. Wittman votes aye.
        Ms. Locke. Mr. Wittman votes aye.
        Mr. Huffman?
        Mr. Huffman. No.
        Ms. Locke. Mr. Huffman votes no.
        Mr. McClintock?
        Mr. McClintock. Aye.
        Ms. Locke. Mr. McClintock votes aye.
        Mr. Lowenthal?
        Dr. Lowenthal. Lowenthal votes no.
        Ms. Locke. Mr. Lowenthal votes no.
        Mr. Graves?
        Mr. Graves. Graves, yes. Graves, yes.
        Ms. Locke. Mr. Graves votes aye.
        Mr. Gallego?
        [No response.]
        Ms. Locke. Mr. Hice?
        Dr. Hice. Hice, yes.
        Ms. Locke. Mr. Hice votes aye.
        Mr. Neguse?
        Mr. Neguse. No.
        Ms. Locke. Mr. Neguse votes no.
        Mrs. Radewagen?
        [No response.]
        Ms. Locke. Mr. Levin?
        Mr. Levin. No.
        Ms. Locke. Mr. Levin votes no.
        Mr. Webster?
        Mr. Webster. Yes.
        Ms. Locke. Mr. Webster votes aye.
        Ms. Porter?
        Ms. Porter. Porter votes no.
        Ms. Locke. Ms. Porter votes no.
        Miss Gonzalez-Colon?
        Miss Gonzalez-Colon. No.
        Ms. Locke. Miss Gonzalez-Colon votes no.
        Ms. Leger Fernandez?
        Ms. Leger Fernandez. No.
        Ms. Locke. Ms. Leger Fernandez votes no.
        Mr. Fulcher?
        Mr. Fulcher. Fulcher is aye.
        Ms. Locke. Mr. Fulcher votes aye.
        Ms. Stansbury?
        Ms. Stansbury. No.
        Ms. Locke. Ms. Stansbury votes no.
        Mr. Stauber?
        Mr. Stauber. No.
        Ms. Locke. Mr. Stauber votes no.
        Ms. Velazquez?
        Ms. Velazquez. Velazquez votes no.
        Ms. Locke. Ms. Velazquez votes no.
        Mr. Tiffany?
        Mr. Tiffany. Yes.
        Ms. Locke. Mr. Tiffany votes aye.
        Ms. DeGette?
        Ms. DeGette. DeGette votes no.
        Ms. Locke. Ms. DeGette votes no.
        Mr. Carl?
        Mr. Carl. Yes.
        Ms. Locke. Mr. Carl votes aye.
        Ms. Brownley?
        Ms. Brownley. Ms. Brownley votes no.
        Ms. Locke. Ms. Brownley votes no.
        Mr. Rosendale?
        Mr. Rosendale. Rosendale, aye.
        Ms. Locke. Mr. Rosendale votes aye.
        Mrs. Dingell?
        Mrs. Dingell. Dingell votes no.
        Ms. Locke. Mrs. Dingell votes no.
        Mr. Moore?
        Mr. Moore. Yes.
        Ms. Locke. Mr. Moore votes aye.
        Mr. McEachin?
        Mr. McEachin. McEachin votes no.
        Ms. Locke. Mr. McEachin votes no.
        Ms. Herrell?
        Ms. Herrell. Ms. Herrell votes aye.
        Ms. Locke. Ms. Herrell votes aye.
        Mr. Soto?
        Mr. Soto. Soto votes no.
        Ms. Locke. Mr. Soto votes no.
        Mrs. Boebert?
        Mrs. Boebert. Boebert votes aye.
        Ms. Locke. Mrs. Boebert votes aye.
        Mr. San Nicolas?
        Mr. San Nicolas. San Nicolas votes no.
        Ms. Locke. Mr. San Nicolas votes no.
        Mr. Obernolte?
        Mr. Obernolte. Aye.
        Ms. Locke. Mr. Obernolte votes aye.
        Mr. Garcia?
        Mr. Garcia. Garcia votes no.
        Ms. Locke. Mr. Garcia votes no.
        Mr. Bentz?
        Mr. Bentz. Aye.
        Ms. Locke. Mr. Bentz votes aye.
        Mr. Case?
        [No response.]
        Ms. Locke. Ms. Conway?
        Ms. Conway. Aye.
        Ms. Locke. Ms. Conway votes aye.
        Ms. McCollum?
        Ms. McCollum. McCollum votes no.
        Ms. Locke. Ms. McCollum votes no.
        Mr. Cohen?
        [No response.]
        Ms. Locke. Mr. Tonko?
        Mr. Tonko. Tonko votes no.
        Ms. Locke. Mr. Tonko votes no.
        Ms. Tlaib?
        Ms. Tlaib. Tlaib votes no.
        Ms. Locke. Ms. Tlaib votes no.
        Mrs. Trahan?
        Mrs. Trahan. Trahan votes no.
        Ms. Locke. Mrs. Trahan votes no.
        Mr. Cohen. Cohen votes no.
        Ms. Locke. Mr. Cohen votes no.
        Mr. Cohen. Thank you.
        The Chairman. Any Member not recorded wish to record their
    vote or change their vote?
        Mr. Lamborn. I vote aye.
        Ms. Locke. Mr. Lamborn votes aye.
        Mr. Lamborn. Thank you.
        The Chairman. Anyone else?
        If not, the vote is closed, the Clerk shall report.
        Ms. Locke. Mr. Chair, on this vote the yeas are 17 and the
    nays are 26.
        The Chairman. The amendment fails.
        Now we go to Boebert Amendment No. 4. The Clerk shall call
    the roll, please.
        Ms. Locke. Mr. Grijalva?
        The Chairman. No.
        Ms. Locke. Mr. Grijalva votes no.
        Mr. Westerman?
        Mr. Westerman. Aye.
        Ms. Locke. Mr. Westerman votes aye.
        Mrs. Napolitano?
        Mrs. Napolitano. No.
        Ms. Locke. Mrs. Napolitano votes no.
        Mr. Gohmert?
        [No response.]
        Ms. Locke. Mr. Costa?
        [No response.]
        Ms. Locke. Mr. Lamborn?
        [No response.]
        Ms. Locke. Mr. Sablan?
        Mr. Sablan. Sablan votes no.
        Ms. Locke. Mr. Sablan votes no.
        Mr. Wittman?
        Dr. Wittman. Wittman votes aye.
        Ms. Locke. Mr. Wittman votes aye.
        Mr. Huffman?
        Mr. Huffman. No.
        Ms. Locke. Mr. Huffman votes no.
        Mr. McClintock?
        Mr. McClintock. Aye.
        Ms. Locke. Mr. McClintock votes aye.
        Mr. Lowenthal?
        Dr. Lowenthal. Lowenthal votes aye.
        Ms. Locke. Mr. Lowenthal votes----
        Dr. Lowenthal. No, Lowenthal votes no. Lowenthal votes no.
        [Laughter.]
        Ms. Locke. Mr. Lowenthal votes no.
        Mr. Graves?
        [No response.]
        Ms. Locke. Mr. Gallego?
        [No response.]
        Ms. Locke. Mr. Graves?
        The Chairman. How is Mr. Graves recorded?
        Ms. Locke. Mr. Graves is not recorded.
        Mr. Gallego?
        [No response.]
        Ms. Locke. Mr. Hice?
        Dr. Hice. Yes.
        Ms. Locke. Mr. Hice votes aye.
        Mr. Neguse?
        Mr. Neguse. No.
        Ms. Locke. Mr. Neguse votes no.
        Mrs. Radewagen?
        [No response.]
        Ms. Locke. Mr. Levin?
        Mr. Levin. No.
        Ms. Locke. Mr. Levin votes no.
        Mr. Webster?
        Mr. Webster. Yea.
        Ms. Locke. Mr. Webster votes aye.
        Ms. Porter?
        Ms. Porter. Porter votes no.
        Ms. Locke. Ms. Porter votes no.
        Miss Gonzalez-Colon?
        Miss Gonzalez-Colon. No.
        Ms. Locke. Miss Gonzalez-Colon votes no.
        Ms. Leger Fernandez?
        Ms. Leger Fernandez. No.
        Ms. Locke. Ms. Leger Fernandez votes no.
        Mr. Fulcher?
        Mr. Fulcher. Fulcher is aye.
        Ms. Locke. Mr. Fulcher votes aye.
        Ms. Stansbury?
        Ms. Stansbury. No.
        Ms. Locke. Ms. Stansbury votes no.
        Mr. Stauber?
        [No response.]
        Ms. Locke. Ms. Velazquez?
        Ms. Velazquez. Velazquez votes no.
        Ms. Locke. Ms. Velazquez votes no.
        Mr. Tiffany?
        [No response.]
        Ms. Locke. Ms. DeGette?
        Ms. DeGette. DeGette votes no.
        Ms. Locke. Ms. DeGette votes no.
        Mr. Carl?
        Mr. Carl. Yes.
        Ms. Locke. Mr. Carl votes aye.
        Ms. Brownley?
        Ms. Brownley. Ms. Brownley votes no.
        Ms. Locke. Ms. Brownley votes no.
        Mr. Rosendale?
        Mr. Rosendale. Rosendale, aye.
        Ms. Locke. Mr. Rosendale votes aye.
        Mrs. Dingell?
        Mrs. Dingell. Dingell votes no.
        Ms. Locke. Mrs. Dingell votes no.
        Mr. Moore?
        Mr. Moore. Aye.
        Ms. Locke. Mr. Moore votes aye.
        Mr. McEachin?
        Mr. McEachin. McEachin votes no.
        Ms. Locke. Mr. McEachin votes no.
        Ms. Herrell?
        Ms. Herrell. Aye.
        Ms. Locke. Ms. Herrell votes aye.
        Mr. Soto?
        Mr. Soto. Soto votes no.
        Ms. Locke. Mr. Soto votes no.
        Mrs. Boebert?
        Mrs. Boebert. Boebert votes aye.
        Ms. Locke. Mrs. Boebert votes aye.
        Mr. San Nicolas?
        Mr. San Nicolas. San Nicolas votes no.
        Ms. Locke. Mr. San Nicolas votes no.
        Mr. Obernolte?
        Mr. Obernolte. Aye.
        Ms. Locke. Mr. Obernolte votes aye.
        Mr. Garcia?
        Mr. Garcia. Garcia votes no.
        Ms. Locke. Mr. Garcia votes no.
        Mr. Bentz?
        Mr. Bentz. Aye.
        Ms. Locke. Mr. Bentz votes aye.
        Mr. Case?
        Mr. Case. No.
        Ms. Locke. Mr. Case votes no.
        Ms. Conway?
        Ms. Conway. Conway votes aye.
        Ms. Locke. Ms. Conway votes aye.
        Ms. McCollum?
        Ms. McCollum. McCollum votes no.
        Ms. Locke. Ms. McCollum votes no.
        Mr. Cohen?
        Mr. Cohen. No, no, no.
        [Laughter.]
        Ms. Locke. OK, Mr. Cohen votes no. We did not have a
    visual, sorry.
        The Chairman. An emphatic no.
        Ms. Locke. Mr. Tonko?
        Mr. Tonko. A kind and gentle no from Tonko.
        [Laughter.]
        Ms. Locke. Mr. Tonko votes no.
        Ms. Tlaib?
        Ms. Tlaib. No, Madam Clerk, thank you.
        Ms. Locke. Ms. Tlaib votes no.
        Mrs. Trahan?
        Mrs. Trahan. Trahan votes no.
        Ms. Locke. Mrs. Trahan votes no.
        The Chairman. Any Member wish to record their vote or
    change their vote?
        Mr. Graves. Graves is yes.
        Mr. Stauber. Mr. Chair, Stauber votes yes.
        The Chairman. Mr. Stauber votes yes.
        Ms. Locke. OK, Mr. Stauber votes aye.
        Mr. Graves votes aye.
        Mr. Sablan. Mr. Chair, how----
        Ms. Locke [continuing].
        Mr. Sablan. Mr. Chair, how did Sablan vote?
        The Chairman. How is Mr. Sablan recorded?
        Ms. Locke. Mr. Sablan is recorded as a no.
        Mr. Tiffany. Mr. Chairman, how is Tiffany recorded?
        Ms. Locke. Mr. Tiffany is not recorded.
        Mr. Tiffany. Aye.
        Ms. Locke. Mr. Tiffany votes aye.
        Mr. Lamborn. How is my vote recorded?
        Ms. Locke. Mr. Lamborn is not recorded.
        Mr. Lamborn. Aye.
        Ms. Locke. Mr. Lamborn votes aye.
        The Chairman. Anyone else? Any other Member wish to record
    their vote?
        If not, the Clerk will close the vote and report. Thank
    you
        [Pause.]
        Mr. Sablan. Getting too old for this.
        [Laughter.]
        The Chairman. It is getting late?
        Mr. Sablan. Almost there.
        [Laughter.]
        The Chairman. I know, brother.
        Voice. They told us they were going to be originally fully
    in-person, and they just pushed it back to hybrid. My guess----
        Ms. Locke. Mr. Chair, on this vote----
        The Chairman. If whoever--I hate to break up the
    conversation, but we are trying to report a vote here. If my
    colleagues wouldn't mind muting themselves--not permanently,
    just for now.
        [Laughter.]
        The Chairman. If the Clerk will report, please.
        Ms. Locke. Mr. Chairman, on this vote the yeas are 18 and
    the nays are 25.
        The Chairman. The amendment fails, and we move to
    McClintock Amendment No. 74.
        The Clerk will call the roll.
        Dr. Hice. Mr. Chairman.
        The Chairman. Who seeks recognition?
        Dr. Hice. This is Mr. Hice.
        The Chairman. We already recorded that vote.
        Dr. Hice. Mr. Chairman, I have another issue I want to
    bring up, Mr. Chairman.
        The Chairman. The Clerk will call the roll on McClintock
    No 74.
        Ms. Locke. Mr. Grijalva?
        The Chairman. No.
        Ms. Locke. Mr. Grijalva votes no.
        Mr. Westerman?
        Mr. Westerman. Aye.
        Ms. Locke. Mr. Westerman votes aye.
        Mrs. Napolitano?
        Mrs. Napolitano. No.
        Ms. Locke. Mrs. Napolitano votes no.
        Mr. Gohmert?
        [No response.]
        Ms. Locke. Mr. Costa?
        [No response.]
        Ms. Locke. Mr. Lamborn?
        Mr. Lamborn. Aye.
        Ms. Locke. Mr. Lamborn votes aye.
        Mr. Sablan?
        Mr. Sablan. No.
        Ms. Locke. Mr. Sablan votes no.
        Mr. Wittman?
        Dr. Wittman. Wittman votes aye.
        Ms. Locke. Mr. Wittman votes aye.
        Mr. Huffman?
        Mr. Huffman. No.
        Ms. Locke. Mr. Huffman votes no.
        Mr. McClintock?
        Mr. McClintock. Aye.
        Ms. Locke. Mr. McClintock votes aye.
        Mr. Lowenthal?
        Dr. Lowenthal. Lowenthal votes no.
        Ms. Locke. Mr. Lowenthal votes no.
        Mr. Graves?
        [No response.]
        Ms. Locke. Mr. Gallego?
        [No response.]
        Ms. Locke. Mr. Hice?
        Dr. Hice. Yes.
        Ms. Locke. Mr. Hice votes aye.
        Mr. Neguse?
        Mr. Neguse. No.
        Ms. Locke. Mr. Neguse votes no.
        Mrs. Radewagen?
        [No response.]
        Ms. Locke. Mr. Levin?
        Mr. Levin. No.
        Ms. Locke. Mr. Levin votes no.
        Mr. Webster?
        Mr. Webster. Yes.
        Ms. Locke. Mr. Webster votes no? Yes, Mr. Webster votes
    aye
        Ms. Porter?
        Ms. Porter. Porter votes no.
        Ms. Locke. Ms. Porter votes no.
        Miss Gonzalez-Colon?
        Mr. Webster. Webster votes nay.
        Ms. Locke. Mr. Webster votes nay. Sorry.
        Miss Gonzalez-Colon. Gonzalez-Colon votes no.
        Ms. Locke. Miss Gonzalez-Colon votes no.
        Ms. Leger Fernandez?
        Ms. Leger Fernandez. Leger Fernandez votes no.
        Ms. Locke. Ms. Leger Fernandez votes no.
        Mr. Fulcher?
        Mr. Fulcher. Fulcher is aye.
        Ms. Locke. Mr. Fulcher votes aye.
        Ms. Stansbury?
        Ms. Stansbury. No.
        Ms. Locke. Ms. Stansbury votes no.
        Mr. Stauber?
        Mr. Stauber. Stauber, aye.
        Ms. Locke. Mr. Stauber votes aye.
        Ms. Velazquez?
        Ms. Velazquez. Velazquez votes no.
        Ms. Locke. Ms. Velazquez votes no.
        Mr. Tiffany?
        Mr. Tiffany. Aye.
        Ms. Locke. Mr. Tiffany votes aye.
        Ms. DeGette?
        Ms. DeGette. DeGette votes no.
        Ms. Locke. Ms. DeGette votes no.
        Mr. Carl?
        Mr. Carl. Yes.
        Ms. Locke. Mr. Carl votes aye.
        Ms. Brownley?
        Ms. Brownley. Brownley votes no.
        Ms. Locke. Ms. Brownley votes no.
        Mr. Rosendale?
        Mr. Rosendale. Rosendale, aye.
        Ms. Locke. Mr. Rosendale votes aye.
        Mrs. Dingell?
        Mrs. Dingell. Dingell is no.
        Ms. Locke. Mrs. Dingell votes no.
        Mr. Moore?
        Mr. Moore. Moore, no.
        Ms. Locke. Mr. Moore votes no.
        Mr. McEachin?
        Mr. McEachin. McEachin votes no.
        Ms. Locke. Mr. McEachin votes no.
        Ms. Herrell?
        Ms. Herrell. Herrell, aye.
        Ms. Locke. Ms. Herrell votes aye.
        Mr. Soto?
        Mr. Soto. Soto votes no.
        Ms. Locke. Mr. Soto votes no.
        Mrs. Boebert?
        Mrs. Boebert. Boebert votes aye.
        The Chairman. Mrs. Boebert votes aye.
        Mr. San Nicolas?
        Mr. San Nicolas. San Nicolas votes no.
        Ms. Locke. Mr. San Nicolas votes no.
        Mr. Obernolte?
        Mr. Obernolte. No.
        Ms. Locke. Mr. Obernolte votes no.
        Mr. Garcia?
        Mr. Garcia. Garcia is a no.
        Ms. Locke. Mr. Garcia votes no.
        Mr. Bentz?
        Mr. Bentz. No.
        Ms. Locke. Mr. Bentz votes no.
        Mr. Case?
        Mr. Case. No.
        Ms. Locke. Mr. Case votes no.
        Ms. Conway?
        Ms. Conway. Conway votes aye.
        Ms. Locke. Ms. Conway votes aye.
        Ms. McCollum?
        Ms. McCollum. McCollum votes no.
        Ms. Locke. Ms. McCollum votes no.
        Mr. Cohen?
        Mr. Cohen. No.
        Ms. Locke. Mr. Cohen votes no.
        Mr. Tonko?
        Mr. Tonko. Tonko votes no.
        Ms. Locke. Mr. Tonko votes no.
        Ms. Tlaib?
        Ms. Tlaib. Tlaib votes no.
        Ms. Locke. Ms. Tlaib votes no.
        Ms. Trahan?
        Mrs. Trahan. Trahan votes no.
        Ms. Locke. Ms. Trahan votes no.
        Mr. Costa. Costa votes no.
        Ms. Locke. Mr. Costa votes no.
        The Chairman. Do any Members wish to change their vote or
    record their vote?
        Mr. Gohmert. Gohmert votes aye.
        Ms. Locke. Mr. Gohmert votes aye.
        The Chairman. Anyone else?
        [No response.]
        The Chairman. If not, the vote is closed, and the Clerk
    shall report.
        Ms. Locke. Mr. Chair, on this vote the ayes are 14 and the
    nays are 30.
        The Chairman. The amendment fails.
        And we move to----
        Dr. Hice. Mr. Chairman, this is Mr. Hice requesting to be
    recognized please.
        The Chairman. We are moving on to another vote, Mr. Hice.
        Dr. Hice. Mr. Chairman, I have a privilege motion.
        The Chairman. The gentleman is recognized.
        Dr. Hice. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        I just move to reconsider Hice Amendment No. 49. I had
    intended to request a recorded vote on that. With technical
    problems on this end, we have made official request to the
    Clerk, and I would just ask your permission for us to have a
    vote on Amendment No. 49.
        Voice. Mr. Chairman, I object to the motion.
        The Chairman. Yes, but what is recorded is that the
    amendment failed on voice, Mr. Hice, because there was no
    request, and----
        Dr. Hice. That is what I am asking, Mr. Chairman. This is a
    privilege motion to reconsider that because I was trying and
    was unable to do so. So, I just ask your permission for this to
    be added to our votes----
        The Chairman. Well, I do not think it is going to slow us
    down particularly, but that decision was already made, sir, and
    I am going to move on to Amendment No. 72, which is Mr.
    McClintock's.
        Dr. Hice. Mr. Chairman, this is a privilege motion. It
    can't just be----
        The Chairman. At this point there is no considering it,
    sir.
        Dr. Hice. This is a motion to reconsider.
        The Chairman. There is no such motion, and we are moving to
    a recorded vote on Amendment No. 72.
        The Clerk will call the roll please.
        Ms. Locke. Mr. Grijalva?
        The Chairman. No.
        Ms. Locke. Mr. Grijalva votes no.
        Mr. Westerman?
        Mr. Westerman. Aye.
        Ms. Locke. Mr. Westerman votes aye.
        Mrs. Napolitano?
        Mrs. Napolitano. No.
        Ms. Locke. Mrs. Napolitano votes no.
        Mr. Gohmert?
        [No response.]
        Ms. Locke. Mr. Costa?
        [No response.]
        Ms. Locke. Mr. Lamborn?
        Mr. Lamborn. Aye.
        Ms. Locke. Mr. Lamborn votes aye.
        Mr. Sablan?
        Mr. Sablan. No.
        Ms. Locke. Mr. Sablan votes no.
        Mr. Wittman?
        Dr. Wittman. Wittman votes aye.
        Ms. Locke. Mr. Wittman votes aye.
        Mr. Huffman?
        Mr. Huffman. No.
        Ms. Locke. Mr. Huffman votes no.
        Mr. McClintock?
        Mr. McClintock. Aye.
        Ms. Locke. Mr. McClintock votes aye.
        Mr. Lowenthal?
        Dr. Lowenthal. Lowenthal votes no.
        Ms. Locke. Mr. Lowenthal votes no.
        Mr. Graves?
        [No response.]
        Ms. Locke. Mr. Gallego?
        [No response.]
        Ms. Locke. Mr. Hice?
        Dr. Hice. Hice is a yes, but Mr. Chairman, I have a
    privilege motion. We cannot go on for additional business until
    that privilege motion is resolved.
        The Chairman. We are going to finish this particular vote,
    and the Clerk will continue please.
        Ms. Locke. Mr. Hice votes aye.
        Mr. Neguse?
        [No response.]
        Ms. Locke. Mrs. Radewagen?
        [No response.]
        Mr. Neguse. Neguse votes no.
        Ms. Locke. Mr. Neguse votes no.
        Mr. Levin?
        Mr. Levin. No.
        Ms. Locke. Mr. Levin votes no.
        Mr. Webster?
        Mr. Webster. Yes.
        Ms. Locke. Mr. Webster votes aye.
        Ms. Porter?
        Ms. Porter. Porter votes no.
        Ms. Locke. Ms. Porter votes no.
        Miss Gonzalez-Colon?
        Miss Gonzalez-Colon. No.
        Ms. Locke. Miss Gonzalez-Colon votes no.
        Ms. Leger Fernandez?
        Ms. Leger Fernandez. Leger Fernandez votes no.
        Ms. Locke. Leger Fernandez votes no.
        Mr. Fulcher?
        Mr. Fulcher. Fulcher is aye.
        Ms. Locke. Mr. Fulcher votes aye.
        Ms. Stansbury?
        Ms. Stansbury. No.
        Ms. Locke. Ms. Stansbury votes no.
        Mr. Stauber?
        Mr. Stauber. No.
        Ms. Locke. Mr. Stauber votes no.
        Ms. Velazquez?
        Ms. Velazquez. Velazquez votes no.
        Ms. Locke. Ms. Velazquez votes no.
        Mr. Tiffany?
        Mr. Tiffany. Aye.
        Ms. Locke. Mr. Tiffany votes aye.
        Ms. DeGette?
        Ms. DeGette. DeGette votes no.
        Ms. Locke. Ms. DeGette votes no.
        Mr. Carl?
        Mr. Carl. Yes.
        Ms. Locke. Mr. Carl votes aye.
        Ms. Brownley?
        Ms. Brownley. Brownley votes no.
        Ms. Locke. Ms. Brownley votes no.
        Mr. Rosendale?
        Mr. Rosendale. Rosendale, aye.
        Ms. Locke. Mr. Rosendale votes aye.
        Mrs. Dingell?
        Mrs. Dingell. Dingell votes no.
        Ms. Locke. Mrs. Dingell votes no.
        Mr. Moore?
        Mr. Moore. Aye.
        Ms. Locke. Mr. Moore votes aye.
        Mr. McEachin?
        Mr. McEachin. McEachin votes no.
        Ms. Locke. Mr. McEachin votes no.
        Ms. Herrell?
        Ms. Herrell. Ms. Herrell votes aye.
        Ms. Locke. Ms. Herrell votes aye.
        Mr. Soto?
        Mr. Soto. Soto votes no.
        Ms. Locke. Mr. Soto votes no.
        Mrs. Boebert?
        [No response.]
        Ms. Locke. Mr. San Nicolas?
        Mr. San Nicolas. San Nicolas votes no.
        Ms. Locke. Mr. San Nicolas votes no.
        Mr. Obernolte?
        Mr. Obernolte. Aye.
        Ms. Locke. Mr. Obernolte votes aye.
        Mr. Garcia?
        Mr. Garcia. Garcia votes no.
        Ms. Locke. Mr. Garcia votes no.
        Mr. Bentz?
        Mr. Bentz. Aye.
        Ms. Locke. Mr. Bentz votes aye.
        Mr. Case?
        Mr. Case. No.
        Ms. Locke. Mr. Case votes no.
        Ms. Conway?
        Ms. Conway. Conway votes aye.
        Ms. Locke. Ms. Conway votes aye.
        Ms. McCollum?
        Ms. McCollum. McCollum votes no.
        Ms. Locke. Ms. McCollum votes no.
        Mr. Cohen?
        Mr. Cohen. No.
        Ms. Locke. Mr. Cohen votes no.
        Mr. Tonko?
        Mr. Tonko. Tonko votes no.
        Ms. Locke. Mr. Tonko votes no.
        Ms. Tlaib?
        Ms. Tlaib. Tlaib votes no.
        Ms. Locke. Ms. Tlaib votes no.
        Ms. Trahan?
        Mrs. Trahan. Trahan votes no.
        Ms. Locke. Ms. Trahan votes no.
        The Chairman. Any Member who has not recorded their vote or
    wishes to change their vote?
        Mrs. Boebert. Boebert votes aye.
        Ms. Locke. Mrs. Boebert votes aye.
        Mr. Gohmert. Gohmert votes aye.
        Ms. Locke. Mr. Gohmert votes aye.
        The Chairman. Any other Members wish to be recorded?
        Mr. Graves. Mr. Chairman, how am I recorded? Graves of
    Louisiana.
        Ms. Locke. Mr. Graves is not recorded.
        Mr. Graves. Graves, yes.
        Ms. Locke. Mr. Graves votes aye.
        Mr. Graves. Thank you.
        Mr. Costa. Costa votes no.
        Ms. Locke. Mr. Costa votes no.
        The Chairman. The vote is closed.
        The Clerk shall report.
        Ms. Locke. Mr. Chair, on this vote the yeas are 18 and the
    nays are 27.
        The Chairman. The amendment fails and we move to Mr.
    McClintock Amendment No. 72--I mean Westerman No. 7.
        And the Clerk shall call the roll.
        Ms. Locke. Mr. Grijalva?
        The Chairman. No.
        Ms. Locke. Mr. Grijalva votes no.
        Mr. Westerman?
        Mr. Westerman. Aye.
        Ms. Locke. Mr. Westerman votes aye.
        Mrs. Napolitano?
        Mrs. Napolitano. No.
        Ms. Locke. Mrs. Napolitano votes no.
        Mr. Gohmert?
        Mr. Gohmert. Aye.
        Ms. Locke. Mr. Gohmert votes aye.
        Mr. Costa?
        Mr. Costa. Costa votes no.
        Ms. Locke. Mr. Costa votes no.
        Mr. Lamborn?
        Mr. Lamborn. Aye.
        Ms. Locke. Mr. Lamborn votes aye.
        Mr. Sablan?
        Mr. Sablan. Sablan votes no.
        Ms. Locke. Mr. Sablan votes no.
        Mr. Wittman?
        Dr. Wittman. Wittman votes aye.
        Ms. Locke. Mr. Wittman votes aye.
        Mr. Huffman?
        Mr. Huffman. No.
        Ms. Locke. Mr. Huffman votes no.
        Mr. McClintock?
        Mr. McClintock. Aye.
        Ms. Locke. Mr. McClintock votes aye.
        Mr. Lowenthal?
        Dr. Lowenthal. Lowenthal votes no.
        Ms. Locke. Mr. Lowenthal votes no.
        Mr. Graves?
        [No response.]
        Ms. Locke. Mr. Gallego?
        [No response.]
        Ms. Locke. Mr. Hice?
        Dr. Hice. Yes.
        Ms. Locke. Mr. Hice votes aye.
        Mr. Neguse?
        [No response.]
        Ms. Locke. Mrs. Radewagen?
        [No response.]
        Mr. Neguse. No. Neguse votes no.
        Ms. Locke. Mr. Neguse votes no.
        Mr. Levin?
        Mr. Levin. No.
        Ms. Locke. Mr. Levin votes no.
        Mr. Webster?
        Mr. Webster. Aye.
        Ms. Locke. Mr. Webster votes aye.
        Ms. Porter?
        Ms. Porter. Porter votes no.
        Ms. Locke. Ms. Porter votes no.
        Miss Gonzalez-Colon?
        Miss Gonzalez-Colon. No.
        Ms. Locke. Miss Gonzalez-Colon votes no.
        Ms. Leger Fernandez?
        Ms. Leger Fernandez. Leger Fernandez votes no.
        Ms. Locke. Ms. Leger Fernandez votes no.
        Mr. Fulcher?
        Mr. Fulcher. Fulcher is aye.
        Ms. Locke. Mr. Fulcher votes aye.
        Ms. Stansbury?
        Ms. Stansbury. No.
        Ms. Locke. Ms. Stansbury votes no.
        Mr. Stauber?
        Mr. Stauber. Aye.
        Ms. Locke. Mr. Stauber votes aye.
        Ms. Velazquez?
        Ms. Velazquez. Velazquez votes no.
        Ms. Locke. Ms. Velazquez votes no.
        Mr. Tiffany?
        Mr. Tiffany. Aye.
        Ms. Locke. Mr. Tiffany votes aye.
        Ms. DeGette?
        Ms. DeGette. DeGette votes no.
        Ms. Locke. Ms. DeGette votes no.
        Mr. Carl?
        Mr. Carl. Yes.
        Ms. Locke. Mr. Carl votes aye.
        Ms. Brownley?
        Ms. Brownley. Brownley votes no.
        Ms. Locke. Ms. Brownley votes no.
        Mr. Rosendale?
        Mr. Rosendale. Rosendale, aye.
        Ms. Locke. Mr. Rosendale votes aye.
        Mrs. Dingell?
        Mrs. Dingell. Dingell votes no.
        Ms. Locke. Mrs. Dingell votes no.
        Mr. Moore?
        Mr. Moore. Aye.
        Ms. Locke. Mr. Moore votes aye.
        Mr. McEachin?
        Mr. McEachin. McEachin votes no.
        Ms. Locke. Mr. McEachin votes no.
        Ms. Herrell?
        Ms. Herrell. Ms. Herrell votes aye.
        Ms. Locke. Ms. Herrell votes aye.
        Mr. Soto?
        Mr. Soto. Soto is no.
        Ms. Locke. Mr. Soto votes no.
        Mrs. Boebert?
        [No response.]
        Ms. Locke. Mr. San Nicolas?
        Mr. San Nicolas. San Nicolas votes no.
        Ms. Locke. Mr. San Nicolas votes no.
        Mr. Obernolte?
        Mr. Obernolte. Aye.
        Ms. Locke. Mr. Obernolte votes aye.
        Mr. Garcia?
        Mr. Garcia. Garcia is a no.
        Ms. Locke. Mr. Garcia votes no.
        Mr. Bentz?
        Mr. Bentz. Aye.
        Ms. Locke. Mr. Bentz votes aye.
        Mr. Case?
        Mr. Case. No.
        Ms. Locke. Mr. Case votes no.
        Ms. Conway?
        Ms. Conway. Conway votes aye.
        Ms. Locke. Ms. Conway votes aye.
        Ms. McCollum?
        Ms. McCollum. McCollum votes no.
        Ms. Locke. Ms. McCollum votes no.
        Mr. Cohen?
        Mr. Cohen. No.
        Ms. Locke. Mr. Cohen votes no.
        Mr. Tonko?
        Mr. Tonko. Tonko votes no.
        Ms. Locke. Mr. Tonko votes no.
        Ms. Tlaib?
        Ms. Tlaib. Tlaib votes no.
        Ms. Locke. Ms. Tlaib votes no.
        Ms. Trahan?
        Mrs. Trahan. Trahan votes no.
        Ms. Locke. Ms. Trahan votes no.
        The Chairman. Any Members not recorded who wish to be
    recorded or change their vote?
        Ms. Locke. Mrs. Boebert?
        Mrs. Boebert. Votes aye.
        Ms. Locke. Mrs. Boebert votes aye.
        Mr. Graves. Mr. Chairman, how am I recorded?
        The Chairman. How is the gentleman recorded?
        Ms. Locke. Mr. Graves is not recorded.
        Mr. Graves. Graves, yes.
        Ms. Locke. Mr. Graves votes aye.
        The Chairman. Anyone else?
        [No response.]
        The Chairman. If not, the vote is closed.
        The Clerk shall report.
        Ms. Locke. Mr. Chair, on this vote, the yeas are 19 and the
    nays are 26.
        The Chairman. The amendment fails.
        Now we move to the amendment designated Westerman No. 2.
        And the Clerk shall call the roll.
        Ms. Locke. Mr. Grijalva?
        The Chairman. No.
        Ms. Locke. Mr. Grijalva votes no.
        Mr. Westerman?
        Mr. Westerman. Aye.
        Ms. Locke. Mr. Westerman votes aye.
        Mrs. Napolitano?
        Mrs. Napolitano. No.
        Ms. Locke. Mrs. Napolitano votes no.
        Mr. Gohmert?
        [No response.]
        Ms. Locke. Mr. Costa?
        Mr. Costa. Costa votes no.
        Ms. Locke. Mr. Costa votes no.
        Mr. Lamborn?
        Mr. Lamborn. Aye.
        Ms. Locke. Mr. Lamborn votes aye.
        Mr. Sablan?
        Mr. Sablan. No.
        Ms. Locke. Mr. Sablan votes no.
        Mr. Wittman?
        Dr. Wittman. Wittman votes aye.
        Ms. Locke. Mr. Wittman votes aye.
        Mr. Huffman?
        Mr. Huffman. No.
        Ms. Locke. Mr. Huffman votes no.
        Mr. McClintock?
        Mr. McClintock. Aye.
        Ms. Locke. Mr. McClintock votes aye.
        Mr. Lowenthal?
        Dr. Lowenthal. Lowenthal votes no.
        Ms. Locke. Mr. Lowenthal votes no.
        Mr. Graves?
        [No response.]
        Ms. Locke. Mr. Gallego?
        [No response.]
        Ms. Locke. Mr. Hice?
        Dr. Hice. Yes.
        Ms. Locke. Mr. Hice votes aye.
        Mr. Neguse?
        Mr. Neguse. No.
        Ms. Locke. Mr. Neguse votes no.
        Mrs. Radewagen?
        [No response.]
        Ms. Locke. Mr. Levin?
        Mr. Levin. No.
        Ms. Locke. Mr. Levin votes no.
        Mr. Webster?
        Mr. Webster. Yes.
        Ms. Locke. Mr. Webster votes aye.
        Ms. Porter?
        Ms. Porter. Porter votes no.
        Ms. Locke. Ms. Porter votes no.
        Miss Gonzalez-Colon?
        Miss Gonzalez-Colon. No.
        Ms. Locke. Miss Gonzalez-Colon votes no.
        Ms. Leger Fernandez?
        Ms. Leger Fernandez. Leger Fernandez votes no.
        Ms. Locke. Ms. Leger Fernandez votes no.
        Mr. Fulcher?
        Mr. Fulcher. Fulcher votes aye.
        Ms. Locke. Mr. Fulcher votes aye.
        Ms. Stansbury?
        Ms. Stansbury. No.
        Ms. Locke. Ms. Stansbury votes no.
        Mr. Stauber?
        Mr. Stauber. Stauber votes aye.
        Ms. Locke. Mr. Stauber votes aye.
        Ms. Velazquez?
        Ms. Velazquez. Velazquez votes no.
        Ms. Locke. Ms. Velazquez votes no.
        Mr. Tiffany?
        Mr. Tiffany. Aye.
        Ms. Locke. Mr. Tiffany votes aye.
        Ms. DeGette?
        Ms. DeGette. DeGette votes no.
        Ms. Locke. Ms. DeGette votes no.
        Mr. Carl?
        Mr. Carl. Aye.
        Ms. Locke. Mr. Carl votes aye.
        Ms. Brownley?
        Ms. Brownley. Ms. Brownley votes no.
        Ms. Locke. Ms. Brownley votes no.
        Mr. Rosendale?
        Mr. Rosendale. Rosendale, aye.
        Ms. Locke. Mr. Rosendale votes aye.
        Mrs. Dingell?
        Mrs. Dingell. Dingell votes no.
        Ms. Locke. Mrs. Dingell votes no.
        Mr. Moore?
        Mr. Moore. Aye.
        Ms. Locke. Mr. Moore votes aye.
        Mr. McEachin?
        Mr. McEachin. McEachin votes no.
        Ms. Locke. Mr. McEachin votes no.
        Ms. Herrell?
        Ms. Herrell. Ms. Herrell votes aye.
        Ms. Locke. Ms. Herrell votes aye.
        Mr. Soto?
        Mr. Soto. Soto votes no.
        Ms. Locke. Mr. Soto votes no.
        Mrs. Boebert?
        [No response.]
        Mr. San Nicolas?
        Mrs. Boebert. Boebert votes aye.
        Ms. Locke. Mrs. Boebert votes aye.
        Mr. San Nicolas?
        Mr. San Nicolas. San Nicolas votes no.
        Ms. Locke. Mr. San Nicolas votes no.
        Mr. Obernolte?
        Mr. Obernolte. Aye.
        Ms. Locke. Mr. Obernolte votes aye.
        Mr. Garcia?
        Mr. Garcia. Garcia is a no.
        Ms. Locke. Mr. Garcia votes no.
        Mr. Bentz?
        Mr. Bentz. Aye.
        Ms. Locke. Mr. Bentz votes aye.
        Mr. Case?
        Mr. Case. No.
        Ms. Locke. Mr. Case votes no.
        Ms. Conway?
        Ms. Conway. Ms. Conway votes aye.
        Ms. Locke. Ms. Conway votes aye.
        Ms. McCollum?
        Ms. McCollum. McCollum votes no.
        Ms. Locke. Ms. McCollum votes no.
        Mr. Cohen?
        Mr. Cohen. No.
        Ms. Locke. Mr. Cohen votes no.
        Mr. Tonko?
        Mr. Tonko. Tonko votes no.
        Ms. Locke. Mr. Tonko votes no.
        Ms. Tlaib?
        Ms. Tlaib. No.
        Ms. Locke. Ms. Tlaib votes no.
        Ms. Trahan?
        Mrs. Trahan. Trahan votes no.
        Ms. Locke. Ms. Trahan votes no.
        The Chairman. Is there any Member not recorded who wishes
    to do so or change their vote?
        [No response.]
        The Chairman. If not, the vote is closed, and the Clerk
    shall report.
        Mr. Graves. Mr. Chairman, Graves of Louisiana, yes.
        The Chairman. Mr. Graves is recorded as?
        Ms. Locke. Mr. Graves is recorded--votes aye.
        The Chairman. OK. The vote is closed again.
        And the Clerk will report.
        Ms. Locke. Mr. Chair, on this vote the yeas are 18 and the
    nays are 26.
        The Chairman. The amendment fails.
        We now move to Tiffany Amendment No. 10.
        The Clerk shall call the roll.
        Ms. Locke. Mr. Grijalva?
        The Chairman. No.
        Ms. Locke. Mr. Grijalva votes no.
        Mr. Westerman?
        Mr. Westerman. Aye.
        Ms. Locke. Mr. Westerman votes aye.
        Mrs. Napolitano?
        [No response.]
        Ms. Locke. Mr. Gohmert?
        [No response.]
        Ms. Locke. Mr. Costa?
        Mr. Costa. Costa votes no.
        Ms. Locke. Mr. Costa votes no.
        Mr. Lamborn?
        Mr. Lamborn. Aye.
        Ms. Locke. Mr. Lamborn votes aye.
        Mr. Sablan?
        Mr. Sablan. No.
        Ms. Locke. Mr. Sablan votes no.
        Mr. Wittman?
        Dr. Wittman. Wittman votes aye.
        Ms. Locke. Mr. Wittman votes aye.
        Mr. Huffman?
        Mr. Huffman. No.
        Ms. Locke. Mr. Huffman votes no.
        Mr. McClintock?
        Mr. McClintock. Aye.
        Ms. Locke. Mr. McClintock votes aye.
        Mr. Lowenthal?
        Dr. Lowenthal. Lowenthal votes no.
        Ms. Locke. Mr. Lowenthal votes no.
        Mr. Graves?
        [No response.]
        Ms. Locke. Mr. Gallego?
        [No response.]
        Ms. Locke. Mr. Hice?
        Dr. Hice. Yes.
        Ms. Locke. Mr. Hice votes aye.
        Mr. Neguse?
        Mr. Neguse. No.
        Ms. Locke. Mr. Neguse votes no.
        Mrs. Radewagen?
        [No response.]
        Ms. Locke. Mr. Levin?
        Mr. Levin. No.
        Ms. Locke. Mr. Levin votes no.
        Mr. Webster?
        Mr. Webster. Yes.
        Ms. Locke. Mr. Webster votes aye.
        Ms. Porter?
        Ms. Porter. Porter votes no.
        Ms. Locke. Ms. Porter votes no.
        Miss Gonzalez-Colon?
        Miss Gonzalez-Colon. Miss Gonzalez-Colon votes no.
        Ms. Locke. Miss Gonzalez-Colon votes no.
        Ms. Leger Fernandez?
        Ms. Leger Fernandez. Leger Fernandez votes no.
        Ms. Locke. Ms. Leger Fernandez votes no.
        Mr. Fulcher?
        Mr. Fulcher. Fulcher is aye.
        Ms. Locke. Mr. Fulcher votes aye.
        Ms. Stansbury?
        Ms. Stansbury. No.
        Ms. Locke. Ms. Stansbury votes no.
        Mr. Stauber?
        Mr. Stauber. Stauber, aye.
        Ms. Locke. Mr. Stauber votes aye.
        Ms. Velazquez?
        Ms. Velazquez. Velazquez votes no.
        Ms. Locke. Ms. Velazquez votes no.
        Mr. Tiffany?
        Mr. Tiffany. Aye.
        Ms. Locke. Mr. Tiffany votes aye.
        Ms. DeGette?
        Ms. DeGette. DeGette votes no.
        Ms. Locke. Ms. DeGette votes no.
        Mr. Carl?
        Mr. Carl. Aye.
        Ms. Locke. Mr. Carl votes aye.
        Ms. Brownley?
        Ms. Brownley. Ms. Brownley votes no.
        Ms. Locke. Ms. Brownley votes no.
        Mr. Rosendale?
        Mr. Rosendale. Rosendale, aye.
        Ms. Locke. Mr. Rosendale votes aye.
        Mrs. Dingell?
        Mrs. Dingell. Dingell votes no.
        Ms. Locke. Mrs. Dingell votes no.
        Mr. Moore?
        Mr. Moore. Moore, aye.
        Ms. Locke. Mr. Moore votes aye.
        Mr. McEachin?
        Mr. McEachin. McEachin votes no.
        Ms. Locke. Mr. McEachin votes no.
        Ms. Herrell?
        Ms. Herrell. Herrell votes aye.
        Ms. Locke. Ms. Herrell votes aye.
        Mr. Soto?
        Mr. Soto. Soto votes no.
        Ms. Locke. Mr. Soto votes no.
        Mrs. Boebert?
        Mrs. Boebert. Boebert votes aye.
        Ms. Locke. Mrs. Boebert votes aye.
        Mr. San Nicolas?
        Mr. San Nicolas. San Nicolas votes no.
        Ms. Locke. Mr. San Nicolas votes no.
        Mr. Obernolte?
        Mr. Obernolte. Aye.
        Ms. Locke. Mr. Obernolte votes aye.
        Mr. Garcia?
        Mr. Garcia. Garcia votes no.
        Ms. Locke. Mr. Garcia votes no.
        Mr. Bentz?
        Mr. Bentz. Aye.
        Ms. Locke. Mr. Bentz votes aye.
        Mr. Case?
        Mr. Case. No.
        Ms. Locke. Mr. Case votes no.
        Ms. Conway?
        Ms. Conway. Conway, aye.
        Ms. Locke. Ms. Conway votes aye.
        Ms. McCollum?
        Ms. McCollum. McCollum votes no.
        Ms. Locke. Ms. McCollum votes no.
        Mr. Cohen?
        Mr. Cohen. No. No.
        Ms. Locke. Mr. Cohen, I do not have a visual, sir.
        Mr. Cohen. Yes, I think this video just does not like me.
    It is supposed to be on. I do not want to push stop my video.
    So, that means my video must be on.
        Ms. Locke. Mr. Cohen votes no.
        Mr. Cohen. You look great.
        Ms. Locke. Mr. Tonko?
        Mr. Tonko. Tonko votes no.
        Ms. Locke. Mr. Tonko votes no.
        Ms. Tlaib?
        Ms. Tlaib. Tlaib votes no.
        Ms. Locke. Ms. Tlaib votes no.
        Ms. Trahan?
        Mrs. Trahan. Trahan votes no.
        Ms. Locke. Ms. Trahan votes no.
        The Chairman. Do any Members wish to record their vote or
    change their vote?
        [No response.]
        Mrs. Napolitano. How is Napolitano recorded?
        The Chairman. How is Mrs. Napolitano recorded?
        Ms. Locke. Mrs. Napolitano is not recorded.
        Mrs. Napolitano. No.
        Ms. Locke. Mrs. Napolitano votes no.
        The Chairman. Anyone else?
        [No response.]
        The Chairman. If not, the vote is closed.
        And the Clerk will report.
        Ms. Locke. Mr. Chair, on this vote the yeas are 17 and the
    nays are 26.
        The Chairman. The amendment fails.
        The amendment now is designated Tiffany No. 9.
        And the Clerk will call the roll.
        Ms. Locke. Mr. Grijalva?
        The Chairman. No.
        Ms. Locke. Mr. Grijalva votes no.
        Mr. Westerman?
        Mr. Westerman. Aye.
        Ms. Locke. Mr. Westerman votes aye.
        Mrs. Napolitano?
        Mrs. Napolitano. No.
        Ms. Locke. Mrs. Napolitano votes no.
        Mr. Gohmert?
        [No response.]
        Ms. Locke. Mr. Costa?
        Mr. Costa. Costa votes no.
        Ms. Locke. Mr. Costa votes no.
        Mr. Lamborn?
        Mr. Lamborn. Aye.
        Ms. Locke. Mr. Lamborn votes aye.
        Mr. Sablan?
        Mr. Sablan. No.
        Ms. Locke. Mr. Sablan votes no.
        Mr. Wittman?
        Dr. Wittman. Wittman votes aye.
        Ms. Locke. Mr. Wittman votes aye.
        Mr. Huffman?
        Mr. Huffman. No.
        Ms. Locke. Mr. Huffman votes no.
        Mr. McClintock?
        Mr. McClintock. Aye.
        Ms. Locke. Mr. McClintock votes aye.
        Mr. Lowenthal?
        Dr. Lowenthal. Lowenthal votes no.
        Ms. Locke. Mr. Lowenthal votes no.
        Mr. Graves?
        [No response.]
        Ms. Locke. Mr. Gallego?
        [No response.]
        Ms. Locke. Mr. Hice?
        Dr. Hice. Yes.
        Ms. Locke. Mr. Hice votes aye.
        Mr. Neguse?
        [No response.]
        Ms. Locke. Mrs. Radewagen?
        [No response.]
        Mr. Neguse. Neguse votes no.
        Ms. Locke. Mr. Neguse votes no.
        Mr. Levin?
        Mr. Levin. No.
        Ms. Locke. Mr. Levin votes no.
        Mr. Webster?
        Mr. Webster. Yes.
        Ms. Locke. Mr. Webster votes aye.
        Ms. Porter?
        Ms. Porter. Porter votes no.
        Ms. Locke. Ms. Porter votes no.
        Miss Gonzalez-Colon?
        Miss Gonzalez-Colon. No.
        Ms. Locke. Miss Gonzalez-Colon votes no.
        Ms. Leger Fernandez?
        Ms. Leger Fernandez. Leger Fernandez votes no.
        Ms. Locke. Ms. Leger Fernandez votes no.
        Mr. Fulcher?
        Mr. Fulcher. Fulcher is aye.
        Ms. Locke. Mr. Fulcher votes aye.
        Ms. Stansbury?
        Ms. Stansbury. No.
        Ms. Locke. Ms. Stansbury votes no.
        Mr. Stauber?
        Mr. Stauber. Stauber, aye.
        Ms. Locke. Mr. Stauber votes aye.
        Ms. Velazquez?
        Ms. Velazquez. Velazquez votes no.
        Ms. Locke. Ms. Velazquez votes no.
        Mr. Tiffany?
        Mr. Tiffany. Aye.
        Ms. Locke. Mr. Tiffany votes aye.
        Ms. DeGette?
        Ms. DeGette. DeGette votes no.
        Ms. Locke. Ms. DeGette votes no.
        Mr. Carl?
        Mr. Carl. Aye.
        Ms. Locke. Mr. Carl votes aye.
        Ms. Brownley?
        Ms. Brownley. Ms. Brownley votes no.
        Ms. Locke. Ms. Brownley votes no.
        Mr. Rosendale?
        Mr. Rosendale. Rosendale, aye.
        Ms. Locke. Mr. Rosendale votes aye.
        Mrs. Dingell?
        Mrs. Dingell. Dingell is no.
        Ms. Locke. Mrs. Dingell votes no.
        Mr. Moore?
        Mr. Moore. Moore, aye.
        Ms. Locke. Mr. Moore votes aye.
        Mr. McEachin?
        Mr. McEachin. McEachin votes no.
        Ms. Locke. Mr. McEachin votes no.
        Ms. Herrell?
        Ms. Herrell. Herrell, aye.
        Ms. Locke. Ms. Herrell votes aye.
        Mr. Soto?
        Mr. Soto. Soto votes no.
        Ms. Locke. Mr. Soto votes no.
        Mrs. Boebert?
        Mrs. Boebert. Boebert votes aye.
        Ms. Locke. Mrs. Boebert votes aye.
        Mr. San Nicolas?
        Mr. San Nicolas. San Nicolas votes no.
        Ms. Locke. Mr. San Nicolas votes no.
        Mr. Obernolte?
        Mr. Obernolte. Aye.
        Ms. Locke. Mr. Obernolte votes aye.
        Mr. Garcia?
        Mr. Garcia. Garcia votes no.
        Ms. Locke. Mr. Garcia votes no.
        Mr. Bentz?
        Mr. Bentz. Aye.
        Ms. Locke. Mr. Bentz votes aye.
        Mr. Case?
        Mr. Case. No.
        Ms. Locke. Mr. Case votes no.
        Ms. Conway?
        Ms. Conway. Conway votes aye.
        Ms. Locke. Ms. Conway votes aye.
        Ms. McCollum?
        Ms. McCollum. McCollum votes no.
        Ms. Locke. Ms. McCollum votes no.
        Mr. Cohen?
        Mr. Cohen. No.
        Ms. Locke. Mr. Cohen, I don't have a visual.
        Mr. Cohen. How do we----
        Ms. Locke. Mr. Cohen votes no.
        Mr. Tonko?
        Mr. Tonko. Tonko votes no.
        Ms. Locke. Mr. Tonko votes no.
        Ms. Tlaib?
        Ms. Tlaib. Tlaib votes no.
        Ms. Locke. Ms. Tlaib votes no.
        Ms. Trahan?
        Mrs. Trahan. Trahan votes no.
        Ms. Locke. Ms. Trahan votes no.
        The Chairman. Does any Member wish to change their vote or
    record their vote?
        [No response.]
        The Chairman. If not, the vote is closed.
        And the Clerk shall report.
        Ms. Locke. Mr. Chair, on this vote the yeas are 17 and the
    nays are 26.
        The Chairman. The amendment fails.
        We now go to Mr. Hice, Amendment----Mr. Hice, before we get
    into a parliamentary debate and which rules rule, this piece of
    legislation is pretty important to everyone, and I don't want
    to bog it down in a discussion. The benefit of the doubt is
    extended and the courtesy. That is not a precedent or a
    practice, but I believe you when you say your inability
    technically to get on is correct, and by unanimous consent if
    there is no objection, we will consider Hice No. 49 after,
    obviously, No. 48.
        Dr. Hice. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
        The Chairman. You are quite welcome, sir, but let me
    reiterate that it is a courtesy to a colleague, but not a
    precedent or a practice because once the vote is closed, it is
    closed and your motion to reconsider was out of order. We could
    have voted on that as well, but that just takes us into another
    time zone. And I don't want to do that and neither do any of
    the Members.
        With that, Mr. Hice, you now have Amendment No. 45 that is
    up for a vote.
        The Clerk shall call the roll.
        Mr. Sablan. Good call, Mr. Chairman. Good call.
        Ms. LeGrant. Mr. Grijalva?
        The Chairman. No.
        Ms. LeGrant. Mr. Grijalva votes no.
        Mr. Westerman?
        Mr. Westerman. Aye.
        Ms. LeGrant. Mr. Westerman votes aye.
        Mrs. Napolitano?
        Mrs. Napolitano. No.
        Ms. LeGrant. Mrs. Napolitano votes no.
        Mr. Gohmert?
        [No response.]
        Ms. LeGrant. Mr. Costa?
        Mr. Costa. Costa votes no.
        Ms. LeGrant. Mr. Costa votes no.
        Mr. Lamborn?
        Mr. Lamborn. Aye.
        Ms. LeGrant. Mr. Lamborn votes aye.
        Mr. Sablan?
        Mr. Sablan. No.
        Ms. LeGrant. Mr. Sablan votes no.
        Mr. Wittman?
        Dr. Wittman. Wittman votes aye.
        Ms. LeGrant. Mr. Wittman votes aye.
        Mr. Huffman?
        Mr. Huffman. No.
        Ms. LeGrant. Mr. Huffman votes no.
        Mr. McClintock?
        Mr. McClintock. Aye.
        Ms. LeGrant. Mr. McClintock votes aye.
        Mr. Lowenthal?
        Dr. Lowenthal. Lowenthal votes no.
        Ms. LeGrant. Mr. Lowenthal votes no.
        Mr. Graves?
        [No response.]
        Ms. LeGrant. Mr. Gallego?
        [No response.]
        Ms. LeGrant. Mr. Hice?
        Mr. Gallego. Gallego is no.
        Dr. Hice. Yes.
        Ms. LeGrant. Mr. Hice votes?
        Dr. Hice. Yes.
        Ms. LeGrant. No--yes. Excuse me.
        Mr. Neguse?
        Mr. Neguse. No.
        Ms. LeGrant. Mr. Neguse votes no.
        Mrs. Radewagen?
        [No response.]
        Ms. LeGrant. Mr. Levin?
        Mr. Levin. No.
        Ms. LeGrant. Mr. Levin votes no.
        Mr. Webster?
        Mr. Webster. Yes.
        Ms. LeGrant. Mr. Webster votes aye.
        Ms. Porter?
        Ms. Porter. Porter votes no.
        Ms. LeGrant. Ms. Porter votes no.
        Miss Gonzalez-Colon?
        Miss Gonzalez-Colon. No.
        Ms. LeGrant. Miss Gonzalez-Colon votes no.
        Ms. Leger Fernandez?
        Ms. Leger Fernandez. Leger Fernandez votes no.
        Ms. LeGrant. Leger Fernandez votes no.
        Mr. Fulcher?
        Mr. Fulcher. Fulcher is aye.
        Ms. LeGrant. Mr. Fulcher votes aye.
        Ms. Stansbury?
        Ms. Stansbury. No.
        Ms. LeGrant. Ms. Stansbury votes no.
        Mr. Stauber?
        Mr. Stauber. Stauber, aye.
        Ms. LeGrant. Mr. Stauber votes aye.
        Ms. Velazquez?
        Ms. Velazquez. Velazquez votes no.
        Ms. LeGrant. Ms. Velazquez votes no.
        Mr. Tiffany?
        Mr. Tiffany. Aye.
        Ms. LeGrant. Mr. Tiffany votes aye.
        Ms. DeGette?
        Ms. DeGette. DeGette votes no.
        Ms. LeGrant. Ms. DeGette votes no.
        Mr. Carl?
        Mr. Carl. Aye.
        Ms. LeGrant. Mr. Carl votes aye.
        Ms. Brownley?
        Ms. Brownley. Ms. Brownley votes no.
        Ms. LeGrant. Ms. Brownley votes no.
        Mr. Rosendale?
        Mr. Rosendale. Rosendale, aye.
        Ms. LeGrant. Mr. Rosendale votes aye.
        Mrs. Dingell?
        Mrs. Dingell. Dingell is no.
        Ms. LeGrant. Mrs. Dingell votes no.
        Mr. Moore?
        Mr. Moore. Aye.
        Ms. LeGrant. Mr. Moore votes aye.
        Mr. McEachin?
        Mr. McEachin. McEachin votes no.
        Ms. LeGrant. Mr. McEachin votes no.
        Ms. Herrell?
        Ms. Herrell. Herrell votes aye.
        Ms. LeGrant. Ms. Herrell votes aye.
        Mr. Soto?
        Mr. Soto. Soto votes no.
        Ms. LeGrant. Mr. Soto votes no.
        Mrs. Boebert?
        Mrs. Boebert. Boebert votes aye.
        Ms. LeGrant. Mrs. Boebert votes aye.
        Mr. San Nicolas?
        Mr. San Nicolas. San Nicolas votes no.
        Ms. LeGrant. Mr. San Nicolas votes no.
        Mr. Obernolte?
        Mr. Obernolte. Aye.
        Ms. LeGrant. Mr. Obernolte votes aye.
        Mr. Garcia?
        Mr. Garcia. Garcia votes no.
        Ms. LeGrant. Mr. Garcia votes no.
        Mr. Bentz?
        Mr. Bentz. Aye.
        Ms. LeGrant. Mr. Bentz votes aye.
        Mr. Case?
        Mr. Case. No.
        Ms. LeGrant. Mr. Case votes no.
        Ms. Conway?
        Ms. Conway. Conway votes aye.
        Ms. LeGrant. Ms. Conway votes aye.
        Ms. McCollum?
        Ms. McCollum. McCollum votes no.
        Ms. LeGrant. Ms. McCollum votes no.
        Mr. Cohen?
        Mr. Cohen. No.
        Ms. LeGrant. Mr. Cohen votes no.
        Mr. Tonko?
        [No response.]
        Ms. LeGrant. Ms. Tlaib?
        Ms. Tlaib. Tlaib votes no.
        Ms. LeGrant. Ms. Tlaib votes no.
        Ms. Trahan?
        Mrs. Trahan. Trahan votes no.
        Ms. LeGrant. Ms. Trahan votes no.
        The Chairman. Does any Member wish to be recorded or change
    their vote?
        [No response.]
        Mr. Gohmert. Gohmert votes aye.
        Ms. LeGrant. Mr. Gohmert votes aye.
        The Chairman. Mr. Gohmert votes aye.
        Any other Member?
        How is Mr. Tonko recorded?
        Ms. LeGrant. Mr. Tonko is not recorded.
        Mr. Tonko. Tonko votes no.
        Ms. LeGrant. Mr. Tonko votes no.
        The Chairman. The vote is closed.
        The Clerk shall report.
        Ms. LeGrant. Mr. Chair, on this vote the yeas are 18 and
    the nays are 26.
        The Chairman. The amendment fails.
        We move to Hice No. 46.
        The Clerk shall call the roll.
        Ms. LeGrant. Mr. Grijalva?
        The Chairman. No.
        Ms. LeGrant. Mr. Grijalva votes no.
        Mr. Westerman?
        Mr. Westerman. Aye.
        Ms. LeGrant. Mr. Westerman votes aye.
        Mrs. Napolitano?
        Mrs. Napolitano. No.
        Ms. LeGrant. Mrs. Napolitano votes no.
        Mr. Gohmert?
        [No response.]
        Ms. LeGrant. Mr. Costa?
        Mr. Costa. Costa votes no.
        Ms. LeGrant. Mr. Costa votes no.
        Mr. Lamborn?
        Mr. Lamborn. Aye.
        Ms. LeGrant. Mr. Lamborn votes aye.
        Mr. Sablan?
        Mr. Sablan. No.
        Ms. LeGrant. Mr. Sablan votes no.
        Mr. Wittman?
        Dr. Wittman. Wittman votes aye.
        Ms. LeGrant. Mr. Wittman votes aye.
        Mr. Huffman?
        Mr. Huffman. No.
        Ms. LeGrant. Mr. Huffman votes no.
        Mr. McClintock?
        Mr. McClintock. Aye.
        Ms. LeGrant. Mr. McClintock votes aye.
        Mr. Lowenthal?
        Dr. Lowenthal. Lowenthal votes no.
        Ms. LeGrant. Mr. Lowenthal votes no.
        Mr. Graves?
        [No response.]
        Ms. LeGrant. Mr. Gallego?
        Mr. Gallego. Gallego votes no.
        Ms. LeGrant. Mr. Gallego votes no.
        Mr. Hice?
        Dr. Hice. Hice, yes.
        Ms. LeGrant. Mr. Hice votes yes.
        Mr. Neguse?
        [No response.]
        Ms. LeGrant. Mrs. Radewagen?
        [No response.]
        Ms. LeGrant. Mr. Levin?
        Mr. Levin. No.
        Ms. LeGrant. Mr. Levin votes no.
        Mr. Webster?
        Mr. Webster. Yes.
        Ms. LeGrant. Mr. Webster votes aye.
        Ms. Porter?
        Ms. Porter. Porter votes no.
        Ms. LeGrant. Ms. Porter votes no.
        Miss Gonzalez-Colon?
        Miss Gonzalez-Colon. No.
        Ms. LeGrant. Miss Gonzalez-Colon votes no.
        Ms. Leger Fernandez?
        [No response.]
        Ms. LeGrant. Mr. Fulcher?
        Mr. Fulcher. Fulcher is aye.
        Ms. LeGrant. Mr. Fulcher votes aye.
        Ms. Stansbury?
        Ms. Stansbury. No.
        Ms. LeGrant. Ms. Stansbury votes no.
        Mr. Stauber?
        Mr. Stauber. Stauber is aye.
        Ms. LeGrant. Mr. Stauber votes aye.
        Ms. Velazquez?
        Ms. Velazquez. Velazquez votes no.
        Ms. LeGrant. Ms. Velazquez votes no.
        Mr. Tiffany?
        Mr. Tiffany. Aye.
        Ms. LeGrant. Mr. Tiffany votes aye.
        Ms. DeGette?
        Ms. DeGette. DeGette votes no.
        Ms. LeGrant. Ms. DeGette votes no.
        Mr. Carl?
        Mr. Carl. Aye.
        Ms. LeGrant. Mr. Carl votes aye.
        Ms. Brownley?
        Ms. Brownley. Ms. Brownley votes no.
        Mr. Neguse. Neguse votes no as well.
        Ms. LeGrant. Ms. Brownley votes no, and Mr. Neguse votes
    no.
        Mr. Rosendale?
        Mr. Rosendale. Rosendale, aye.
        Ms. LeGrant. Mr. Rosendale votes aye.
        Mrs. Dingell?
        Mrs. Dingell. Dingell votes no.
        Ms. LeGrant. Mrs. Dingell votes no.
        Mr. Moore?
        Mr. Moore. Moore, aye.
        Ms. LeGrant. Mr. Moore votes aye
        Mr. McEachin?
        Mr. McEachin. McEachin votes no.
        Ms. LeGrant. Mr. McEachin votes no.
        Ms. Herrell?
        Ms. Herrell. Herrell, aye.
        Ms. LeGrant. Ms. Herrell votes aye.
        Mr. Soto?
        Mr. Soto. Soto votes no.
        Ms. LeGrant. Mr. Soto votes no.
        Mrs. Boebert?
        Mrs. Boebert. Boebert votes aye.
        Ms. LeGrant. Mrs. Boebert votes aye.
        Mr. San Nicolas?
        Mr. San Nicolas. San Nicolas votes no.
        Ms. LeGrant. Mr. San Nicolas votes no.
        Mr. Obernolte?
        Mr. Obernolte. Aye
        Ms. LeGrant. Mr. Obernolte votes aye.
        Mr. Garcia?
        Mr. Garcia. Garcia votes no.
        Ms. LeGrant. Mr. Garcia votes no.
        Mr. Bentz?
        Mr. Bentz. Aye.
        Ms. LeGrant. Mr. Bentz votes aye.
        Mr. Case?
        Mr. Case. No.
        Ms. LeGrant. Mr. Case votes no.
        Ms. Conway?
        Ms. Conway. Conway votes aye.
        Ms. LeGrant. Ms. Conway votes aye.
        Ms. McCollum?
        Ms. McCollum. McCollum votes no.
        Ms. LeGrant. Ms. McCollum votes no.
        Mr. Cohen?
        Mr. Cohen. No.
        Ms. LeGrant. I am sorry, Mr. Cohen. I don't have a visual.
        Mr. Cohen. Yes, I hit something that was wrong. Are we OK
    now? You are sending me video.
        Ms. LeGrant. There we are. Thank you, sir.
        Mr. Cohen. No.
        Ms. LeGrant. Mr. Cohen votes no.
        Mr. Tonko?
        Mr. Tonko. Tonko votes no.
        Ms. LeGrant. Mr. Tonko votes no.
        Ms. Tlaib?
        Ms. Tlaib. Tlaib votes no.
        Ms. LeGrant. Ms. Tlaib votes no.
        Ms. Trahan?
        Mrs. Trahan. Trahan votes no.
        Ms. LeGrant. Ms. Trahan votes no.
        Ms. Leger Fernandez. Leger Fernandez votes no.
        Ms. LeGrant. Ms. Leger Fernandez votes no.
        The Chairman. Does anyone else wish to record their vote or
    change their vote?
        [No response.]
        The Chairman. If not, the vote----
        Mr. Gohmert. Gohmert votes aye. Sorry.
        The Chairman. Except for Mr. Gohmert, who just squeezed
    under the line.
        How is Mr. Gohmert recorded?
        Ms. LeGrant. Mr. Gohmert is recorded as an aye.
        The Chairman. I will repeat. The vote is closed.
        And the Clerk shall report.
        Ms. LeGrant. Mr. Chair, on this vote the yeas are 18 and
    the nays are 27.
        The Chairman. The amendment fails.
        We now have Hice Amendment No. 47.
        And the Clerk shall call the roll.
        Ms. LeGrant. Mr. Grijalva?
        The Chairman. No.
        Ms. LeGrant. Mr. Grijalva votes no.
        Mr. Westerman?
        Mr. Westerman. Aye.
        Ms. LeGrant. Mr. Westerman votes aye.
        Mrs. Napolitano?
        Mrs. Napolitano. No.
        Ms. LeGrant. Mrs. Napolitano votes no.
        Mr. Gohmert?
        Mr. Gohmert. Aye.
        Ms. LeGrant. Mr. Gohmert votes aye.
        Mr. Costa?
        Mr. Costa. Votes no.
        Ms. LeGrant. Mr. Costa votes no.
        Mr. Lamborn?
        Mr. Lamborn. Aye.
        Ms. LeGrant. Mr. Lamborn votes aye.
        Mr. Sablan?
        Mr. Sablan. No.
        Ms. LeGrant. Mr. Sablan votes no.
        Mr. Wittman?
        Dr. Wittman. Wittman votes aye.
        Ms. LeGrant. Mr. Wittman votes aye.
        Mr. Huffman?
        Mr. Huffman. Huffman is no.
        Ms. LeGrant. Mr. Huffman votes no.
        Mr. McClintock?
        Mr. McClintock. Aye.
        Ms. LeGrant. Mr. McClintock votes aye.
        Mr. Lowenthal?
        Dr. Lowenthal. Lowenthal votes no.
        Ms. LeGrant. Mr. Lowenthal votes no.
        Mr. Graves?
        Mr. Graves. Graves, yes.
        Ms. LeGrant. Mr. Graves votes yes.
        Mr. Gallego?
        Mr. Gallego. No.
        Ms. LeGrant. Mr. Gallego votes no.
        Mr. Hice?
        Dr. Hice. Hice, yes.
        Ms. LeGrant. Mr. Hice votes yes.
        Mr. Neguse?
        Mr. Neguse. No.
        Ms. LeGrant. Mr. Neguse votes no.
        Mrs. Radewagen?
        [No response.]
        Ms. LeGrant. Mr. Levin?
        Mr. Levin. No.
        Ms. LeGrant. Mr. Levin votes no.
        Mr. Webster?
        Mr. Webster. Yes.
        Ms. LeGrant. Mr. Webster votes aye.
        Ms. Porter?
        Ms. Porter. Porter, no.
        Ms. LeGrant. Ms. Porter votes no.
        Miss Gonzalez-Colon?
        Miss Gonzalez-Colon. No.
        Ms. LeGrant. Miss Gonzalez-Colon votes no.
        Ms. Leger Fernandez?
        Ms. Leger Fernandez. No.
        Ms. LeGrant. Ms. Leger Fernandez votes no.
        Mr. Fulcher?
        Mr. Fulcher. Fulcher is aye.
        Ms. LeGrant. Mr. Fulcher votes aye.
        Ms. Stansbury?
        Ms. Stansbury. No.
        Ms. LeGrant. Ms. Stansbury votes no.
        Mr. Stauber?
        Mr. Stauber. Stauber, aye.
        Ms. LeGrant. Mr. Stauber votes aye.
        Ms. Velazquez?
        Ms. Velazquez. Velazquez votes no.
        Ms. LeGrant. Ms. Velazquez votes no.
        Mr. Tiffany?
        Mr. Tiffany. Aye.
        Ms. LeGrant. Mr. Tiffany votes aye.
        Ms. DeGette?
        Ms. DeGette. DeGette votes no.
        Ms. LeGrant. Ms. DeGette votes no.
        Mr. Carl?
        Mr. Carl. Aye.
        Ms. LeGrant. Mr. Carl votes aye.
        Ms. Brownley?
        Ms. Brownley. Brownley votes no.
        Ms. LeGrant. Ms. Brownley votes no.
        Mr. Rosendale?
        Mr. Rosendale. Rosendale, aye.
        Ms. LeGrant. Mr. Rosendale votes aye.
        Mrs. Dingell?
        Mrs. Dingell. Dingell votes no.
        Ms. LeGrant. Mrs. Dingell votes no.
        Mr. Moore?
        Mr. Moore. Aye.
        Ms. LeGrant. Mr. Moore votes aye.
        Mr. McEachin?
        Mr. McEachin. McEachin votes no.
        Ms. LeGrant. Mr. McEachin votes no.
        Ms. Herrell?
        Ms. Herrell. Herrell votes aye.
        Ms. LeGrant. Ms. Herrell votes aye.
        Mr. Soto?
        Mr. Soto. Soto votes no.
        Ms. LeGrant. Mr. Soto votes no.
        Mrs. Boebert?
        Mrs. Boebert. Boebert votes aye.
        Ms. LeGrant. Mrs. Boebert votes aye.
        Mr. San Nicolas?
        Mr. San Nicolas. San Nicolas votes no.
        Ms. LeGrant. Mr. San Nicolas votes no.
        Mr. Obernolte?
        Mr. Obernolte. No.
        Ms. LeGrant. Mr. Obernolte votes no.
        Mr. Garcia?
        Mr. Garcia. Garcia votes no.
        Ms. LeGrant. Mr. Garcia votes no.
        Mr. Bentz?
        Mr. Bentz. Aye.
        Ms. LeGrant. Mr. Bentz votes aye.
        Mr. Case?
        Mr. Case. No.
        Ms. LeGrant. Mr. Case votes no.
        Ms. Conway?
        Ms. Conway. Conway votes aye.
        Ms. LeGrant. Ms. Conway votes aye.
        Ms. McCollum?
        Ms. McCollum. McCollum votes no.
        Ms. LeGrant. Ms. McCollum votes no.
        Mr. Cohen?
        Mr. Cohen. Cohen votes no.
        Ms. LeGrant. Mr. Cohen votes no.
        Mr. Tonko?
        Mr. Tonko. Tonko votes no.
        Ms. LeGrant. Mr. Tonko votes no.
        Ms. Tlaib?
        Ms. Tlaib. Tlaib votes no.
        Ms. LeGrant. Ms. Tlaib votes no.
        Ms. Trahan?
        Mrs. Trahan. Trahan votes no.
        Ms. LeGrant. Ms. Trahan votes no.
        The Chairman. Any Member not recorded that wishes to be
    recorded?
        [No response.]
        The Chairman. Hearing none, the vote is closed.
        And the Clerk shall report.
        Ms. LeGrant. Mr. Chair, on this vote, the years are 18 and
    the nays are 28.
        The Chairman. The amendment fails.
        And we move to amendment designated Hice No. 48.
        The Clerk shall call the roll please.
        Ms. LeGrant. Mr. Grijalva?
        The Chairman. No.
        Ms. LeGrant. Mr. Grijalva votes no.
        Mr. Westerman?
        Mr. Westerman. Aye.
        Ms. LeGrant. Mr. Westerman votes aye.
        Mrs. Napolitano?
        Mrs. Napolitano. No.
        Ms. LeGrant. Mrs. Napolitano votes no.
        Mr. Gohmert?
        [No response.]
        Ms. LeGrant. Mr. Costa?
        Mr. Costa. Costa votes no.
        Ms. LeGrant. Mr. Costa votes no.
        Mr. Lamborn?
        Mr. Lamborn. Aye.
        Ms. LeGrant. Mr. Lamborn votes aye.
        Mr. Sablan?
        Mr. Sablan. No.
        Ms. LeGrant. Mr. Sablan votes no.
        Mr. Wittman?
        Dr. Wittman. Wittman votes aye.
        Ms. LeGrant. Mr. Wittman votes aye.
        Mr. Huffman?
        Mr. Huffman. No.
        Ms. LeGrant. Mr. Huffman votes no.
        Mr. McClintock?
        Mr. McClintock. Aye.
        Ms. LeGrant. Mr. McClintock votes aye.
        Mr. Lowenthal?
        Dr. Lowenthal. Lowenthal votes no.
        Ms. LeGrant. Mr. Lowenthal votes no.
        Mr. Graves?
        [No response.]
        Ms. LeGrant. Mr. Gallego?
        Mr. Gallego. No.
        Ms. LeGrant. Mr. Gallego votes no.
        Mr. Hice?
        Dr. Hice. Hice votes yes.
        Ms. LeGrant. Mr. Hice votes aye.
        Mr. Neguse?
        Mr. Neguse. No.
        Ms. LeGrant. Mr. Neguse votes no.
        Mrs. Radewagen?
        [No response.]
        Ms. LeGrant. Mr. Levin?
        Mr. Levin. No.
        Ms. LeGrant. Mr. Levin votes no.
        Mr. Webster?
        Mr. Webster. Aye.
        Ms. LeGrant. Mr. Webster votes aye.
        Ms. Porter?
        Ms. Porter. Porter votes no.
        Ms. LeGrant. Ms. Porter votes no.
        Miss Gonzalez-Colon?
        Miss Gonzalez-Colon. No.
        Ms. LeGrant. Miss Gonzalez-Colon votes no.
        Ms. Leger Fernandez?
        Ms. Leger Fernandez. Leger Fernandez votes no.
        Ms. LeGrant. Ms. Leger Fernandez votes no.
        Mr. Fulcher?
        Mr. Fulcher. Fulcher is aye.
        Ms. LeGrant. Mr. Fulcher votes aye.
        Ms. Stansbury?
        Ms. Stansbury. No.
        Ms. LeGrant. Ms. Stansbury votes no.
        Mr. Stauber?
        Mr. Stauber. Aye.
        Ms. LeGrant. Mr. Stauber votes aye.
        Ms. Velazquez?
        Ms. Velazquez. No.
        Ms. LeGrant. Ms. Velazquez votes no.
        Mr. Tiffany?
        Mr. Tiffany. Aye.
        Ms. LeGrant. Mr. Tiffany votes aye.
        Ms. DeGette?
        Ms. DeGette. DeGette votes no.
        Ms. LeGrant. Ms. DeGette votes no.
        Mr. Carl?
        Mr. Carl. Aye.
        Ms. LeGrant. Mr. Carl votes aye.
        Ms. Brownley?
        Ms. Brownley. Ms. Brownley votes no.
        Ms. LeGrant. Ms. Brownley votes no.
        Mr. Rosendale?
        Mr. Rosendale. Rosendale, aye.
        Ms. LeGrant. Mr. Rosendale votes aye.
        Mrs. Dingell?
        Mrs. Dingell. Dingell is no.
        Ms. LeGrant. Mrs. Dingell votes no.
        Mr. Moore?
        Mr. Moore. Aye.
        Ms. LeGrant. Mr. Moore votes aye.
        Mr. McEachin?
        Mr. McEachin. McEachin votes no.
        Ms. LeGrant. Mr. McEachin votes no.
        Ms. Herrell?
        Ms. Herrell. Herrell is aye.
        Ms. LeGrant. Ms. Herrell votes aye.
        Mr. Soto?
        Mr. Soto. Soto votes no.
        Ms. LeGrant. Mr. Soto votes no.
        Mrs. Boebert?
        [No response.]
        Ms. LeGrant. Mr. San Nicolas?
        Mr. San Nicolas. San Nicolas votes no.
        Ms. LeGrant. Mr. San Nicolas votes no.
        Mr. Obernolte?
        Mr. Obernolte. Aye.
        Ms. LeGrant. Mr. Obernolte votes aye.
        Mr. Garcia?
        Mr. Garcia. Garcia votes no.
        Ms. LeGrant. Mr. Garcia votes no.
        Mr. Bentz?
        Mr. Bentz. Aye.
        Ms. LeGrant. Mr. Bentz votes aye.
        Mr. Case?
        Mr. Case. No.
        Ms. LeGrant. Mr. Case votes no.
        Ms. Conway?
        Ms. Conway. Conway votes aye.
        Ms. LeGrant. Ms. Conway votes aye.
        Ms. McCollum?
        Ms. McCollum. McCollum votes no.
        Ms. LeGrant. Ms. McCollum votes no.
        Mr. Cohen. Cohen votes no.
        Ms. LeGrant. Mr. Cohen votes no.
        Mr. Tonko?
        Mr. Tonko. Tonko votes no.
        Ms. LeGrant. Mr. Tonko votes no.
        Ms. Tlaib?
        Ms. Tlaib. Tlaib votes no.
        Ms. LeGrant. Ms. Tlaib votes no.
        Ms. Trahan?
        Mrs. Trahan. Trahan votes no.
        Ms. LeGrant. Ms. Trahan votes no.
        The Chairman. Does any Member wish to be recorded or change
    their vote?
        Mrs. Boebert. Mr. Chairman, Boebert votes aye.
        Ms. LeGrant. Mrs. Boebert votes aye.
        The Chairman. Thank you.
        Anyone else?
        [No response.]
        The Chairman. If not, the vote is closed.
        And the Clerk shall report.
        Ms. LeGrant. Mr. Chair, on this vote the yeas are 17 and
    the nays are 27.
        The Chairman. The amendment fails.
        And we move to Hice Amendment No. 49.
        And the Clerk shall call the roll.
        Ms. LeGrant. Mr. Grijalva?
        The Chairman. No.
        Ms. LeGrant. Mr. Grijalva votes no.
        Mr. Westerman?
        Mr. Westerman. Aye.
        Ms. LeGrant. Mr. Westerman votes aye.
        Mrs. Napolitano?
        Mrs. Napolitano. No.
        Ms. LeGrant. Mrs. Napolitano votes no.
        Mr. Gohmert?
        [No response.]
        Ms. LeGrant. Mr. Costa?
        [No response.]
        Ms. LeGrant. Mr. Lamborn?
        Mr. Lamborn. Aye.
        Ms. LeGrant. Mr. Lamborn votes aye.
        Mr. Sablan?
        Mr. Sablan. No.
        Ms. LeGrant. Mr. Sablan votes no.
        Mr. Wittman?
        Dr. Wittman. Wittman votes aye.
        Ms. LeGrant. Mr. Wittman votes aye.
        Mr. Huffman?
        Mr. Huffman. No.
        Ms. LeGrant. Mr. Huffman votes no.
        Mr. McClintock?
        Mr. McClintock. Aye.
        Ms. LeGrant. Mr. McClintock votes aye.
        Mr. Lowenthal?
        Dr. Lowenthal. Lowenthal votes no.
        Ms. LeGrant. Mr. Lowenthal votes no.
        Mr. Graves?
        [No response.]
        Ms. LeGrant. Mr. Gallego?
        Mr. Gallego. Gallego votes no.
        Ms. LeGrant. Mr. Gallego votes no.
        Mr. Hice?
        Dr. Hice. Hice votes yes.
        Ms. LeGrant. Mr. Hice votes yes.
        Mr. Neguse?
        Mr. Neguse. No.
        Ms. LeGrant. Mr. Neguse votes no.
        Mrs. Radewagen?
        [No response.]
        Ms. LeGrant. Mr. Levin?
        Mr. Levin. No.
        Ms. LeGrant. Mr. Levin votes no.
        Mr. Webster?
        Mr. Webster. Yes.
        Ms. LeGrant. Mr. Webster votes aye.
        Ms. Porter?
        Ms. Porter. Porter votes no.
        Ms. LeGrant. Ms. Porter votes no.
        Miss Gonzalez-Colon?
        Miss Gonzalez-Colon. No.
        Ms. LeGrant. Miss Gonzalez-Colon votes no.
        Ms. Leger Fernandez?
        Ms. Leger Fernandez. Leger Fernandez votes no.
        Ms. LeGrant. Ms. Leger Fernandez votes no.
        Mr. Fulcher?
        Mr. Fulcher. Fulcher is aye.
        Ms. LeGrant. Mr. Fulcher votes aye.
        Ms. Stansbury?
        Ms. Stansbury. No.
        Ms. LeGrant. Ms. Stansbury votes no.
        Mr. Stauber?
        Mr. Stauber. Aye.
        Ms. LeGrant. Mr. Stauber votes aye.
        Ms. Velazquez?
        Ms. Velazquez. No.
        Ms. LeGrant. Ms. Velazquez votes no.
        Mr. Tiffany?
        Mr. Tiffany. Aye.
        Ms. LeGrant. Mr. Tiffany votes aye.
        Ms. DeGette?
        Ms. DeGette. DeGette votes no.
        Ms. LeGrant. Ms. DeGette votes no.
        Mr. Carl?
        Mr. Carl. Aye.
        Ms. LeGrant. Mr. Carl votes aye.
        Ms. Brownley?
        Ms. Brownley. Ms. Brownley votes no.
        Ms. LeGrant. Ms. Brownley votes no.
        Mr. Rosendale?
        Mr. Rosendale. Rosendale, aye.
        Ms. LeGrant. Mr. Rosendale votes aye.
        Mrs. Dingell?
        Mrs. Dingell. Dingell votes no.
        Ms. LeGrant. Mrs. Dingell votes no.
        Mr. Moore?
        Mr. Moore. Aye.
        Ms. LeGrant. Mr. Moore votes aye.
        Mr. McEachin?
        Mr. McEachin. McEachin votes no.
        Ms. LeGrant. Mr. McEachin votes no.
        Ms. Herrell?
        Ms. Herrell. Herrell is an aye.
        Ms. LeGrant. Ms. Herrell votes aye.
        Mr. Soto?
        Mr. Soto. Soto votes no.
        Ms. LeGrant. Mr. Soto votes no.
        Mrs. Boebert?
        Mrs. Boebert. Boebert votes aye.
        Ms. LeGrant. Mrs. Boebert votes aye.
        Mr. San Nicolas?
        Mr. San Nicolas. San Nicolas votes no.
        Ms. LeGrant. Mr. San Nicolas votes no.
        Mr. Obernolte?
        Mr. Obernolte. Aye.
        Ms. LeGrant. Mr. Obernolte votes aye.
        Mr. Garcia?
        Mr. Garcia. Garcia votes no.
        Ms. LeGrant. Mr. Garcia votes no.
        Mr. Bentz?
        Mr. Bentz. Aye.
        Ms. LeGrant. Mr. Bentz votes aye.
        Mr. Case?
        Mr. Case. No.
        Ms. LeGrant. Mr. Case votes no.
        Ms. Conway?
        Ms. Conway. Conway votes aye.
        Ms. LeGrant. Ms. Conway votes aye.
        Ms. McCollum?
        Ms. McCollum. McCollum votes no.
        Ms. LeGrant. Ms. McCollum votes no.
        Mr. Cohen?
        Mr. Cohen. No.
        Ms. LeGrant. Mr. Cohen votes no.
        Mr. Tonko?
        Mr. Tonko. Tonko votes no.
        Ms. LeGrant. Mr. Tonko votes no.
        Ms. Tlaib?
        Ms. Tlaib. Tlaib votes no.
        Ms. LeGrant. Ms. Tlaib votes no.
        Ms. Trahan?
        Mrs. Trahan. Trahan votes no.
        Ms. LeGrant. Ms. Trahan votes no.
        The Chairman. Any Member wish to be recorded or change
    their vote?
        Mr. Graves. Graves, yes.
        Ms. LeGrant. Mr. Graves votes yes
        Mr. Costa. Costa, no.
        Ms. LeGrant. And Mr. Costa votes no.
        The Chairman. Anyone else?
        [No response.]
        The Chairman. If not, the vote is closed and the Clerk
    shall report.
        Ms. LeGrant. Mr. Chair, on this vote the yeas are 18 and
    the nays are 27.
        The Chairman. The amendment fails.
        And now the question is on the Grijalva ANS to H.R. 8393.
        All those in favor of the amendment indicate by saying aye.
        All those opposed indicate by saying no.
        In the opinion of the Chair, the ayes have it, and the ANS
    is agreed to.
        Now we have the final passage. The question is on adopting
    H.R. 8393, as amended, and order it favorably reported to the
    House
        A recorded vote will be requested. So, we will skip that
    voice vote and go directly to the recorded vote.
        And the Clerk will call the--sir?
        Mr. Webster. I just want to speak for a minute.
        I am not for adding another state. It does not matter who
    they are or what they are, and the reason is because when the
    13 colonies came in, the difference between the largest and the
    smallest was in the hundreds of thousands of votes or people.
        And we began to grow and add states. When we did, the
    disparity of all the states that have two Senators became
    greater, and now it is so great that it really does not even
    matter, and it is sad that that is.
        So, if you take the top states, the top four states,
    California, Texas, Florida, and----
        The Chairman. Sir, the period for debate kind of expired on
    this piece of legislation early on. If you would close, I am
    extending the courtesy, but we have the final passage and that
    roll call vote, and I am pressed by my colleagues, as I should
    be, that they have other commitments beyond this room starting
    at 6 o'clock.
        So, with all due respect, sir.
        Mr. Webster. I will be done in 45 seconds.
        The Chairman. I appreciate it.
        Mr. Webster. So, California, Texas, Florida, and New York
    are the top four states. Their total population is over 110
    million people.
        The bottom four, their total population is under 3 million,
    so the disparity between someone who has a Senator in one of
    the larger states and the one that has one in the small is
    huge, and that does not change.
        You get two, and if we add this state, we will add two
    more, and it will dilute the people in Florida, or California,
    or Texas, and so forth. You are going to dilute them down.
        So, to me that is like 400 times the amount of people that
    they have to service and represent as opposed to somebody in
    the smaller state.
        So, for that, I do not care where the state is, I just do
    not think it is right. The disparity is getting bigger and
    bigger, and they are not represented. And it is sad.
        And that is probably why people who talk about how bad the
    60-vote rule is, that helps actually bridge the gap and make it
    closer by just saying you have to get 60.
        The Chairman. Thank you.
        Mr. Webster. So, anyway, there is my deal.
        The Chairman. Thank you very much.
        The question is on adopting H.R. 8393, as amended, and
    ordering it favorably reported to the House.
        A recorded vote will be requested, so we will just skip to
    that, and the Clerk shall call the roll.
        Ms. LeGrant. Mr. Grijalva?
        The Chairman. Yes.
        Ms. LeGrant. Mr. Grijalva votes yes.
        Mr. Westerman?
        Mr. Westerman. No.
        Ms. LeGrant. Mr. Westerman votes no.
        Mrs. Napolitano?
        Mrs. Napolitano. Yes.
        Ms. LeGrant. Mrs. Napolitano votes yes.
        Mr. Gohmert?
        [No response.]
        Ms. LeGrant. Mr. Costa?
        Mr. Costa. Costa votes yes.
        Ms. LeGrant. Mr. Costa votes yes.
        Mr. Lamborn?
        Mr. Lamborn. Nay.
        Ms. LeGrant. Mr. Lamborn votes no.
        Mr. Sablan?
        Mr. Sablan. Yes.
        Ms. LeGrant. Mr. Sablan votes yes.
        Mr. Wittman?
        Dr. Wittman. Wittman votes no.
        Ms. LeGrant. Mr. Wittman votes no.
        Mr. Huffman?
        Mr. Huffman. Yes.
        Ms. LeGrant. Mr. Huffman votes yes.
        Mr. McClintock?
        Mr. McClintock. No.
        Ms. LeGrant. Mr. McClintock votes no.
        Mr. Lowenthal?
        Dr. Lowenthal. Lowenthal votes yes.
        Ms. LeGrant. Mr. Lowenthal votes yes.
        Mr. Graves?
        Mr. Graves. No.
        Ms. LeGrant. Mr. Graves votes no.
        Mr. Gallego?
        Mr. Gallego. An emphatic yes.
        Ms. LeGrant. Mr. Gallego votes yes.
        Mr. Hice?
        Dr. Hice. No.
        Ms. LeGrant. Mr. Hice votes no.
        Mr. Neguse?
        Mr. Neguse. Yes.
        Ms. LeGrant. Mr. Neguse votes yes.
        Mrs. Radewagen?
        [No response.]
        Mr. Levin?
        Mr. Levin. Yes.
        Ms. LeGrant. Mr. Levin votes yes.
        Mr. Webster?
        Mr. Webster. Nay.
        Ms. LeGrant. Mr. Webster votes no.
        Ms. Porter?
        Ms. Porter. Porter votes yes.
        Ms. LeGrant. Ms. Porter votes aye.
        Miss Gonzalez-Colon?
        Miss Gonzalez-Colon. Gonzalez-Colon voto si, yes.
        Ms. LeGrant. Ms. Gonzalez-Colon votes yes.
        Ms. Leger Fernandez?
        Ms. Leger Fernandez. Claro que si. Leger Fernandez votes
    yes.
        Ms. LeGrant. Ms. Leger Fernandez votes yes.
        Mr. Fulcher?
        Mr. Fulcher. Fulcher is no.
        Ms. LeGrant. Mr. Fulcher votes no.
        Ms. Stansbury?
        Ms. Stansbury. Another emphatic yes.
        Ms. LeGrant. Ms. Stansbury votes yes.
        Mr. Stauber?
        Mr. Stauber. No.
        Ms. LeGrant. Mr. Stauber votes no.
        Ms. Velazquez?
        Ms. Velazquez. Yes.
        Ms. LeGrant. Ms. Velazquez votes yes.
        Mr. Tiffany?
        Mr. Tiffany. No.
        Ms. LeGrant. Mr. Tiffany votes no.
        Ms. DeGette?
        Ms. DeGette. DeGette votes yes.
        Ms. LeGrant. Ms. DeGette votes yes.
        Mr. Carl?
        Mr. Carl. No.
        Ms. LeGrant. Mr. Carl votes no.
        Ms. Brownley?
        Ms. Brownley. Ms. Brownley votes yes.
        Ms. LeGrant. Ms. Brownley votes yes.
        Mr. Rosendale?
        Mr. Rosendale. Rosendale, no.
        Ms. LeGrant. Mr. Rosendale votes no.
        Mrs. Dingell?
        Mrs. Dingell. Dingell, yes.
        Ms. LeGrant. Mrs. Dingell votes yes.
        Mr. Moore?
        Mr. Moore. Moore, no.
        Ms. LeGrant. Mr. Moore votes no.
        Mr. McEachin?
        Mr. McEachin. McEachin votes yes.
        Ms. LeGrant. Mr. McEachin votes yes.
        Ms. Herrell?
        Ms. Herrell. Herrell votes no.
        Ms. LeGrant. Ms. Herrell votes no.
        Mr. Soto?
        Mr. Soto. After 120-plus years, yes.
        Ms. LeGrant. Mr. Soto votes yes.
        Mrs. Boebert?
        Mrs. Boebert. Boebert votes no.
        Ms. LeGrant. Mrs. Boebert votes no.
        Mr. San Nicolas?
        Mr. San Nicolas. Guam votes yes.
        Ms. LeGrant. Mr. San Nicolas votes yes.
        Mr. Obernolte?
        Mr. Obernolte. No.
        Ms. LeGrant. Mr. Obernolte votes no.
        Mr. Garcia?
        Mr. Garcia. Garcia votes no.
        Ms. LeGrant. Mr. Garcia votes no.
        Mr. Bentz?
        Mr. Bentz. No.
        Ms. LeGrant. Mr. Bentz votes no.
        Mr. Case?
        Mr. Case. Yes.
        Ms. LeGrant. Mr. Case votes yes.
        Ms. Conway?
        Ms. Conway. No.
        Ms. LeGrant. Ms. Conway votes no.
        Ms. McCollum?
        Ms. McCollum. The Fourth District in Minnesota votes ya.
        Ms. LeGrant. Ms. McCollum votes yes.
        Mr. Cohen?
        Mr. Cohen. Yes.
        Ms. LeGrant. Mr. Cohen votes yes.
        Mr. Tonko?
        Mr. Tonko. Tonko votes aye.
        Ms. LeGrant. Mr. Tonko votes aye.
        Ms. Tlaib?
        Ms. Tlaib. Tlaib votes no.
        Ms. LeGrant. Ms. Tlaib votes no.
        Ms. Trahan?
        Mrs. Trahan. Trahan votes yes.
        Ms. LeGrant. Ms. Trahan votes yes.
        The Chairman. Is there anyone not recorded who wishes to be
    recorded?
        Does any Member wish to change their vote?
        [No response.]
        The Chairman. If not, the vote is closed.
        And the Clerk shall report.
        Ms. LeGrant. Mr. Chair, on this vote the yeas are 25 and
    the nays are 20.
        [Applause.]
        The Chairman. The bill is adopted as amended and ordered
    favorably reported to the House, and the motion to reconsider
    is laid on the table.
        Mr. Westerman, you have a motion regarding views.
        Mr. Westerman. Mr. Chairman, under Committee Rule 5(c), I
    give notice of my intention to file additional or dissenting
    views on the bill just considered and all bills considered
    during this markup.
        And I ask unanimous consent that this notice be extended to
    all Members.
        The Chairman. Thank you very much.
        And I want to thank all of the members of the entire
    Committee.
        And I also want to thank respective staff that participated
    in the very difficult and delicate process.
        This is a consensus compromise, and having been here and
    not necessarily in this chairmanship, but being on this
    Committee for so long, when this subject of Puerto Rico comes
    up time and time again, in the past it always seemed to be
    destined for failure because we made it something versus
    something else.
        And all of the significant options for noncolonial status
    are in this legislation, and they are not new. They have been
    talked about for a decade intensely and for the last 3 or 4
    years even more intensely.
        So, I think we have taken a step, a significant step, and I
    want to congratulate the participants in that very delicate
    consensus compromise process. It required a great deal of
    political risk and political courage at the same time.
        And I want to extend to all of you my appreciation, and my
    hope that as we move this legislation forward, that the intent
    of this gets better and better known.
        It is about establishing a relationship for the people of
    Puerto Rico that allows them to decide their identity, and I
    think that is important. I think it is critical.
        This last vestige of colonialism needs to be ripped from
    us, and this Band-Aid hurts sometimes, but this is the process.
        I also want to say one thing. The people of Puerto Rico, I
    learned a lot in the visits and in the discussions. The people
    of Puerto Rico are honorable, hardworking, smart people, and
    what they taught me was that this decision is a difficult one
    for them.
        And in the past there was cynicism and lack of
    participation because they never felt empowered; that after
    they were done, others were going to do whatever they wanted
    regardless.
        Yes, this is binding, and it should be that way because
    that is our empowerment to the voters of Puerto Rico, telling
    them the decision you make is yours and the decision you make
    we all live with.
        So, thanks to all of you. I appreciate it, and those that
    are not happy with this piece of legislation, I appreciate
    generally your civility and your willingness to help us move
    this along.
        We intend to print this markup, so I would encourage
    Members to submit their written statements as soon as possible
    so they are part of the record, and I would venture to say
    coming from this Committee, an historic part of the record,
    regardless of your opinion, and I would appreciate those.
        Thank you very much for indulging me.
        And let me say with the cooperation of the Ranking Member
    and other members of the Committee, it appears we have worked
    out an agreement on four bills scheduled for markup today.
        Before we begin, I take a horrible risk in saying does any
    Member seek time to speak on any of the bills in this unanimous
    consent package. Taking that risk.
        [No response.]
        The Chairman. Thank you.
        [Laughter.]
        The Chairman. As we have done before, I will make a single
    UC motion to discharge the agreed upon bills.
        I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on National
    Parks, Forests, and Public Lands be discharged from further
    consideration of H.R. 6353, the ``National Service Animals
    Memorial Act''; H.R. 6799, the ``Parker House Study Act''; H.R.
    6438, the ``Dearfield Study Act''; and H.R. 7618, the Holocaust
    Memorial in Ohio.
        Without objection, so ordered.
        I now ask unanimous consent that the following bills be
    adopted and ordered favorably reported as described to the
    House of Representatives: H.R. 6353, the ``National Service
    Animals Memorial Act''; H.R. 6799, the Parker House Study; H.R.
    6438, the Dearfield Study Act; and H.R. 7618, the Holocaust
    Memorial in Ohio.
        Without objection, so ordered.
        Without objection, the motions to reconsider are laid on
    the table.
        With that, all Members have 2 days in which to add
    Supplemental and Minority dissenting views.
        I ask unanimous consent that the staff be allowed to make
    necessary and technical conforming changes to the bills ordered
    reported today, subject to the approval of the Minority.
        I ask unanimous consent that for any bill ordered reported
    today with amendments, that the bill be considered reported
    with an amendment to strike all after the enacting clause and
    insert the text of the bill with its perfecting amendments
    adopted in Committee.
        Without objection, so ordered.
        And thank you very much. I thank Ranking Member Westerman
    and other members of the Committee.
        And with no further discussion or business, the Committee
    is now adjourned. Thank you very much.

        [Whereupon, at 5:31 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.]

                                    APPENDIX

                H.R. 8393, THE PUERTO RICO STATUS ACT--BILL TEXT

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

    H.R. 8393, the Puerto Rico Status Act--Spanish Translation (Unofficial)

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

     Congressional Delegation Itinerary--San Juan, Puerto Rico, June 2-5,
                                      2022
     [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                   Congression Forum in San Juan, Puerto Rico
                                Forum Transcript
                                  June 4, 2022

    Chairman Raul Grijalva:
        OK, thank you, we will shortly begin this forum. But before that, I
    wish to introduce a team member of the Natural Resources Committee,
    Margarita Varela, she will be giving you the basic instructions
    concerning how we will conduct this forum. Margarita, if you please.
    Yes.
    Committee Deputy Director, Margarita Varela:
        Good afternoon, I will now begin sharing the instructions for today
    with you all. We will be conducting a series of panels consisting of
    six people per panel. Those with tickets allowing them to provide
    public commentary will be called out by Committee personnel when their
    panel is up. Once the panel is underway, the Committee will invite the
    panel to provide commentary from my left to my right. We also request
    that you provide your full name at the beginning of your comments. Each
    member of the panel will have five minutes per statement. Considering
    that the purpose of this forum is to listen to the members of the
    panel, at the end of panel, all Committee members will be able to
    direct themselves to certain members of the panel with any questions
    they may have. There will be a visible timer indicating when the time
    of each panel member has run out. It is not necessary to speak during
    the full five minutes. However, if you go past the five minutes, you
    will be requested to finish your comments. We are profoundly grateful
    for your assistance here because it is extremely important in order to
    meet the objectives of transparency and public participation of the
    Committee that we celebrate today's encounter. Everybody's entries will
    be transcribed. And we will have it available for all Committee
    members. And it will be entered into the official registry for future
    procedures in Congress concerning this legislation. It is also
    fundamental for the members of each panel to be allowed to present
    their statements without interruption expressing support or opposition
    from the audience. We will not tolerate abrupt interruptions, nor
    expressions of support or opposition from the audience. Anyone who
    refuses to follow these rules when requested to sit in silence and to
    respectfully observe the event shall be escorted out of today's
    proceedings. Chairman Grijalva.
    Committee Chairman Raul Grijalva:
        Thank you very much and let me begin by saying good afternoon to
    everyone. I want to welcome you all to this congressional public input
    forum held under the auspices of the Natural Resources Committee of the
    U.S. Congress. I am Raul Grijalva, and I chair the Natural Resources
    Committee that has jurisdiction over the legislation relative to Puerto
    Rico's political status. The purpose of this forum is to listen to the
    people of Puerto Rico on the Puerto Rico Status Act Discussion draft.
    The Committee has invited panelists with specific perspectives and
    expertise relative to this important issue to address our delegation
    and share their views.
        Members of the public have also been asked to share their views as
    panelists during this afternoon's proceedings and the Committee deeply,
    deeply appreciates those that we will hear from today and that took the
    time to register for a speaking opportunity at today's proceedings. The
    Committee is holding this forum to help inform the legislative process
    and Congress's action on the Puerto Rico Status Act. Which I will speak
    . . . which many of you are familiar with, and we look forward to the
    information as it will impact us, our decisions going forward. I want
    to thank you and I want to stress that this forum is one of several
    mechanisms the Committee has made available to the public in Puerto
    Rico to share their views and perspectives on the legislation. I
    encourage stakeholders and the people of Puerto Rico to, that care
    about this issue to share their perspective with us on the Committee's
    website at Naturalresources.house.gov; thank you. Good afternoon to
    all. Welcome to this public opinion forum of Congress held under the
    Natural Resources Committee of the U.S. Congress. I am Raul Grijalva,
    presiding over the Natural Resources Committee that has the authority
    over this legislation relative to the political status of Puerto Rico.
    The Committee is celebrating this encounter in order to help inform the
    processes and actions of Congress concerning the law that dictates
    Puerto Rico's status. The details of which, many already know, and we
    hope to become better informed about that document and based on the
    comments and opinions of panelists. I wish to . . . This encounter is
    not the only one. There are other ways to communicate with the
    Committee but our urgency today is for us to receive, initially, the
    opinions, the recommendations and also criticisms that some see
    concerning this document. It is important to the process. Today I am
    accompanied by my colleagues: Nydia Velazquez and Alexandria Ocasio-
    Cortez from New York. And your Congresswoman, Jennifer Gonzalez Colon.
    I want to deeply thank Velazquez, Gonzalez-Colon, and Ocasio-Cortez for
    their dedication to solve this issue concerning the future of Puerto
    Rico. I also wish to thank you for the true leadership you all have
    shown concerning this situation that we don't . . . It has not been an
    easy process, it has been a difficult process, with lots of risk, but
    it's also a historical opportunity to take a step forward. I wish to
    thank you all, and with that, I wish to acknowledge my colleague,
    Puerto Rico's Resident Commissioner, Congresswoman Gonzalez-Colon. If
    you please.
    Resident Commissioner Jennifer Gonzalez Colon:
        Many, many thanks Mr. Chairman of the Committee. My colleague Nydia
    Velazquez and colleague Ocasio-Cortez who accompany us today. Today is
    a very different day. It is rarely that we have the Natural Resources
    Committee in the Island holding a forum of this magnitude. In order to
    discuss a situation that we as Puerto Ricans have been discussing for
    many decades. The reality is that historically, everybody presents
    their statements and suggested measures. In our particular case, the
    people of Puerto Rico voted in favor of Statehood, right, in 2012, in
    2017, and in 2020, which caused us to file a Resolution in the Senate,
    H.R. 1522, which has bipartisan composition and at the same time,
    Congresswoman Velazquez and Congresswoman Ocasio-Cortez filed House
    Bill number 2070. Both of these bills are part of the evaluation of
    this Committee that has held public hearings throughout this process.
    As part of a real effort to decolonize Puerto Rico, we decided to sit
    down at the table together, alongside Majority Leader Steny Hoyer,
    Congressman Darren Soto, who is excused from this hearing, though we
    have his staff present. Likewise, I . . . For other colleagues, and we
    decided to prepare a draft bill in those areas where we were able to
    come to agreements. It is not a perfect bill for any of the ideologies
    involved, it is not a perfect bill for any of these processes, but
    nonetheless, it is the first draft that actually provides a mechanism
    that, to my judgment, has two fundamental reasons. The first, that, for
    the first time Puerto Rico has a binding vehicle where the Congress of
    the United States allows Puerto Rico to choose non-colonial and non-
    territorial status options, which would allow us to be able to pull us
    out of this discriminatory, indecorous, and colonial situation that the
    People of Puerto Rico have lived during the past decades. This bill . .
    . This draft bill meets both of those two precepts. Today is nothing
    more than a continuation of the work we began on Thursday, yesterday,
    when they met with the different political parties and today with the
    national political parties. And what better way than to have the input
    of people that are in favor, against, or that could represent the
    ideologies contained in this bill. So once again, I thank Chairman
    Grijalva, the members of the Committee that are joining us, and that
    have been listening to what the People of Puerto Rico have to say, and,
    well, I am welcoming people's comments.
    Chairman Raul Grijalva:
        Many thanks. And Representative Velazquez, please.
    Representative Nydia Velazquez:
        A very good afternoon to the People of Puerto Rico. I wish to thank
    Chairman Raul Grijalva, my colleagues Jennifer Gonzalez-Colon,
    Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, and Darren Soto. As we all know, Puerto Rico
    is a colony of the United States. More than 100 years ago, the United
    States invaded Puerto Rico and since then, the topic of Puerto Rico's
    political status has been an inconclusive situation that has always
    been an issue. We are here today because we are in agreement that we
    must forward a process of decolonization. Puerto Rico's current status
    is unsustainable, it is unjust, and it is undignified. The wait for
    change has been too long for Puerto Rican families. As you know, I
    introduced a bill jointly with Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.
    And obviously, I understand that it was the best possible vehicle to
    obtain a Constitutional Assembly where the People could have direct
    participation in that mechanism and to achieve the necessary agreements
    in relation to definitions of status and transitional plans, and other
    subjects that are absolutely important. But here we are. I believe we
    are at a historic moment when, for the first time, factions that were
    opposing, that had different opinions on how to begin the process of
    decolonization of Puerto Rico, we have joined together to reach an
    agreement. I have always wanted to help provide a democratic mechanism
    which is inclusive and transparent. To move forward a process that
    could allow the People and all sectors to have wide, democratic, and
    transparent participation was not the rejection of any particular
    option. But instead, so we could get participation to all sectors and
    all options without tilting the balance backing up any given option.
    So, we are here because it is the People of Puerto Rico that will have
    to face the consequences of the solution that the People democratically
    elect. It is the moral responsibility of the U.S. Congress to tell the
    people of Puerto Rico what they can offer and negotiate. And here we
    are. Providing a binding process and that will have three options:
    Independence, Statehood, and Free Association. In order for this draft
    . . . And I wish to indicate, that I insisted it be a draft because if
    we wish to decolonize Puerto Rico, we must begin by providing a process
    where the People of Puerto Rico feel like they have and are investing
    in the construction of said process. A process that must respect the
    right to free participation and that the definitions included may be
    widely shared, and so we may have a mechanism through which the People
    of Puerto Rico and every voter can understand the consequences of each
    and every one of those definitions. I wish to thank all the panelists,
    because their participation will contribute so that the bill introduced
    before the Congress of the United States reflects the aspirations and
    dreams of the People of Puerto Rico. Thank you very much.
    Chairman Raul Grijalva:
        Many thanks. I wish to acknowledge my colleague, Representative
    Ocasio-Cortez for her comments.
    Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez:
        Many thanks and good afternoon. We are here today because, after
    more that 100 years with Puerto Rico as a territory of the United
    States, the federal government of the United States is prepared to
    recognize, for the first time, their relationship with Puerto Rico. To
    recognize the colonial relationship. After years of disasters,
    hurricane Maria, earthquakes, and now with the developments in the
    Supreme Court, we know that we find ourselves at a moment where we are
    forced to change and develop the role and status of our island of
    Puerto Rico. Today, and the point today and our mission today is to
    listen to the People of Puerto Rico and together we shall build a
    transparent and inclusive process, with transparency and integrity that
    anyone in this island can have faith that this is a process that
    respects the cities and People of Puerto Rico. With that, I wish to
    thank all the panelists and thank all the people, the audience that are
    here to participate in this process. Thank you very much.
    Chairman Raul Grijalva:
        Thank you. Allow me to invite the first group of panelists, please.
    And let us begin with introductions, from my left to my right. And let
    me just say that is not a political opinion and . . . We begin, and
    many thanks to everybody.

                                  First Panel

    Chairman Raul Grijalva:
        We recognize the first panelist, please.
    Anibal Acevedo Vila:
        Good afternoon, for the record, I am Anibal Acevedo Vila, former
    Governor and former Resident Commissioner. I am here in that capacity.
    As former Governor and Resident Commissioner. Thank you for this
    opportunity. Although I take full responsibility for the statements,
    the ideas I will present, to a great extent they are also supported by
    the Steering Committee of the Frente Puertorriquenista. This draft
    bill, while not perfect, is a step in the right direction. I will make
    some general comments on the definitions put forward but will use most
    of my limited time to make comments on the definition for Free
    Association. Regarding Statehood, there is a need to clarify that the
    official language of daily businesses in the state government,
    especially the courts, will be in Spanish, as well as it will continue
    to be the official language in public schools. That has been the
    representation made by the Statehood party to the People of Puerto
    Rico. But Congress has demanded in the past that states wishing to be
    admitted to the Union with different prevailing linguistic groups, such
    as Oklahoma, New Mexico, Arizona, and Louisiana adhere to certain
    English-speaking guidelines.
    Chairman Raul Grijalva:
        True.
    Anibal Acevedo Vila:
        The bill must clarify this. Also, there is a need to have a clear
    transition plan for Statehood. Especially regarding the negative
    economic consequences of federal income taxation. Regarding
    Independence, there is no moral or political reason to impose upon
    those who decide to keep their US citizenship a different set of rules
    to transmit that citizenship to their children than those living in
    other foreign countries. Moreover, to establish a different set of
    rules would clearly be unconstitutional. The language on the bill is
    not clear about that. One of the most important elements of this draft
    is the inclusion of Free Association as a different status alternative
    from the others. But because this will be the first time in US history
    that Free Association will be available to a territory that has been
    unincorporated for more than 100 years, and whose citizens have been US
    citizens by birth for more than 100 years, there needs to be more
    details on the definition and transition plan. Starting point: If the
    United States is willing to offer Free Association, it is because
    Congress has made the intelligent decision that this kind of
    relationship could benefit both. Therefore, the bill must include at
    least the element that Congress is willing to consider as part of the
    negotiation of a compact of Free Association. Without those clear
    elements, Congress will be making an offer without any real context.
    The main issue regarding the definition of Free Association is
    citizenship. Free Association means that the US has some strong
    interest in Puerto Rico, obviously, more than under Independence. The
    right for Puerto Ricans to keep their US citizenship will open the door
    to making that citizenship one of the bases of the compact. The current
    language on the bill is confusing. The final proposal should include
    language stating that the US is willing to recognize the right to claim
    US citizenship to those born in Puerto Rico from a US citizen. The
    language say [sic] in ``the transmission of citizenship will be for the
    duration of the first agreement'' is a political poison pill with no
    legal or constitutional effect. It is well-known that one Congress
    cannot oblige [sic] another one. If after 25 or 35 years of a compact
    of Free Association, a future Congress is willing to extend the
    automatic transmission of US citizenship, nothing in this bill could
    limit them in the future. Therefore, that language must be deleted. The
    bill includes the same economic transition for Independence and Free
    Association. Again, if you are offering Free Association, it's because
    you are making an intelligent decision that having a special, close
    relationship with Puerto Rico is good for both. Therefore, the economic
    transition must be different than the one offered for Independence. It
    is in the interest of the US to guarantee its farmers, retail, and
    industrial sectors free access to Puerto Rican markets. Under
    Independence, that's something that the government of the new Republic
    will have to decide. But under Free Association it will be, it should
    be included in the bill, that the permanence of a free and open market
    will be part of the new compact. Many independent countries use the US
    dollar as its currency. There should be language clarifying that the US
    will have no objection that the compact may include US dollars as
    currency in Puerto Rico. And it is also in the interests of the US
    under Free Association to maintain its current mutual defense
    understanding with Puerto Rico. If the US is willing to offer Free
    Association, all these elements must be part of the offer. Not only
    because they will benefit Puerto Rico, but because they are of [sic]
    the interests of the US as well. Two final general comments: To move
    this process forward significantly, it must really become a bipartisan
    bill. And after more than two weeks since this draft has been made
    public, so far, we haven't received much enthusiasm on the Republican
    side. From the meetings you had yesterday and the testimonies you will
    hear today, I am sure that you will get that this is a complicated
    process and that there are many details of the different options that
    need negotiation and fine tuning. That's why many people, myself, and
    those who are part of the Frente Puertorriquenista still believe that
    the status convention as described in our H.R. 27 is the best
    procedural option. You are trying to do in three days what the Status
    Convention and Negotiation Committee created by H.R. 27 will have to do
    with adequate timing. Thank you.
    Chairman Raul Grijalva:
        Thank you very much, and let me invite the next speaker please.
    Thank you.
    Zoraida Buxo:
        First and foremost, I'd like to thank God for this opportunity and
    I want to thank you, Mr. Chairman, for this initiative. And of course,
    a champion of consensus bills, Chairman . . . Congresswoman Nydia
    Velazquez and Jennifer Gonzalez Colon and of course, Alexandria Ocasio-
    Cortez. I'm going to switch to Spanish because I want to avoid any
    misquoting's by the local press and people. My name . . . I am Zoraida
    Buxo. I am the, I am one of the congressional delegates elected to the
    Federal Senate and today I appear before you as a spokesperson for two
    citizens organizations that have spent decades fighting to send out the
    message of and educate about Statehood as the best alternative for full
    democracy for all Puerto Ricans of the Island. These are
    Puertorriquenos Pro-Union Permanente Inc, and Accion Civil Para El
    Estatus. After 124 years under the American flag, 105 years as American
    citizens, 70 years with a Constitution ratified by the People of Puerto
    Rico and supported by federal law; six local plebiscites celebrated
    between 1967 and 2020, finally, the Puerto Rico Status Act brings to
    the People of Puerto Rico the right to exercise their self-
    determination. For the first time in history. We wish to emphasize on
    various advances on this bill of consensus. First off, the bill is
    neutral in that it does not favor any of the recognized status
    alternatives: Statehood and Independence in two different ways. With
    and without a Free Association treaty. In terms of public policy and
    after the decisions we all know came from the Supreme Court, the
    Congress establishes providing an end to the colonial condition. An
    antidemocratic condition that implies unequal treatment to the citizens
    of this Island in comparison to our brothers and sisters residing in
    the states of the Nation. Including yourself, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez
    and yourself, Nydia Velazquez. It deprives us from the right to vote
    for our President or for elected representatives in the legislative
    bodies of the Federal House and the Senate where they discuss and
    approve the laws that affect us. It is morally unsustainable for a
    nation that presents itself to the world as the standard bearer of
    democracy to continue to keep 3.2 million of American citizens, under a
    territorial condition of indefinite length, of political subjugation
    and one repudiated by the vast majority of the citizens of this Island.
    This bill sets the stage for the end of this condition that has caused
    injustices which limit our economic and social development. And it is
    just a relic of an imperialist model relying on colonial forms.
    Therefore, we support your firm determination to empower the citizens
    of Puerto Rico, liberating us, once and for all from the territorial
    clause, and providing constitutionally viable options. These include:
    Providing Puerto Rico with the same sovereign powers of a state
    protected by the tenth amendment of the Federal Constitution; or on the
    other hand, transforming the Island into a foreign country through the
    recognition of the Republic of Puerto Rico with or without a Free
    Association treaty. We have no doubt that the natural progression of
    the territory of Puerto Rico is toward Statehood. That is the true
    culmination of the current status. The bill precisely reflects the
    guidelines of Statehood; in a correct and accurate manner, it presents
    that the only alternative that guarantees American citizenship to the
    citizens of Puerto Rico, with all rights, responsibilities, and
    privileges, permanently and in equal conditions with the 50 other
    states of the Nation is Statehood. This is not the case with the other
    two forms of Independence that the bill offers. As described in
    sections 109 and 108, the status of citizenship of those born in Puerto
    Rico would then end up in the hands of what the Republic of Puerto Rico
    decides in its constitution and laws. About the American citizenship,
    it provides a different treatment for the children born posterior to
    the declaration of Independent Sovereignty and that a son or daughter
    who wishes to acquire it would have to go through the tedious process
    of naturalization established by federal laws same as any other
    foreigner. As for the Free Association option, any representation of
    permanent union or guarantee of American citizenship is defeated by
    article 211, which clearly states that treatment of Free Association
    can end at any moment at the will of either party. The bill is clear.
    As part of this process of meetings, discussion, and public forums, we
    understand that you will receive multiple petitions and various
    guidelines that the bill establishes. And that evidently, they have
    been exhaustively studied by their authors. I respectfully ask you to
    evaluate them closely and to refute all language that creates a false
    expectation in the voters concerning aspects as important as American
    citizenship. Regardless of whatever clarifications they request,
    Independence with or without Free Association will continue to be a
    leap into the unknown for all of those that believe in the permanent
    union and the preservation of American citizenship in the permanent
    union and the preservation of citizenship with its protections and
    guarantees.
    Chairman Raul Grijalva:
        Thank you.
    Zoraida Buxo:
        We respectfully request that you file this bill and obtain
    overwhelming bipartisan support for it from each of your colleagues in
    Congress. You can do it. And without taking a step back//
    Chairman Raul Grijalva:
        Your five minutes have passed, thank you very much.
    Zoraida Buxo:
        Of course.
    Chairman Raul Grijalva:
        Next person, please.
    Maria De Lourdes Guzman:
        Good afternoon, I am Maria De Lourdes Guzman, I am the President of
    Movimiento Union Soberanista, a political-educational organization that
    supports Puerto Rican sovereignty from the options of Independence and
    Free Association. In representation of the organization that I preside,
    I thank you for this invitation and the presence of all of you and your
    interest in discussing the situation regarding Puerto Rico's status.
    This subject has historically suffered the indifference and apathy of
    the federal government of the United States despite the legitimate
    claims from many sectors of this country demanding it be addressed. In
    less than a month, it will have officially been 124 years since the
    United States militarily invaded us, making our citizens believe that
    they would bring us the liberty and democracy that the Spanish regime
    had denied us for over four centuries. Nonetheless, we have been
    utilized politically, militarily, and economically for the benefit of
    the colonizing power, supported by those who have served it
    unconditionally to this day. We have been colonized politically,
    economically, and psychologically for over a century. The same day that
    marks 124 years of the American invasion also marks the seventieth
    anniversary of the creation of the ELA [Commonwealth of Puerto Rico],
    which has been nothing more than a disguise for the colonialist regime
    that we live under, a reality that the very government of the United
    States has taken pains to unmask. Both of these events must be
    extremely shameful for a country that calls itself a champion of civil
    rights and defender of liberty and democracy. Thanks to the ELA, Puerto
    Rico finds itself deprived of establishing commercial relationships
    with other countries, of controlling its immigration, customs, and
    borders, the areas, precisely, where the drugs and weapons enter to
    empower the underground drug trafficking market that is bleeding our
    country dry. We are forced to use the least efficient and most
    expensive of Merchant Marines in the world and we have become a country
    dependent on the markets of the United States, importing more than 85%
    of what we consume. Nearly half of our population lives below the
    poverty level. Our youth, the wealth of all nations, has known nothing
    but precarious survival. Our accelerating poverty has expelled from our
    country hundreds of thousands of Puerto Ricans that don't find here an
    opportunity to make their aspirations a reality. After the colossal
    bankruptcy forced on us by colonial and annexation enthusiasts, we are
    now placed under a despotic financial control board [sic] that has only
    managed our budgets for the benefit of speculative investors,
    threatening our university, undermining the retirement funds of
    thousands of laborers, our essential services, and our fundamental
    right to a dignified life. This, in a tight synthesis, is what the ELA
    has represented to our People. A dismal reality that you, as
    protagonists of this effort must transmit to your congressional
    colleagues. As we face the complexity of solving this problem of the
    status of our Country and despite the fact that we favor the mechanism
    of Constitutional Assembly of Status, we applaud this effort of
    achieving this draft that excludes definitely the so-called solution
    that is and always has been a problem: The territorial option. This
    draft allows us the opportunity to have a deep, mature, serious,
    responsible, and fearless discussion on a subject that keeps us divided
    over our preferences; divisions that the United States have used as an
    excuse to not do anything and conveniently propose for us to get into
    an agreement, abdicating its moral responsibility that is imposed by
    their occupation of our Island for over a century and having exploited
    us for its own benefit. We applaud that, despite the historic old
    posture of the executive branch of the federal government to defend the
    territorial option, it not only has been discarded, but it has been
    included, as a separate option, Free Association, which will give our
    People the opportunity, in its exercise of its sovereignty the right to
    negotiate a treaty of Free Association with the United States, like how
    [sic] that country has done with other islands in the Pacific Ocean. It
    seems quite accurate that with Independence, the only inalienable right
    of the People, the right of Puerto Ricans to have free transit toward
    the United States is recognized; this considering that the conditions
    created under the ELA have forced over 5 million Puerto Ricans into
    exile. It has dismembered families and has turned us into a divided
    nation. We, however, understand that the definition of Statehood must
    be further elaborated upon. Simply saying that our rights are
    guaranteed under the United States Constitution seems insufficient. Its
    self-enforceability is unreal. Especially if we consider the
    irrefutable fact that Statehood is a concession emanating from the U.S.
    Congress, who reserves the right to impose the conditions required to
    enter the Federation of States. Yet nothing is said about the taxation
    responsibilities nor about our language or the economic feasibility of
    a Puerto Rican state in such a precarious financial situation. What is
    more, is a majority of 50% plus one enough to guarantee admission? On
    the other hand, Puerto Ricans deserve to know what truly represents to
    keep us as an incorporated territory previous to the admission as a
    state, which would be catastrophic for our country. As we face the
    inescapable truth that the United States has been the architect of the
    ELA, which has so impeded our development as a nation, it is urgent
    that a process of decolonization begins, to rescue us from the quagmire
    we find ourselves in. Puerto Rico cannot continue to be the hostage to
    stagnation. Thank you very much.
    Chairman Raul Grijalva:
        Thank you. Please.
    Ramon Luis Nieves:
        Good afternoon.
    Chairman Raul Grijalva:
        Good afternoon.
    Ramon Luis Nieves:
        I dedicate my words to William Miranda Marin on the twelfth
    anniversary of his death. He would have been here. My name is Ramon
    Luis Nieves. I am an attorney and former Senator for the District of
    San Juan, Puerto Rico. For the past 25 years I have advocated for Free
    Association as a status option for the People of Puerto Rico and the
    government of the United States. Even though I am a member and former
    Senator of the Partido Popular Democratico, I appear before you in my
    personal capacity. That's said, it's an undeniable fact that thousands
    of Populares support Free Association. Also, for the past 32 years, the
    Partido Popular Democratico has formally advocated for a non-colonial,
    non-territorial association between Puerto Rico and the United States.
    I appear before you in support of the draft bill known as the Puerto
    Rico Status Act. This draft represents an important turning point in
    the colonial drama between Congress and Puerto Rico. The legislative
    intent of the draft is to propose non-colonial, non-territorial options
    to be voted by the People of Puerto Rico. Including or excluding
    territorial options on this draft is a policy decision made by
    Congress. I welcome the opportunity of starting a serious conversation
    on Free Association. This draft closes the door on misleading
    statements suggesting that Free Association is some kind of
    Independence. The attack on the so-called two Independences is actually
    a political lie. Read the bill. Free Association is perhaps the most
    flexible of status options. Understanding this fundamental
    characteristic of Free Association is critical. Political will is the
    only parameter to be followed in shaping a compact of Free Association
    between both nations. This draft fails to clearly distinguish between
    both options: Free Association and Independence. It proposes basically
    the same terms regarding [the] so-called withdrawal of US sovereignty.
    I propose that even though this language works under Independence, the
    terms of Free Association actually become effecting . . . Effective
    after formal signing of the compact, its approval by the voters, a
    compact implementation act, and a presidential proclamation. I will now
    address the controversial issue of US citizenship in a compact of Free
    Association. Perhaps one of the most important myths destroyed by this
    draft is the alleged impossibility of continued transmission of US
    citizenship under Free Association. However, the draft imposes
    conditions on continued transmission of citizenship that make no sense
    under a Free Association scenario. Puerto Ricans, US citizens since
    1917, wish to remain so, and to retain their rights to further transmit
    such legal status to their sons and daughters. Continued transmission
    of US citizenship by Puerto Ricans under Free Association is a policy
    decision governed by political will and the terms of the compact. There
    are no legal, constitutional, or significant policy constraints on the
    United States agreeing on continued transmission of US citizenship
    after the effective date of the compact. Finally, I propose that the
    Committee engages advocates of Free Association in the following days
    to further refine this draft. Respectfully, we cannot pretend this
    process to be serious if advocates for Statehood insist on imposing
    conditions on Free Association while being quite vague on their
    preferred option. Perhaps that is why the draft is silent on critical
    issues such as federal taxation under Statehood, the impact of federal
    taxes on the recent plan of adjustment to deal with Puerto Rico's post-
    bankruptcy scenario and the issue of language. This, while including a
    nonsensical proposal under Free Association to transfer Social Security
    funds of Puerto Rican individuals to the local government. I imagine
    that Statehood advocates are already drafting copies for political
    attack ads using this nonsensical Social Security business. Self-
    determination principles require that Congress sits down with advocates
    of non-colonial, non-territorial options and offer the best possible
    and mutually agreeable conditions to the People of Puerto Rico. Thank
    you very much.
    Chairman Raul Grijalva:
        Thank you. Let me invite the next speaker, thank you.
    Zoe Lavoy:
        Thank you. Good afternoon. My name is Zoe Lavoy. Since I was a
    young girl, I've been a Statehood supporter. Throughout my life and in
    different forums I have been able to defend the belief that Statehood
    is the best status option for Puerto Rico. Everywhere, from the Puerto
    Rico Senate to the United Nations, I have had the honor of being able
    to raise my voice on behalf of hundreds of thousands of Puerto Ricans
    that, like me, firmly believe Puerto Rico should become a state of the
    United States of America. Today, I want to start by saying thank you.
    Thank you for putting your differences aside and making the well-being
    of Puerto Rico the priority. For the first time, after so many
    attempts, I really believe that we are closer to ending the current
    undignified status. Enough of being a colony.
        Regarding this draft, based on my experience as a former Senator, I
    know that there is not [sic] such a [sic] thing as a perfect bill. But
    I am confident that coming to Puerto Rico to hear, not only from
    political leaders but also from regular citizens like myself will allow
    you to improve this bill. And for that, I thank you again. I want to
    take this opportunity to stress those points that I believe are the
    most important of Puerto Rico Status Act. With this draft you have
    achieved five important things. One: To bring closer to resolution what
    we believe is the basis of our problems. We might be solving this issue
    once and for all within the next 17 months. Two: To exclusively include
    non-colonial, non-territorial status options. Three: To demand respect
    from Congress toward what will be our decision. Our land, our decision.
    And Congress will have to abide. Four: Providing for the decision to be
    made through direct vote through a democratic process which will allow
    all Puerto Ricans to vote. And five: Ensuring Puerto Ricans will be
    making an informed decision by validating the meaning and the
    consequences of each alternative through a nonpartisan voter
    educational campaign. Although I am confident that the majority will
    choose Statehood, truth is that whichever status option wins, that is
    what we will become. I am pretty sure that one of the main takeaways
    from this trip will be that Puerto Rico or Puerto Ricans want this
    problem to be solved. Our current status is the main reason our Island
    has stalled in its full political, economic, and social development.
    That is why I believe that those who live in this Island cannot leave
    all the work in your hands. It is obvious that this bill will be
    challenged by many Congress [sic], or Members of Congress,
    particularly, from the Republican party. And that is why, as a
    Puertorriquena, I know that many of us will ask from our many family
    members and friends who have had to leave the Island, not out of choice
    but necessity, to become actively involved in the support of this bill.
    We will ask from them to call their Congressmen and women and senators
    to demand their support for the approval of this bill, making this an
    important issue for the upcoming elections. And due to limitation of
    time, I will only add one more aspect . . . Actually, a request to all
    of you. As mentioned, I have been an elected official. Thus, I know
    that too many times, that decisions are supported by some and rejected
    by others. But our duty as representatives of the People is to make
    decisions based on what we believe is the right thing to do. Regardless
    of their support or rejection. So, my ask [sic]: do not give into
    demands from a group of people, including leaders, who insist on not
    resolving our status, who insist on having the ELA as an option. As so
    many of us know, to include what we suffer today will only result in
    keeping Puerto Rico hostage of an anti-democratic state where others
    make decisions for us without the right to have a say or a vote. Let me
    finish by saying: I am a very proud grandmother of two and based on the
    decisions made at the federal level I worry about their future. This
    horrendous tendency to try to take away rights, abortion, just to
    mention one, from minorities, is dangerous. It is because of Valentina
    and Diego, my grandchildren, and all our children in Puerto Rico that I
    know that today, more than ever, we cannot be excluded from the right
    to representation and vote.
    Chairman Raul Grijalva:
        Thank you.
    Zoe Lavoy:
        We are counting on you. Thank you.
    Chairman Raul Grijalva:
        Thank you. Sir.
    Brigadier General Victor Perez, retired:
        Good evening. Good afternoon. For the record, I am Brigadier
    General retired Victor Perez. President of the Veterans for Puerto Rico
    Statehood. Our group visited Congress this past 25, 30th of April and
    have had audience [sic] with 35 representatives and senators lobbying
    for Puerto Rico statehood. And we stand ready to go again. We all
    agree, thank God and Congress, finally Puerto Rico's colonial status
    will come to an end. Voted by Puerto Ricans in Puerto Rico. We thank
    Honorable Hoyer, Honorable Grijalva, Honorable Velazquez, Honorable
    Ocasio, our Resident Commissioner, Honorable Gonzalez, and our
    Governor, Honorable Pierluisi, for coming together and marking history.
    Presenting the soon to be bill, the Puerto Rico Status Act. Binding
    Congress to conduct and accept a referendum in Puerto Rico voted by
    Puerto Ricans in Puerto Rico to choose between non-colonial and I
    repeat, non-colonial options of Independence, Free Association, and
    Statehood. This is the expressed will of the People and that is what we
    want. After 125 years of being a territory colony of the United States
    we finally see the light at the end of the tunnel. We have debated the
    subject throughout those 125 years enough to conclude that we are
    hearing from Congress in this, the Puerto Rico Status Act. Puerto Rico
    is a colony, that we will not a hide it [sic] anymore, and it needs to
    be resolved for the good and prosperity of the 3.2 million Puerto
    Ricans living in this island as well as the other 5 million, among them
    many veterans who have moved to one of the 50 states looking for
    equality. How ironic can it be for Puerto Rican veterans living in
    Puerto Rico that we do not have the same rights that our federal
    comrades in arms in the States? Listen to this. For all of us that have
    served and continue to serve, there is no greater honor than to serve
    our Nation, the United States of America. We have done it in the past,
    and we will continue to do so, proudly, selflessly, and without
    hesitation. More than 250,000 Puerto Ricans has [sic] honorably and
    bravely served our nation throughout its history. All wars, all
    contingencies, per capita, Puerto Rico has served much more than many
    other states. Nine Puerto Ricans have been recognized with the medal of
    Honor [sic], the highest distinction presented by the President of the
    United States to any service member. Our 65th Infantry Regiment, who
    fought in World War II and Korea was recognized by Congress with the
    congressional Gold medal. As said by President Obama, who signed the
    same [sic], ``My hand has more fingers than the amount of congressional
    gold medals given by Congress.'' Today, over 100,000 veterans live in
    this island. Approximately 35,000 men and women currently serve in the
    Armed Forces worldwide. Yet, even after all our service and sacrifice
    defending democracy, liberty, and justice, we come back home, Puerto
    Rico, and we are denied full voting rights and equality which the US
    Constitution guarantees to all citizens living in the States. How can
    this be? We are sent to war; we have no choice. We fight, we sacrifice
    ourselves and our families. Many of us do not return. But when we come
    back to Puerto Rico, we cannot vote for the President, our commander-
    in-chief, nor we have representation with voice and vote in Congress.
    They send us to war. You send us to war. We don't have a Resident
    Commissioner, Honorable Jennifer Gonzalez, who you know very well, she
    is very vocal, she is a great Congresswoman, she has a great voice but
    she don't [sic] have a vote. The only income for many veterans as well
    as Puerto Ricans living in the Island is Social Security. But yet, as
    ratified by the US Supreme Court, Congress can discriminate against
    Puerto Ricans living in Puerto Rico not to receive Supplemental
    Security Income, SSI. Clearly discrimination and a matter of human
    rights. Puerto Rico has been a territory of the United States, it's
    part of the border, it's part of the continent. But incredibly and for
    the matter of Tricare we are treated as a foreign country. We do not
    receive the same Medicare, and we don't receive the same federal funds,
    as many other states. So why is this? Because we are a colony. For all
    veterans. For all service members, for all 3.2 million Puerto Ricans
    living in Puerto Rico, this cannot continue and Congress is finally
    acting now. Listen, thank you for acting now, right now [scattered
    applause]. Thank you for giving this Puerto Rico status act, the
    binding of colonial decisions by Puerto Ricans in Puerto Rico. God
    bless our veterans//
    Chairman Raul Grijalva:
        Thank you.
    Brigadier General Victor Perez, retired:
        //And service members. God bless Puerto Rico. God bless our Nation,
    the United States of America, do you have any questions for me?
    Chairman Raul Grijalva:
        I couldn't cut you off in the middle of a ``God bless'', you know,
    that would've been very bad of me, but no, let me . . . No, I don't
    have any questions for the panels other than, my friend, to thank you
    for your service and the men and women//
    Brigadier General Victor Perez, retired:
        //An honor//
    Chairman Raul Grijalva:
        //And, from Puerto Rico//
    Brigadier General Victor Perez, retired:
        //I am accompanied by many veterans here. In the audience here
    today//
    Chairman Raul Grijalva:
        And thank them as well. Thank them as well. With respect and
    admiration. Any questions for the panelists? Let me turn to my
    colleagues, I don't have any questions.
    Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez:
        I have one question, actually.
    Brigadier General Victor Perez, retired:
        Please.
    Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez:
        Mr. Anibal Acevedo Vila, you had mentioned an assertion about
    clarification regarding maintaining the official language as Spanish in
    the event of a Statehood option. Are there any other linguistic or
    cultural ascertainments that you would like to, that you wanted to
    point out, or is it solely language?
    Anibal Acevedo Vila:
        Well, I am against Statehood. I just wanted to let you know that
    the way the Statehood party has presented to the People of Puerto Rico
    the alternative of, of Statehood, it means that nothing is going to
    change in terms of our cultural identity. Sometimes they even say that
    we will, that we might be able to keep our Olympic team because the
    Olympic team is a private organization, the International Olympic
    Committee. And so, language is the more clear one because you have in
    the past experiences. And I mention some of the states. If you look
    into the admission act of those states, Congress back then said, ``You
    have to guarantee that public schools are going to be in English. You
    have to guarantee the legislative process is going to be in English.''
    So, being silent on that issue, I don't think would be fair for the
    People of Puerto Rico to vote for Statehood and then later on realize
    that what we have today//
    Chairman Raul Grijalva:
        //Sir//
    Anibal Acevedo Vila:
        //And I'm going to give you an example. God bless you. But if you
    have a car accident, here in Puerto Rico, and we have to take you to
    court, we are going to try you in Spanish.
    Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez:
        Mhm.
    Anibal Acevedo Vila:
        We will provide you a translator, but it's going to be in Spanish.
    And they make believe [sic] the people of Puerto Rico that if we become
    a state, that's going to be the case. That the courts are going to be
    in Spanish and everybody . . . So that is the main issue. But the whole
    issue, is to protect the identity//
    Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez:
        //OK//
    Anibal Acevedo Vila:
        //The sense that we are unique. That is one of the problems with
    Statehood.
    Alexandria Ocasio Cortez:
        And I'd like to just open the opportunity for any other witnesses
    regarding language and culture as part of any of the status options
    presented in the draft legislation. OK, thank you.
    Chairman Raul Grijalva:
        You are all invited to comment. If you . . . If I'm correctly
    reading Ms. Ocasio-Cortez's intention, of . . . I think any panelist
    who wants to speak to the issues of language, identity, or culture is .
    . . Please.
    Maria De Lourdes Guzman:
        Well, I believe it is an issue that, as I stated during my
    presentation, should be discussed. Because . . . There are many myths
    in relation to what the state of Puerto Rico might be. We in Puerto
    Rico, 90% of our people speak Spanish. To say that we are bilingual, is
    not correct. And in the United States you speak English, even if it is
    said that there is no official language, they speak in English. Our
    Puerto Rican brothers and sisters move to the United States and must
    speak English. They speak Spanish at home, within their communities,
    but the reality of the fact is that in order to insert themselves into
    the labor market and the rest of what American society is, they must
    speak English, including at the schools that children attend. And I
    believe there is a void there and that's why I say that this must be
    discussed with a lot of maturity and a lot of responsibility, without
    trying to scare people about losing this or that or that. But that one
    of the things we could actually lose is our language.
    Chairman Grijalva:
        Yes.
    Zoe Lavoy:
        If I may, in Spanish or English, it doesn't make a difference. But
    as far as I understand, there is no official language in the United
    States. So, at [sic] the end, we wouldn't be required, as far as I
    understand. But I do believe, though, and I have to [applause and
    cheers from the audience]. But if I may. If there's one thing that I
    love about this bill//
    Speaker:
        //No//
    Zoe Lavoy:
        //Is that on this draft, nobody is going to be lied to. So, I'm
    going to have to join their request and I think that, again, starting
    from the point that there is no official language, we do need to take a
    look at this and any other doubt. Because at [sic] the end, that
    campaign that you guys are going to do for the voters need [sic] to be
    clear as to every aspect for each and every of the options.
    Chairman Raul Grijalva:
        Thank you. Nydia Velazquez?
    Representative Nydia Velazquez:
        Yes, I have a short question.
    Committee Deputy Director, Margarita Varela:
        About the same question? About the same subject?
    Representative Nydia Velazquez:
        No, another subject.
    Zoraida Buxo:
        If I may be allowed to express myself on that subject?
    Chairman Raul Grijalva:
        Please.
    Committee Deputy Director, Margarita Varela:
        Mr. Chairman?
    Zoraida Buxo:
        The United States is a multicultural nation. To wonder what the
    United States is going to do in the 21st century, to believe that a
    nation would impose a single language over a people is a fallacy. It is
    a total disconnection from the reality that we are living. In addition
    to, the issue of language is one of the rights reserved for the states
    under//
    Chairman Raul Grijalva:
        If you may, please//
    Zoraida Buxo:
        Underthe tenth amendment.
    Chairman Raul Grijalva:
        If you allow me. Please, I know that everybody has their own way of
    expressing themselves concerning the opinion that you are listening to
    as well as the support to that opinion. However, if you please . . . If
    we may continue in this encounter in a professional manner, applause,
    commentary from the public, please resist the desire to. If possible.
    Now, Ms. Nydia? You had a question?
    Representative Nydia Velazquez:
        Yes. Either to Mr. Ramon Luis Nieves or Anibal Acevedo. So, what
    would be, in your opinion, a couple of examples of areas where the US
    will keep jurisdiction in a Free-Associated Puerto Rico?
    Ramon Luis Nieves:
        Well, first of all, I think that precisely one of the problems with
    the draft is that it fails to identify some of those areas.
    Representative Nydia Velazquez:
        Mhm.
    Anibal Acevedo Vila:
        For instance, the bill doesn't address what are the security
    obligations of the U.S. under Free Association, for instance. It is
    silent on that subject, for instance. That's very important. However, I
    propose that maybe this bill is not the place to legislate the whole
    compact of Free Association. That's another process//
    Chairman Raul Grijalva:
        //Thank you//
    Ramon Luis Nieves:
        //And it is very important to identify that. And I understand that
    some people are, could be worried we could be voting for something that
    we don't have the whole details of the compact. And it's fair to be
    preoccupied with that. But it is . . . We have to, at least include
    several areas that are missing there and we can work with the Committee
    and we can work with Congress in order to address that. And , very
    important, the . . . However, the areas that are mentioned on the bill
    are quite similar in, regarding Independence and Free Association, as I
    said in my testimony. And, in some areas it doesn't make sense. And as
    I mentioned, under Independence, after a presidential proclamation as
    proposed by the bill, Puerto Rico is independent. But that's not the
    process under Free Association. And Congress has already done several .
    . . Has authorized several compacts of Free Association. Has authorized
    the renegotiated terms of those compacts and maybe we can learn from
    that experience but applied to our experience here in Puerto Rico.
    Representative Nydia Velazquez:
        Thank you.
    Chairman Raul Grijalva:
        Thank you.
    Zoe Laboy:
        May I//
    Anibal Acevedo Vila:
        //Thank you, I want to address . . . The question that was directed
    to both of us. I mentioned some of the areas on my testimony, but, it
    has to be, we have to identify those who [sic] are for mutual benefit,
    both for the United States and for Puerto Rico. And the starting point
    should be the compacts of Free Association that the United States has
    with the islands in the Pacific. All of the areas I mentioned here are
    part of those compacts. So, it makes no sense to offer the People of
    Puerto Rico the alternative of Free Association and don't start even
    with what already has worked for the US and those islands. It's common
    defense, it's done there. They use the dollar. You know? So, so, how,
    how, in terms of international relations, of course, Puerto Rico will
    have its own personality but we//
    Staff:
        //We hardly//
    Anibal Acevedo Vila:
        //But maybe the United States would like to have some way, in terms
    . . . Because we are not independent. It is a Free Associated
    alternative, so the starting point should be the compacts of Free
    Association and then sit down and identify the other areas//
    Representative Nydia Velazquez:
        //Thank you.
    Ramon Luis Nieves:
        Chairman, if I may, very quickly, very quickly.
    Chairman Raul Grijalva:
        This panel will take longer than the other five, but please.
    Ramon Luis Nieves:
        OK, very quickly, very quickly. One area which is critical for
    Puerto Rico, under the Council of Security is the area of drug
    enforcement. 80% of the drugs that come here into Puerto Rico go to the
    United States. This is a national problem of the United States [sic]
    which Puerto Rican people are dying every day on the streets but that's
    one of the areas.
    Representative Nydia Velazquez:
        Thank you.
    Anibal Acevedo Vila:
        Thank you.
    Resident Commissioner Jennifer Gonzalez-Colon:
        Mr. Chairman, just to clarify.
    Chairman Raul Grijalva:
        Please.
    Resident Commissioner Jennifer Gonzalez-Colon:
        It's 10 seconds and it is that under [sic] tenth amendment the
    state . . . Reserve [sic] the right to select the language.
    Chairman Raul Grijalva:
        Thank you. Now we are going to invite the next panel, thank you
    very much.

                                  Second Panel

    Chairman Raul Grijalva:
        Let me welcome the next panel and thank you very much.
    Eliezer Molina [protesting from the audience]:
        Two years ago I was here with you. I told you they would sell you a
    PROMESA law that doesn't exist. They bankrupted this country
    [unintelligible comment and jeers from the audience].
    Chairman Raul Grijalva:
        Please. Please. Have some courtesy. Please. Please, if you will
    kindly allow us to continue this encounter, the opinion . . . Everyone
    here is in agreement with that position because [protests]. Please. The
    courtesy to allow this encounter to continue, please. No? Let us have a
    10-minute recess, please. Let's try and get them out.
        [Protests intensify] What did you tell them? Ready? May we begin
    again? Many thanks, it's just that . . . Democracy is not always
    pretty, but it is necessary. And I respect the right to protest and
    opinion but also the right to have this encounter with all the
    appropriate seriousness of the issue in front of us. I would appreciate
    that, as well. Well, many thanks.
    Resident Commissioner Jennifer Gonzalez-Colon:
        Close the door.
    Chairman Raul Grijalva:
        Please.
    Natalia Catoni:
        Good afternoon.
    Chairman Raul Grijalva:
        Thank you.
    Natalia Catoni:
        My name is Natalia Catoni, I speak on behalf of the Puerto Rico
    Young Republican Federation. I have given a lot of thought to what I'm
    going to say today. And I'll settle on giving a very brief
    understanding of the bill and what I believe. And that I believe that
    the draft should be formally introduced to the Committee and be voted
    for. I don't aim to be obvious about my pro-statehood stance, which I'm
    very much pro-statehood. But at the end I am a millennial, I believe
    that my personal context will provide some idea of why I believe this
    bill should be introduced and why it's an opportunity for my generation
    to be heard. I was born into a pro-status quo, pro-colonial family. To
    give you an idea, my mother's childhood home became the Popular
    Democratic's Party [sic] headquarters in the municipality of Vega Baja.
    My first political rally was the 1996 campaign closure for the Popular
    Democratic Party. And I was part of the fifth column against statehood
    rallies. All of them. My mom took me to all of them. But with time,
    when I started to learn how to think for myself and I started seeing
    different things, my perspective changed. My political perspective
    changed. I have studied the topic, and I understand that in the 1950s,
    my mother's generation, my grandparents' generation had the opportunity
    to express themselves through a democratic, congressional approved
    process in which they voted and they were heard and the status quo was
    imposed. My generation has lived under a political status that was
    imposed to us. That we have not chosen. And that we all know is wrong.
    Colonialism is old, and it's bad. My generation deserves a right to be
    heard regarding the political status. I'm not going to say that the
    bill is perfect. It's not. I have my opinions on whether things should
    change or not. But I do agree with two things. No. 1, it's binding and
    No. 2, the current status is not included, and it should never be
    included. Puerto Rico needs to move forward, it needs to move forward
    now. So this bill should be properly introduced and then we should go
    through the proper democratic process, and all be heard, and all
    allowed for changes in the bill. But it needs to be introduced. With
    that, I give you my thanks. Very short statement.
    Chairman Raul Grijalva:
        Thank you very much. Sir?
    Carlos Vizcarrondo Irizarry:
        Before I speak, I must present myself and say that as a Puerto
    Rican, I feel very pained to see the incident that just occurred here.
    Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman, and distinguished members of this
    Committee. For the record, I am Carlos Vizcarrondo Irizarry, former
    speaker of the Puerto Rico House of Representatives and former Judge of
    the Court of Appeals of Puerto Rico. Today, I would like to address
    this Committee regarding Title Two; transition and implementation of
    sovereignty in Free Association with the United States. First, I want
    to state for the record that in the years I participated in active
    politics in the Popular Democratic Party, I always favored the
    enhancement of the present Commonwealth status toward a relationship of
    autonomy between Puerto Rico and the United States in accordance with
    international law. More precisely, I was the author of a proposal to
    define the Commonwealth alternative to be defended in a future
    plebiscite which was proposed to be held in 1991. The PDP was in
    control of the executive and legislative branches. Governor Rafael
    Hernandez Colon, who chaired the PDP, gathered the party in a general
    assembly held on 17th of November, 1980, in Ponce, Puerto Rico. I
    submitted my proposal to vote which was approved by an overwhelming
    majority. My proposition stated, required that the status project makes
    viable the exercise of free determination of the people of Puerto Rico
    under the laws of the Commonwealth. Between political formulas of equal
    dignity, not subordinated to the plenary powers of Congress of the
    United States under territorial clause of the Constitution to be
    presented to the People of Puerto Rico by the Congress of the United
    States. Since 1990, the PDP has recognized this proposal to be its
    official position regarding the enhancement of the Commonwealth status.
    In my opinion, the referred enhancement of the Commonwealth status is
    perfectly consistent with the proposition of sovereignty for the People
    of Puerto Rico in a compact of Free Association with the United States
    like the one you are presenting to us in discussion draft, before us.
    Finally, I want to summarize my more important recommendations: Add a
    new subsection D to section 207 to establish accord [sic] of the
    compact. I explained it in detail in my written statement. Second,
    clarify . . . Section 208 to state that US citizenship [sic] living in
    Puerto Rico at the time of the proclamation of Free Association will
    continue to be citizens of Puerto Rico and citizens of the United
    States. A third, clarify subsection A2 with respect to the persons born
    in the Free-Associated state of Puerto Rico from parents who are both
    US citizens. They will acquire US citizenship automatically. Fourth,
    request that the government of the US abide to its legal obligations
    pertaining to the services related to the vested rights of American
    citizens in Puerto Rico instead of referring those services to be
    provided by the government of Puerto Rico and finally, demand the same
    treatment given by the Social Security Administration to American
    citizens living outside the jurisdiction of the US to the American
    citizens living in the Free-Associated state of Puerto Rico instead of
    referring those services to the government of Puerto Rico. Mr.
    Chairman, thank you for this opportunity to address the Committee.
    Thank you.
    Chairman Raul Grijalva:
        Many thanks. Let me turn to the next speaker, thank you.
    Lisa Munoz:
        Thank you. My name is Lisa Munoz and I'm the president of the Young
    Democrats of Puerto Rico. First and foremost, I would like to thank
    you, Chairman Grijalva, for allowing me to address the members of the
    Committee. I also wish to commend Congresswomen Jennifer Gonzalez and
    Nydia Velazquez for putting aside their ideological differences and
    working on a consensus bill to establish a federally binding process
    that will finally allow the Americans who live on these islands of
    Puerto Rico to have our voices heard in Congress about the type of
    political relationship we aspire to achieve with the United States,
    which I firmly believe will be Statehood. I would also like to
    recognize Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio's presence today and her
    steadfast support for young people and for this process. A large
    majority of us, the 3.2 million Americans who live in the oldest colony
    in the world believe in decolonizing Puerto Rico and that we must
    continue causing good trouble to achieve our full civil rights. The
    national platform of the Young Democrats of America recognizes our
    desire for political equality and states as follows, ``We believe
    Congress must act on the will of the People of Puerto Rico and approve
    an enabling act with terms for Puerto Rico's admission as a state of
    the Union. The People of Puerto Rico have exercised their right to
    self-determination resulting in overwhelming support for Statehood.
    Thus, we support granting the full admission of Puerto Rico as a state
    of the Union. YDPR believes that our rights as American citizens should
    be fully secured and that no American in this great country of ours
    should have to choose between remaining in the land of their birth or
    the opportunity for a better life in some far-away land. As has been
    well documented, Puerto Rico has been suffering from a major brain
    drain since our recession began in 2006. Which has only worsened after
    hurricane Maria. According to the 2020 census, over 300,000 people
    between the ages 25 and 65 have left our shores. My peers continue to
    seek a better quality of life and struggle with job, health, and food
    security after the Covid crisis. And we believe that if Puerto Rico
    were a state, we would not feel the need to seek better opportunities
    away from our families. We are tired of being treated worse than any
    other American in the Nation. If Puerto Rico were to become a state, we
    would have the political power to have our voices truly heard in our
    Nation's capital when legislation is being considered and approved in
    Congress. For example, our current colonial disenfranchisement silences
    the voices of the women of our islands on the matter of reproductive
    rights. It silences everyone in our island on the matter of climate
    change, which has severely impacted our coasts during the past five
    years. There may very well be parts of these islands that will be
    underwater by the time I am eligible to receive our second-class
    Medicare benefits. As the daughter of a Bronx-raised, US Army Purple
    Heart recipient, Vietnam veteran, may he rest in peace, and as a type I
    diabetes patient since I was 6 years old, I can give testimony of the
    immense suffering that our family has had to endure because of the
    discrimination that the Congress and the federal government have
    imposed upon us by limiting our access to federal healthcare and other
    social programs. This discriminatory treatment and the burden that it
    has placed on the very people that these programs are meant to assist
    have had a cascading effect on the ability [sic] of quality healthcare
    for and of the social well-being of all Americans in Puerto Rico.
    Puerto Rico has been a colony of the United States for 124 years. And
    this is the longest any territory has gone without being admitted into
    the Union. This is not just morally wrong, it is plainly un-American
    and our country, through its leaders like yourselves, needs to rid
    itself of this stain in its moral fabric. In the words of President
    Kennedy, ``I beseech you to not seek the Republican answer or the
    Democratic answer, but the right answer.'' The right answer is equality
    through Statehood for the 3.2 million Americans that call these
    beautiful islands their home. The consensus reached between the Puerto
    Rican members of this Congress contained in the federally binding
    status legislation being considered by this Committee is a step in the
    right direction. I thank you for your time.
    Chairman Raul Grijalva:
        Thank you. Sir? Recognized?
    Rolando Emmanuelli:
        My name is Rolando Emmanuelli and I am here in a personal capacity
    due to my knowledge of the PROMESA law and my experience as a
    litigating attorney in Title Three cases under PROMESA law. Among the
    merits of this bill, I emphasize the draft of the definitions and
    transitional project toward Independence. As for the negative aspects,
    it is indispensable to reiterate that the draft contains the seed of
    its own destruction and will make its approval impossible before the
    Senate of the United States. This seed is Statehood. Therefore, if we
    wish to work on this process in a trustworthy manner and in a way that
    solves once and for all the ignominy of our colonial situation,
    Congress must undertake an initial determination prior to approval of
    this bill concerning the viability of promising Statehood to Puerto
    Rico. Without that threshold determination, we will all be wasting our
    time. On the other hand, the Proconsuls' Board imposed upon us by
    PROMESA law has just confirmed a plan of debt adjustment for the
    central government. The adjustment plan has deficiencies and problems
    that could result in Puerto Rico going into a second bankruptcy,
    because the growth estimates that the Board has prepared bury us in
    negative territory as soon as the year 2024. With this plan, the debt
    service increases to 3,350 million dollars annually considering the
    payment to pensioners who are also creditors. A colonial Puerto Rico
    will not be able to collect those annual 3,350 million for debt
    service. We must also not allow the injustice and violation of
    international rights where a sovereign Puerto Rico would have to
    continue to put of with and finally collapse under an odious colonial
    debt. The adjustment plan to Puerto Rico's debt is not viable because
    it promises far too many resources for the payment of the debt under a
    colonial scenario of minimal or zero economic growth. Nobel winner in
    Economic Sciences, Joseph Stiglitz has stated and reiterated on his
    visits to Puerto Rico that a country without economic growth cannot pay
    off its debt, and that 50% of countries that adjust their debt default
    on their payments within five years. The straw that breaks the camel's
    back is that the plan to adjust the debt has tied the hands of Puerto
    Rico's colonial regime because it amended the Constitution of the
    Commonwealth, changed retirement systems into one of defined payments
    that at the end of the path will become insufficient to sustain future
    retirees and prohibits, at least for 10 years, the improvement of
    pensioned citizens' situation, or reinstate pension systems with
    defined benefits. These conditions would limit the sovereignty of
    Puerto Rico to alleviate poverty and inequality among our retirees and
    render them unable to be part of its state of rights. Remember, in
    order for the Republic to be viable, it must create a new constitution.
    That is part of the draft under our consideration. This Constitution
    could redefine the odious debt and establish prohibition of payment,
    which could open the door for laws that allowed the bonds to be
    declared unconstitutional. Puerto Rico's debt is odious due to its
    origin, process, and execution for it was produced counter to the
    interests of the People of Puerto Rico. First off, colonialism is an
    international crime, and this debt was produced under the auspices of
    the colonial regime. Second, it was produced in violation of local and
    federal laws and with full knowledge that it is unpayable. Finally, the
    debt is illegitimate because it was used to refinance debt with the
    purpose of keeping Puerto Rico's colonial apparatus afloat. If you wish
    to see proof of this, read the infamous report by Kobre & Kim that the
    Financial Control Board prepared that documents this entire scandal.
    This debt is unlawful, unpayable, and a sovereign Puerto Rico should
    not pay it. The draft bill must include specific dispositions that free
    the Republic of Puerto Rico from the effects of this odious law.
    Ironically, this odious debt could only be maintained if Puerto Rico
    becomes a federal state, because Statehood is the culmination of
    colonialism and the Constitution of the ELA would continue and be bound
    by this debt adjustment plan. As a state, we will be condemned to pay
    for this and in its moment, the federal government would have to manage
    this issue when the state of Puerto Rico once again defaults on its
    payments to its creditors. It is urgent that Congress assume any
    responsibility established by the debt adjustment plan. It is not
    possible to go forth with the decolonization of Puerto Rico if the
    Republic of Puerto Rico still has to carry the weight of an odious and
    unsustainable debt. Without such reparations, any process of
    decolonization would be destined for failure. Thank you very much
    [applause].
    Chairman Raul Grijalva:
        Thank you. Sir?
    Nestor Duprey:
        Good afternoon. Mr. Chairman Grijalva, members of the Committee, my
    name is Nestor Dupree. I submitted my statement both in English and in
    Spanish. For the benefit of our compatriots I will read it in Spanish.
    I thank the invitation extended by this Committee to share with you a
    brief reflection in regard to the draft bill concerning the future of
    relations between Puerto Rico and the United States which are under
    your consideration. First off, I wish to leave it completely clear that
    my opinions and comments reflect the dictates of my conscience and my
    mind and only represent me both as Puerto Rican historian and political
    scientist. I believe in the recognition of Puerto Rican sovereignty
    under a pact, convention or treaty of Free Association between the
    People of Puerto Rico and the United States of America with whom we
    share a common history that is over 100 years in the making along with
    human, geographic, and economic ties that force us, despite the
    colonial reality, into a mutual understanding that precisely solves the
    colonial character of our current relationship. Free Association is not
    an option lacking support; it is backed by men and women in Puerto Rico
    who, beyond partisan lines, recognize it as the best path for the
    People of Puerto Rico in their relationship with the United States. I
    have defended and I will continue to defend Free Association not
    because of convenience, but out of conviction. That is why I am here.
    Second, I believe in the justice of thanking both the interest shown
    not just by the Chairman of this Committee, Representative Grijalva, as
    well as Majority Leader Steny Hoyer in being able to obtain a document
    of consensus between all measures presented by the Resident
    Commissioner, dear friend Jennifer Gonzalez and Representatives Nydia
    Velazquez and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. This document, which we hope
    becomes legislation in the next few days, is the starting point from
    here onwards in the inescapable negotiation that ends in a process of
    mutual determination concerning the future of the relationship between
    Puerto Rico and the United States. I speak of mutual determination and
    not of free determination because decisions of public policy that will
    be reflected on this legislation that shall be discussed and approved
    eventually by Congress will express determinations of public policy of
    the federal government as well as the will of the People of Puerto
    Rico. There are three core issues that require, to my view, a
    determination of public policy from the federal government. A policy
    decision. And one that will affect the final content of this present
    legislation which is currently under a state of draft. How we address
    these issues will condition the response of the People of Puerto Rico
    toward these constitutionally viable options offered. First, the bill
    under consideration forces the United States to decide that its policy
    toward the territory of Puerto Rico and, by extension, toward its
    population and the particularities of its relationship require a
    different treatment from the other territories in regard to the
    possibility of maintaining the territorial option. What may be
    desirable and even convenient to other territories due to its
    particularities and interests, is both undesirable and nonviable
    already. And I suspect that it is the same for the United States. The
    territorial option under any other name is contrary to the best
    interests of the People of Puerto Rico and delays, for the United
    States, the resolution of its problem: how to dispose of the territory
    by offering decolonizing options. Second, the United States as a
    government, through its political branches must decide if it offers the
    option of Statehood to Puerto Rico with promises to grant it and under
    which terms and conditions. The disposition of self-executability
    contained within this draft explicitly conveys the acceptance of a
    petition of admission from the territory of Puerto Rico as a state of
    the Union without first knowing the terms and conditions of said
    admission. And we all know that the clause of self-executability has
    been the cemetery where past efforts to promote legislation and address
    this problem have been put to rest. Third, the option of sovereignty
    for Puerto Rico concerning Independence or Free Association imply a
    decision of public policy from the federal government concerning the
    future of US citizenship of Puerto Ricans. Everything is possible.
    Everything may be agreed upon if there exists enough political will for
    it. Those are, in brief, my comments toward these measures. The People
    of Puerto Rico and the United States must decide the future of our
    relationship in a manner that recognizes our mutual interests. This
    bill is a step in the right direction. The conversation has begun, so
    it must be continued.
    Chairman Raul Grijalva:
        Thank you. Thank you. Please?
    Karina Claudio Betancourt:
        For the record, I will speak in Spanish and also with inclusive
    language. Greetings, esteemed Congress persons and the personnel of the
    Natural Resources Committee of the House of Representatives of the
    United States. Thank you so much for giving me the opportunity of being
    able to address you today. My name is Karina Claudio Betancourt. I am a
    resident of San Juan, Puerto Rico and as many young and queer people in
    this island, I live the ravages of colonialism every day. We do not
    live in this colony. We scrape by. It is a constant negotiation between
    the mediocrity of austerity and the losses of services imposed upon us
    by the Financial Control Board and the desire to truly be happy and
    live fully in this country. I think that this is one of the things that
    hurts the most about being a young person in this colony. We love it,
    we treasure it, we fervently defend its beaches as you could see today
    [laughs] and its land. Our right to be and to love who we wish and be
    who we are, right, but the colony chokes us. Therefore, I believe that
    in this panel we are in agreement that the issue of colonialism is
    unsustainable. That is why I joined the conversation concerning the
    Puerto Rico Status Act. Because I understand that the time has come to
    solve the problem of the colonial situation of Puerto Rico, but I also
    urge you that this process should not be rushed and, on the contrary,
    we don't repeat the same mistakes that with PROMESA, when in a
    nondemocratic manner it was imposed on us a Board that has made us
    miserable. Although I am thankful personally and representing the
    organization Open Society Foundation, for the leadership of
    Congresswoman Nydia Velazquez, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez for pushing
    forward a Convention of Status that would have been, right, the ideal
    manner to solve this issue . . . I understand that there are many ways
    to look at the draft of this legislation bill and see how we can
    improve this legislation bill, as well as the way that we continue our
    dialogue. Particularly to involve and listen to Puerto Ricans most
    impacted by the tenacity of the colony. The problems that our
    organization and our community of local allies have identified in this
    draft bill includes the lack of detail and clarity concerning certain
    options of status, a language that attempts to make the Puerto Ricans
    lean toward one particular option of status, which is annexation, and
    that Congress wants to dictate, for example, what type of Republic
    Puerto Rico would establish under Independence. There are also issues
    with the definition of US citizenship, yes? As mentioned before, under
    the status of Free Association, and various other things that the draft
    neglects to mention, such as: What will happen to the debt of Puerto
    Rico, yes? As our colleague, Mr. Emmanuelli had mentioned, concerning
    the different options for status. What will happen, for example, with
    the language that controls our laws, our schools, our courts; federal
    taxes, as many others have mentioned today, right? And, besides that,
    there's no mention of the participation of the Puerto Rican diaspora in
    this vote. As another colleague said, there are many of us who have had
    to leave Puerto Rico but we keep going, yes? We follow what happens
    here politically. It also fails to mention the applicability of the
    Jones Act, or the lack thereof in the different options of status. The
    Jones Act increases the cost of a lot of products in Puerto Rico and,
    right, it truly impedes the economic growth, as mentioned previously.
    Lastly, I wish to reiterate, right, our desire to have congressional
    hearings in Puerto Rico, in Spanish, and in Washington DC in a
    bilingual manner in order to maintain an official record of the
    different opinions of the Puerto Rican People concerning this project.
    As a young person, I also wish to reiterate that the youth of Puerto
    Rico no longer trust the traditional political parties. I don't know if
    you saw yesterday, but the Governor of Puerto Rico was booed at the
    University, yes and so, any process that occurs in Puerto Rico must
    have an element of neutral outreach and it must be financed by the
    United States government to reach out to youth and to also oversee the
    role of the colonial parties, whether it be the PNP or the PPD, in this
    process, since many of us have already seen how the traditional parties
    have used past referendums to favor their own status options and
    advance their partisan agendas.
        Thank you again for your time and I remain attentive.
    Chairman Raul Grijalva:
        Thank you. I turn to my colleagues, are there any questions? No?
    Representative Alexandria Ocasio Cortez:
        A question. For Karina Claudio Betancourt. You spoke about the
    perspective of young people concerning political parties here in the
    Island. And I wanted to know, are there any alternative mechanisms in
    which Congress could also receive other perspectives on top of the ones
    . . . Besides those of the parties that we have . . . That have already
    offered their perspectives?
    Karina Claudio Betancourt:
        Yes, hello?
    Chairman Raul Grijalva:
        Please.
    Karina Claudio Betancourt:
        Well, I believe that speaking to the rest of the civil society is
    very important, especially with groups that are not affiliated to
    political parties, with people that live at the margins of this
    archipelago and I would gladly, through our organization, we might be
    able to arrange some of these conversations which may lie outside of
    traditional Puerto Rican partisan politics.
    Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez:
        Thank you.
    Chairman Raul Grijalva:
        Thank you. Anybody else? Thank you very much.
    Karina Claudio Betancourt:
        Thank you.
    Chairman Raul Grijalva:
        Anyone else? Appreciated. Thank you very much. Let me invite the
    next panel up.

                                  Third Panel

    Chairman Raul Grijalva:
        I understand that there is much discussion between the audience
    included here, and I'd like to request, please, keep conversations at a
    low volume or if it is a slow conversation to continue it outside,
    because we, here, we can hear exactly the conversations going on in the
    audience and we will not be able to hear the panelist as we should. So,
    if you would kindly do me the favor. Thank you. Let me now . . . You
    are invited to your comments. No? Well . . . It's time for
    commentaries, your opinion?
    Yvette Chardon:
        May I?
    Chairman Raul Grijalva:
        Absolutely, it's your turn.
    Yvette Chardon:
        Very well, good afternoon, distinguished and honorable members of
    the panel. Mr. Robles and Ms. Varela and Mr. Brian Modeste. Welcome to
    Puerto Rico, this is the pearl of the Caribbean. My name is Yvette
    Chardon. I am a Puerto Rican baby boomer from Ponce, Puerto Rico who
    feels honored . . .
    Committee Deputy Director, Margarita Varela:
        Yes, we cannot hear you.
    Yvette Chardon:
        I'm sorry.
    Chairman Raul Grijalva:
        You need to talk into the mic for the record.
    Yvette Chardon:
        I'm sorry. Well, my name is Yvette Chardon. I am a Puerto Rican
    baby boomer from Ponce, Puerto Rico who feels honored by this unique
    opportunity to express my feelings and beliefs about my Island's
    situation. I thank all of you for your effort and dedication to reach
    consensus and design this compromise draft. I am a very proud US
    citizen like most of my fellow Puerto Ricans on the Island. Yet I
    cannot feel proud of the fact that my Nation, maintains 3.2 million
    disenfranchised second-class US citizens living under colonialism in
    the 21st-century. Being a baby boomer, I have lived the history of this
    colonial status and have seen how the economic and social development
    model of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico has not worked. It has failed.
    It has kept us stagnant and poor. It has driven us into bankruptcy. My
    Puerto Rico has become the tax haven tropical paradise for others.
    Thank you, Representative Velazquez, you could not have described it
    any better when you said, and I quote, ``The current status is
    unsustainable, unjust, and undignified.'' You have made my day, Nydia
    Margarita. I know you must have looked deep into your heart, into your
    Puerto Rican heart and as Jennifer Gonzalez-Colon, Resident
    Commissioner said, ``I respect you more.'' Um, doing some little [sic]
    research I learned that Puerto Ricans have loyally and bravely
    sacrificed. They have shed sweat, blood, and tears to defend our . . .
    Oh, my God. I'm nervous. Our noble flag ever since the Revolutionary
    War and even during the Civil War. As I speak here today, 35,000 Puerto
    Ricans are on active duty. And 330,000 veterans have bravely and
    proudly served in every single military conflict since World War I. But
    the military is not the only place where Puerto Ricans have excelled
    themselves [sic]. They have received the Congressional Gold Medal and
    multiple medals of honor. But us Puerto Ricans have also excelled in
    science, the arts, music, Grammys, Oscars, NASA, even a Judge in the
    Supreme Court and a Surgeon General. These last two, Puerto Rican
    women. Can you imagine how much more we would contribute if we were to
    enjoy full equality and democracy? Like our fellow citizens do in the
    States? Puerto Rico is the southernmost border to this Nation. We are
    the bridge to South and Latin America. As a state, we would not be a
    burden to our Union. To the Union, I'm sorry. Au contraire, we would
    add another flag . . . Another's star to our noble flag, assuming all
    the responsibilities and rights it implies to be a state of the
    greatest, most democratic nation on Earth. As a woman, wife, mother,
    and grandmother, I respectfully ask of you today to allow us to reach
    our dream. The American dream. Without the need to split our families
    and without feeling forced to move stateside to search for equality,
    voting rights, better opportunities, and a better quality of life. Our
    families are the nuclei of our society. And this colonial territory is
    tearing them apart and this has to stop. I respectfully ask of you
    today, please be on the right side of history and make it part of your
    legacy in Congress to give us Puerto Ricans the opportunity to
    democratically express ourselves in the ballot box and define our
    political future.
    Chairman Raul Grijalva:
        Thank you.
    Yvette Chardon:
        You have the power to stop 124 years of colonization,
    discrimination//
    Chairman Raul Grijalva:
        //Thank you. We need to go onto the next speaker, thank you very
    much. Please?
    Yvette Chardon:
        Well, thank you.
    Chairman Raul Grijalva:
        Thank you.
    Irma Rodriguez:
        Do I begin?
    Chairman Raul Grijalva:
        Yes, please.
    Irma Rodriguez:
        Esteemed Chairman Grijalva, and all esteemed members of the
    Committee, my name is Irma Rodriguez, President of Puerto Rico Pro-
    Statehood. We wish to express our most sincere gratitude for the time
    you have all dedicated to help the American citizens that live in this
    island solve the colonial situation that has defined our destiny since
    1898, quite a long time ago. The conditions of deterioration, economic
    and social decadence in which our Island finds itself in demonstrates
    that the utilized formula does not work. Since it does not provide the
    necessary economic tools to grow at the same rate as a state. It is
    time to decide, it is time to solve this dilemma. As you all know,
    Puerto Rico is subject to the plenary powers of Congress in virtue of
    the territorial clause. We are a territory, yes. We are a territory of
    the most powerful nation in the world. We are a territory of a nation
    that symbolizes equality and defends the liberties of all human beings
    in all corners of the planet. We are the territory of a great nation. A
    nation of opportunities for whomever wants to better themselves. A
    nation of equal protection under law. A nation where you can wake up
    with the hope that the efforts of our work will provide a better future
    for ourselves and for our children. And for our grandchildren and
    great-grandchildren. We wish to be part of the American Nation, but
    this great nation has forgotten us. It has kept us under a condition of
    social disadvantage. We are American citizens, and we want that full
    citizenship with all the rights and responsibilities. It is not about
    the aids we will receive once Puerto Rico becomes a state. It is also
    not about the safety we will have in our borders or how the government
    might improve or the stability that Statehood will bring us. It is
    about giving us the opportunity of declaring fully who we are. We are
    Puerto Ricans, American citizens, a part of this great nation. Sorry,
    my mouth is dry. We do not exist under equality of conditions that our
    co-citizens of the United States; all you need to do is take a walk
    through this beautiful Island to realize that this inequality has had a
    significant impact on our quality of life, on our infrastructure, and
    our economic development; on our health, on our education, on our
    security. Our great American Nation has forgotten that it must allow us
    the opportunity to choose what path we wish to take, with no more
    excuses; we dream of the path toward equality and progress. That is the
    hopeful future that we all want, along with all the rights and
    responsibilities that this includes. So, in the end, we will obtain the
    respect and social justice that we deserve. That is why many Puerto
    Ricans have opted to relocate themselves to one of the 50 states. At
    the moment, it is the only way to enjoy a full citizenship and to share
    in the benefits that the rest of our co-citizens, our brothers and
    sisters in the North enjoy. The Island is the oldest colony in the
    world, but our soldiers, who are also American soldiers have been
    fighting and dying with bravery and selflessness to defend the
    principles of liberty and equality since World War I. It is
    inconceivable that the nation that is the world leader in democracy
    across the world, that has been an inspiration, to this day has refused
    to support clearly and vigorously the same rules for its citizens in
    Puerto Rico. The struggle for Statehood is a fight for civil rights,
    therefore, this subject transcends political partisanship. It is
    neither liberal nor conservative because it is a single cause. And this
    cause is equality. After 124 years of inequality, which has continually
    manifested itself, we understand that it is far past time that we are
    granted the same rights and responsibilities as our American co-
    citizens. In 2012, 2017, and in 2020, it was demonstrated that a vast
    majority prefer Statehood amongst the possible alternatives. It has
    been demonstrated through past electoral events that Puerto Ricans wish
    to end the current territorial status of the Island. I wish to make the
    best of this opportunity that we have to improve our quality of life by
    taking up the tools that permanent union provides us. We wish to evolve
    at the same rate as our fellow citizens in the United States so we can
    push forward. I am an example of this desire for progress that we
    Puerto Ricans have. Allow us the opportunity to decide. On the
    referendum of November 2020, we were asked, ``Should Puerto Rico be
    admitted immediately into the Union of States? Yes or no?'' This
    provided the voters with the option to vote in favor of or against
    becoming a state of the United States during an unprecedented election
    where the Island's candidates won with a very narrow margin, the result
    for``Yes'' reached 53% of the votes which is a clear mandate leaving no
    room for excuses nor interpretation. We must keep moving forward so we
    can end this political stagnation so we can achieve equality and demand
    Congress put an end to unjust treatment and give Puerto Rico//
    Chairman Raul Grijalva:
        Thank you.
    Irma Rodriguez:
        Into the 21st century the respect. I will finish by saying that I
    approve this legislation for consensus that will allow us to choose
    between options of decolonization with non-territorial alternatives,
    constitutionally accepted to definitively end the colonial status.
    Chairman Raul Grijalva:
        Thank you. Thank you for your commentary. Sir, please?
    Francisco Gonzalez Magaz:
        Chairman Grijalva and distinguished members of the Natural
    Resources Committee, thank you for the opportunity to express our
    position regarding the Puerto Rico Status Act. My name is Francisco
    Gonzalez Magaz. I appear on behalf of the League of United Latin
    American Citizens, Puerto Rico chapter. LULAC is dedicated to
    protecting and promoting the civil rights of Hispanics in the United
    States. On April 30, 2022, LULAC Puerto Rico approved a resolution
    expressing its opposition to Puerto Rico's political status under the
    territory clause. Also, LULAC's National Assembly has, on multiple
    occasions, approved resolutions advocating for admission of Puerto Rico
    as the 51st state of the Nation, reflecting the will of the People
    Puerto Rico as expressed in 2012, 2017, and 2020. Our status as a
    territory hinders any significant efforts at economic growth. We have
    no voting representation in Congress, and although Puerto Ricans
    proudly serve in the American Armed Forces, we cannot vote for our
    commander-in-chief. Between 2010 and 2020, the population of Puerto
    Rico fell by 11.8%. This is only a small sampling of the impact
    colonialism is having on Puerto Rico. Furthermore, colonialism is
    contrary to what the framers of the Constitution had in mind. The
    Constitution of the United States does not contain any provisions for
    the administration of colonies. Rather, it has Section 3 of Article 4,
    also known as the Territory Clause. It is revealing that this is the
    same section of the Constitution where the process for admission as a
    state of the Union is established. Territories were not meant to be
    retained indefinitely. They were meant to become a state. In 1898,
    Puerto Rico and other territories raised the Star-Spangled Banner for
    the first time. Legal questions and controversies regarding how these
    territories would be governed quickly arose and ultimately reached the
    U.S. Supreme Court. Although there are a number of what came to be
    known as ``The Insular Cases'', particular attention should be paid to
    Downes v. Bidwell, where the distinction between incorporated and non-
    incorporated territories was first made. And in Balzac v. Puerto Rico,
    which held that Puerto Rico was not an incorporated territory and
    Congress could therefore decide which parts of the Constitution would
    apply. It is because of this judicial distinction that Puerto Rico's
    current colonial status has been upheld and has endured for 124 years.
    In 1952, by virtue of Public Law 600, the Constitution of the Estado
    Libre Asociado of Puerto Rico or the Commonwealth, was ratified. This
    created the illusion of autonomy and a false narrative that a bilateral
    agreement existed between the United States and Puerto Rico. However,
    this carefully created fiction of the Commonwealth as anything other
    than a colony began to unravel. In 2005, the President's Task Force on
    Puerto Rico's Status issued a report reiterating that Congress retains
    the constitutional authority to revise and even revoke the powers of
    self-government currently exercised by the government Puerto Rico. In
    2012 local referendum, the first question asked citizens whether they
    wished Puerto Rico to remain subject to the territory clause. A clear
    majority of almost 54% voted no. And, in 2016, by virtue of the
    territory clause, Congress passed PROMESA. Now, one can argue the
    merits and flaws of PROMESA. However, its authority over any local law,
    including Puerto Rico's Constitution, is unquestionable. PROMESA is
    there for the practical manifestation of Congress' plenary powers over
    Puerto Rico. Also, in 2016, the Supreme Court issued the opinion on
    Puerto Rico v. Sanchez-Valle. The Court reasoned that federal
    sovereignty was granted by [sic] the states, whereas Puerto Rico's
    sovereignty was granted by the federal government. And concluded that
    Puerto Rico's self-government was subordinate to the federal government
    in general and to Congress specifically. This holding was reiterated as
    recently as two months ago in United States v. Vaello-Madero. In the
    last two decades, all three branches of the federal government have
    declared that we are a colony. However, although we cite Vaello-Madero
    as an example of this, we must, we must also note that it revealed the
    precarious footing that the ``Insular Cases'' currently have. Both
    Justice Gorsuch and Justice Sotomayor strongly criticize the Insular
    Cases heavily. Justice Gorsuch went as far as stating that he hoped one
    day soon it could be overturned. Two conclusions can be drawn from
    this. The first is that Puerto Rico's current political status is
    colonial in nature, definition, and effect. The second is that Puerto
    Rico's colonial status is unsustainable. Final resolution of Puerto
    Rico's status is proper and necessary and it cannot happen under the
    current Estado Libre Asociado. The Estado Libre Asociado is the
    problem. It cannot also be the solution. The resolution of Puerto
    Rico's status is beneficial to the United States as well. The
    advantages of a prosperous Puerto Rico serving as a bridge between the
    United States and the Caribbean and South America are evident. And in
    answer to the question of Puerto Rican status will serve to reassert
    America's place in the world as an example of democracy, the Puerto
    Rico Status Bill is a democratic and viable mechanism for the final
    resolution of Puerto Rico's political status. But it can only be so as
    long as it calls for a direct vote, the options given are non-
    territorial and the result is binding. Given that these elements are
    present in the consensus bill being discussed, we believe it to be an
    historic milestone.
    Chairman Raul Grijalva:
        Thank you.
    Francisco Gonzalez Magaz:
        And pursuant to our resolution, we endorse and support it and
    lastly, I thank you again for the opportunity.
    Chairman Raul Grijalva:
        Sir. Good afternoon.
    Lefranc Fortuno:
        Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman, and other distinguished members of
    the Congressional delegation, I recognize the efforts of Congresswoman
    Gonzalez-Colon and Governor Pierluisi and I thank each one of you for
    working together and finding common ground to create a draft discussion
    bill on the status of Puerto Rico. I thank you as well for visiting our
    Island and to hear firsthand from the People, as well as the local
    committees of the national parties. My name is Delegate Lefranc
    Fortuno. I am a Shadow Representative elected by the People of Puerto
    Rico to US Congress to fight for full equality and democracy for the US
    citizens living in Puerto Rico. But today, I stand before you among
    many Puerto Ricans who, like me, are concerned about the dark path that
    Puerto Rico has been subject to for the last couple of years. Like if
    it wasn't enough that Congress imposed an undemocratic, unilateral
    fiscal control board on the Island, our People have been subject to
    discrimination on numerous federal programs like Medicare, Medicaid,
    and most recently, SSI. Nevertheless, it makes no sense for the US to
    hold 3.2 million American citizens hostage of democracy. We've been US
    nationals and citizens for over 120 years. And it is about time we are
    treated as such. Therefore, this Committee must stay firm and deny any
    remote possibility of including the current colonial territorial
    condition as an option going forward. After all, we can't decolonize
    Puerto Rico by including a non-democratic [sic] colonial option.
    Statehood is the only option that will give the People a right to have
    a say on their president, two US senators, and members of Congress with
    full voting rights; same funding and inclusion as the rest of the
    States, and first-class US citizenship for generations to come. Our
    veterans will be able to have a say on who their commander-in-chief is.
    This is simple, and the People of Puerto Rico know it. That's why, on
    the last three locally legislated plebiscites, the majority has
    rejected the current colonial condition and has voted for Statehood
    overwhelmingly. Independence and sovereignty in Free Association with
    the United States of America are two modalities of Independence. This
    has been recognized by the DOJ on numerous occasions. But they are both
    decolonizing and democratic options for the People of Puerto Rico to
    choose from. And even though when asked, I am sure that we will vote in
    favor of Statehood overwhelmingly, once again, this Committee needs to
    revise the language of citizenship included in Section 208 of this
    draft bill. Congress should not impose US citizenship on residents of
    an independent, separate sovereign nation. The procedure should be
    uniform to any other immigration request done by a son [sic] of two
    American citizens. After all, if you are a US citizen living outside of
    the US, you are obligated to pay federal taxes. Is this the intention
    of the Committee? What about the citizenship of the Nation of Puerto
    Rico? Is Congress considering a dual citizenship for the residents of
    Puerto Rico under this compact? These questions remain to be
    unanswered. If we want to make sure that Puerto Rico has full
    sovereignty, and has the tools to prosper economically, and stop young
    professionals from leaving this Island every single day and moving
    stateside looking for better opportunities for them, their families,
    let's work together to perfect this bill so Congress can act now and
    convert it into US law and leave behind in history the oldest colony in
    the world. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman Raul Grijalva:
        Thank you. Sir?
    Angel Cintron Jimenez:
        Hi, and good afternoon to all. I am Angel Cintron Jimenez, finding
    myself grateful for the privilege of addressing the esteemed Committee
    today in a dual capacity. Both as the CFO of the Young Democrats of
    Puerto Rico and I'm a concerned father seeking equal rights under the
    Constitution. First, as a board member of the Young Dems, I have
    defended many liberal causes with one of the most critical being equal
    rights for all US citizens. This includes defending the democratic will
    of the majority of Puerto Ricans for admission to the Union as an equal
    and sovereign's state. Now, as father to 10-month-old Angelito, who
    along with his mom, make up my whole world, I have to act. With both
    Louisiana and Puerto Rican roots, Angelito could be considered an
    authentic Cajun-Rican born here in San Juan. Living proof that the
    American and Puerto Rican melting pots are not only a theory, but a
    tangent [sic] reality for many. I cannot begin to tell you the
    complications that his mother and I have had to endure from healthcare
    and banking as far as retirement and family planning. All made
    burdensome under the weight of colonialism. The knowledge that we are
    suffering from a lack of sovereignty which hinges on the sole fact that
    we live on this Island, my home, spurs me to action in the hopes of
    achieving equality through self-determination. In that spirit of
    progress, I propose we call this draft bill the Puerto Rico Self-
    determination Act. Since it is a real and binding process to ensure the
    supreme definition that is a final solution to colonialism and the lack
    of sovereignty that ails us. I also humbly propose that Title Two be
    amended to read Independence in Free Association with the United
    States. In the name of honesty and transparency, either Title Two is
    amended to read Independence in Free Association or Title One is
    amended to read Sovereignty Without Free Association. In the
    alternative, and just to drive the argument home, both could be
    renamed. Title One could be Independent Republic and Title Two could be
    Associated Republic. All that matters is that they are named the same
    at their core. Since they are, in essence, the same. In that spirit,
    everywhere in the PRSDA, and most importantly in the plebiscite, it
    must be made clear that Free Association is Independence and naming it
    something else is incorrect and misleading. In truth, I believe the
    options should be reworded to a choice between Independent Sovereignty,
    Independence; Associated Sovereignty or Free Association, and Federated
    Sovereignty, Statehood. To clearly distinguish between the options. But
    any synonym will suffice so long as it is expressed identically in all
    variations of the same essential option. Yesterday afternoon, the
    proponents of Independence expressed to this Committee that as long as
    the draft bill was self-executing with respect to Statehood, they would
    not support it. Although they did not express the same concern on the
    self-executing nature of Independence or Free Association. I think that
    speaks for itself. In fact, I will go just a bit further to argue that
    the Independence Party is actually seeking Sovereignty with Free
    Association. According to their party platform, which under status
    outlines some of the crucial concessions that Title Two of the PRSDA
    contemplates like foreign affairs, trade, finance, taxation, security &
    defense, dispute resolution, immigration, economic benefits, grants,
    and determination of the Free Association. The first item on the status
    portion of the Independence Party's platform is to maintain friendly
    ties with the US, and it does not get friendlier between two sovereigns
    than Free Association. It is known that very few seek the total
    Independence contemplated in Title One largely due to citizenship. And
    the main objective of the Independence Party's status transition
    strategy as outlined in their own party platform are largely those
    contemplated under Title Two's Free Association. The implications of
    SCOTUS' historical but not surprising Sanchez-Valle case, which made
    clear that this territory and every territory lacks a sovereignty that
    a Republic or a Federated State possesses, leaves no room for
    interpretation other than the current colonial status is unyielding,
    leaving only two real options: Independent Sovereignty with or without
    Free Association; and Federated Sovereignty, or Statehood. The
    outbursts of disapproval from the status quo PPD party to the honest
    consensus contained in the PRSDA with respect to its decolonizing
    effect should speak for themselves, since it correctly rejects the
    current territorial and colonial status quo. This historic compromise,
    the newly minted PRSDA makes me proud to believe in the democratic
    process and proud of these United States of America. For I truly
    believe that the addition of Puerto Rico will only strengthen the Union
    with diversity, culture, and fresh blood in Congress. Thank you all for
    the time and effort invested in solving the sovereign status of the
    world's oldest colony and my family's home of Puerto Rico//
    Chairman Raul Grijalva:
        Thank you very much. Sir? [Applause]
    Luis Herrero Acevedo:
        That was great, Angel. My name is Luis Herrero Acevedo, I am a
    lawyer, political consultant, and commentator. I would like to start by
    commending the draft proposed bill and the process led by Majority
    Leader Hoyer and Chairman Grijalva. Getting proponents of Statehood and
    Sovereignty to discard old tropes and bring forth new ideas and
    processes to resolve Puerto Rico centenary political conundrum is no
    small feat. Thank you, Nydia. Thank you, Jennifer, for sitting down to
    talk. In theory, this is how the democratic process should work. Thank
    you once again for getting it done. If approved by Congress, this draft
    bill will send a clear signal of what a democratic majority in the
    House of Representatives is willing to offer Puerto Ricans. The draft
    is a starting point for future discussions and a solution to the status
    issue. But, as we all learned in elementary school, a bill does not
    become a law until approved by the Senate and signed by the President.
    And therein lies the problem. As a political consultant, I understand
    very well how politicals [sic] talk on the record, especially in the
    Congressional record, vis-a-vis how they talk behind closed doors.
    Every one of these guys and every politician who has served in the
    Natural Resources Committee since the United States took Puerto Rico by
    military force has had multiple off-the-record conversations about
    Puerto Rico and every one of these guys must agree, off-the-record of
    course, there are no votes in the Senate to make Puerto Rico a state.
    Not to date, not yesterday, not tomorrow. Since 1898, Puerto Rican
    Statehood has been a mirage. Lip service to score cheap political
    points or raise a few dollars for a campaign. I compare it to a
    mythical animal. Much talked about, but never seen. A unicorn. Through
    all its stages as a US colonial territory, there has never been 51,
    much less the 60 votes needed in the Senate to make Puerto Rico a
    state. Puerto Rico has been many things to the United States: a naval
    base and shooting range, a profitable sugar plantation, a tax haven, a
    biolab, a cold war theater used to foster revolutions and counter
    revolutions in the Caribbean, a winter vacation spot, an Estado Libre
    Asociado, and much more, but it has never been nor will it ever be a
    state. And that is the truth off-the-record. So let me be the first to
    say on-the-record, Puerto Rican Statehood is impossible in the Senate.
    It is a unicorn. Why will Puerto Rico never become a state when 37
    other territories were able to join the Union? The reasons are many and
    my time is short. But my preferred theory is that although Puerto Rico
    is owned by the United States, it has never been successfully
    Americanized. All histories on how territories become state have the
    same protagonist: a white American man. It is no coincidence that the
    last names of the fathers of Texas Statehood were Austin and Houston,
    and not Gonzalez or Hidalgo. The last names of the fathers of Alaskan
    Statehood were Grooming and Bartlett, not Kaitac, or Kiluki. In its 172
    years as a state, California has never had an elected governor with a
    Spanish surname. I wonder why. No congressperson will say this on-the-
    record. Especially those with a couple thousand Puerto Rican voters in
    their district. But you know it to be true. Even with a Democratic
    majority, there is no filibuster-proof coalition to make Puerto Rico a
    state in the Senate. No matter when you read it. Even this draft bill
    confirms the unicorn theory. To this date, except for our Republican
    Resident Commissioner Gonzalez, not a single Republican in the House or
    Senate has endorsed the draft. Senators Marco Rubio and Rick Scott, who
    represent over a million Puerto Ricans from Florida do not even bring
    the subject up. The mere possibility of adding Puerto Rico as a state
    dooms this or any other draft in the Senate. If the, if politics is the
    art of the possible, then Puerto Rico's Statehood politics is the art
    of the impossible. To end this Gordian knot, Congress must design a
    process that can garner the 60 votes needed in the Senate. We need to
    bring Republicans to the table and hammer out a deal. Puerto Rican
    politicians have used status as a political tool for decades. A cure
    for all our diseases; a handy excuse to justify their many terrible
    local governments. Millions of Puerto Ricans truly believe Statehood is
    possible because five generations of pro-Statehood politicians have
    promised that. ``Statehood is right around the corner.'' Only Congress
    and this Committee can tell Puerto Ricans the truth. Puerto Rican
    Statehood is not in the cards. The same way that after many years you
    are now saying, for the record, that Estado Libre Asociado, as it was
    originally conceived, is not viable, you should be as straightforward
    with Statehood. The wording can be simple and succinct. ``Puerto Rico,
    it's not you. It's me. Let's stay friends. Signed, US Congress.''
    Puerto Rican politics are changing, a new generation is ready to
    partner with Congress and design a process that can bring Democrats and
    Republicans together and make Puerto Rico a prosperous, democratic, and
    independent nation. But first, you must speak the truth to us on-the-
    record. Thank you for your time [applause].
    Chairman Raul Grijalva:
        Thank you. Let me begin there if I may, Mr. Herrero. A question:
    And your analysis of the Senate . . . And why that is vital is . . .
    That's true. Absolutely. But let's just talk about the role that we
    have.e Resources Committee and the House of Representatives. Shouldn't
    we do our job, too?
    Luis Herrero Acevedo:
        Yes, of course.
    Chairman Raul Grijalva:
        OK. And shouldn't we produce a product that has some level of
    consensus?
    Luis Herrero Acevedo:
        Of course.
    Chairman Raul Grijalva:
        If we do that, then, the responsibility for people doing their job
    shifts, que no?
    Luis Herrero Acevedo:
        Of course.
    Chairman Raul Grijalva:
        OK. Just wanted to make that clear. We are here to do our job,
    whatever the Senate does//
    Luis Herrero Acevedo:
        //I know, I only//
    Chairman Raul Grijalva:
        //They need to do their job.
    Luis Herrero Acevedo:
        That's why I commend this process because you are doing something
    good [applause and cheers].
    Chairman Raul Grijalva:
        Any questions? Any? Yes? Please, Ms. Ocasio?
    Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez:
        It's Francisco, right?
    Luis Herrero Acevedo:
        No, Luis.
    Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez:
        Luis? Pardon?
    Luis Herrero Acevedo:
        Luis, Luis.
    Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez:
        Luis, Luis, pardon. Well, I will say on-the-record the points you
    make about the Senate are completely legitimate. And, and we have been
    a colony for over 100 years for one reason. Because this is difficult,
    right? It's not easy//
    Luis Herrero Acevedo:
        //Correct//
    Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez:
        //And I think your points are absolutely well taken. I think what
    we are in now, as a Puerto Rican from the Bronx, with Puerto Ricans
    here from the Island, we have to . . . We are in the messy process of
    trying to exercise some form of self-governance. It is imperfect, we
    will get to dead ends, there will be disagreements. I think what we
    need to figure out for ourselves, at least is what does a legitimate
    process for us look like? And if we can figure out a process that has
    legitimacy, that at least we can agree on first, regardless of
    ideology. need to figure that out because the negotiations shouldn't be
    in Congress. It should not be up to the imperial power to impose a
    process on us. It should be us who create a process for ourselves. And
    so my question is, and I don't say this even as a criticism or a
    rebuttal to your remark, but one of my questions here is like . . .
    What parts of this process do you think should be added, amended,
    changed, removed?
    Luis Herrero Acevedo:
        The problem is how do we get to a bill that can be made into a law.
    Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez:
        Mhm.
    Luis Herrero Acevedo:
        And the thing is that using Statehood as a valid option, which it
    is, there are 50 states, we all understand that legally, politically,
    legitimately, Statehood exists. But there's no right to Statehood.
    There's no intention of the United States to give us Statehood. What
    that does, by putting Statehood here in the process, is guaranteeing
    that we are going to be a colony for another 122 more years [applause].
    Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez:
        Mhm, mhm.
    Luis Herrero Acevedo:
        That's the issue. How do we get this bill to the President? How do
    we make a law? I love this bill, I am in favor of it, I have been in
    favor of it since the first time I saw this draft. I understand how the
    process works, I read every single article, I've talked to whoever . .
    . And he who has been available and let me know how the process was
    made. I know it was hard.
    Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez:
        Mhm.
    Luis Herrero Acevedo:
        But how do we get to the White House in the first place//
    Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez:
        //I think, um, Chairman, it's . . . I don't know what impact this
    has on the legislative text itself, but I just think it's important to
    underscore the point that's being made here. That we have an imperial
    power that has de facto//
    Luis Herrero Acevedo:
        //You do//
    Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez:
        //Jurisdiction . . . Over a colony//
    Chairman Raul Grijalva:
        //No question//
    Luis Herrero Acevedo:
        //We are a territory. are in the presence of the Natural Resources
    Committee. We are not in the Puerto Rico Committee//
    Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez:
        //UN//
    Luis Herrero Acevedo:
        //Or in the foreign relations//
    Chairman Raul Grijalva:
        //No, no, and you are absolutely right. The central premises of
    this legislation and the difficulty in getting to where we are right
    now . . . It's around two points that there is agreement on this table.
    Luis Herrero Acevedo:
        Yes, mhm.
    Chairman Raul Grijalva:
        That is decolonization.
    Luis Herrero Acevedo:
        Correct.
    Chairman Raul Grijalva:
        And the other one is the agreement to use that imperial authority
    for a binding authority for the vote that the People in Puerto Rico
    take. That Congress is bound to use that authority to make sure that
    that happens.
    Luis Herrero Acevedo:
        And I want to make a very important point, since we are a colony
    owned, wholly owned by the United States, Puerto Ricans, we cannot go
    to the U.N. We cannot go to the Organization of American States, we can
    only come here, to the Natural Resources Committee, you are our
    sovereign. You literally are the sovereign of our People. So here we
    are, addressing our grievances, and trying to please . . . I commend
    the process and the progress that has been made with this bill. But the
    real alternative has to be to create something that can be made into a
    law and that can change Puerto Rico's status.
    Francisco Gonzalez Magaz:
        May I make . . . Can I comment, can I make a comment about the
    discussion that is going on right now? About his argument?
    Chairman Raul Grijalva:
        Of course. I mean, I've lost pretty much control of it anyway, so
    go ahead.
    Francisco Gonzalez Magaz:
        Sorry. It's just that, I am in favor of Statehood, and I have been
    my whole life. And I've heard this argument many, many times before.
    Statehood is a nonissue, it's a nonstarter. There's no environment for
    it in Washington. There is no environment for it in the House, and
    there is no environment for it in the Senate. It is an age-old argument
    against Statehood that has been made by pretty much everybody who is
    against Statehood in Puerto Rico. But the problem is we have an
    opportunity here, now. And it cannot be wasted away just because it
    seems difficult to be in the Senate. If a year ago you had told me that
    we would be sitting here right now discussing a consensus bill reached
    by Representative Nydia Velazquez, who traditionally has supported the
    Commonwealth and agreed to by the Resident Commissioner Jennifer
    Gonzalez, who is a lifelong supporter of Statehood, I would've said
    that's impossible. But it isn't. We are here now. And to listen to it
    again, to the argument that it's impossible in the Senate//
    Chairman Raul Grijalva:
        //Thank you very much. Appreciate it.
    Yvette Chardon:
        May I?
    Chairman Raul Grijalva:
        Could we invite the next panelist please? Thank you.
    Yvette Chardon:
        Oh, they didn't let me finish my//
    Chairman Raul Grijalva:
        We will take a 10-minute recess, thank you very much, and then
    we'll start with the next panel.

                                  Fourth Panel

    Chairman Raul Grijalva:
        Thank you for your patience, we are going to begin again, if you
    will please. Is it on? [Taps microphone].
    Alba Iris Calderon Cestero:
        To all the members of the Natural Resources Committee, good
    afternoon and welcome to Puerto Rico. My name is Alba Iris Calderon
    Cestero, and I am a professional woman born and raised in Puerto Rico.
    A mother of three, and I am here to make my comments for this draft for
    Title Three Statehood. I want to thank all of you for addressing this
    important issue and provide us with an alternative in consensus to
    finally end the colony, the status that prevents our Island to develop
    in every way possible. Now I present my comments for this draft. On
    page 4, line 22, it reads, ``Majority vote required. Approval of a
    status option must be by a majority of the valid votes cast.'' I
    believe that the word majority needs to be defined clearly. For
    example, if one option receives 1,000 votes and the other option
    receives 998 votes, will the 1,000 votes be considered a majority? On
    page 5, line 1 through 6, section 4, it reads, ``Runoff plebiscite: if
    there is not a majority in favor of one of the three options defined in
    this Act, then a runoff plebiscite shall be held on March 3, 2024,
    which shall offer eligible voters a choice of the two options that
    received the most votes in the plebiscite held under paragraph one.''
    The word majority has to be defined clearly. What constitutes a
    majority for this plebiscite? As the paragraph was written, the only
    way that a runoff plebiscite has to be held is if there is a tie?
    Otherwise, one of the choices will have the majority of the votes. On
    page 10, line 9, it reads, ``Jurisdiction of district court: The United
    States District Court for the District of Puerto Rico shall have
    original and exclusive jurisdiction of any civil action alleging a
    dispute or controversy pertaining to electoral processes conducted
    under this section.'' There is a need to specify the extension of the
    court's jurisdiction, define what is an electoral process, and to what
    extension it's considered an electoral process. If a delay in
    submitting a certification, for example, is considered an issue to
    submit to the court and still be a part of the electoral process. Page
    12 line 13 reads, ``After the last word, general, there is a need to
    add this wording and make the changes and/or corrections given by the
    general if any.'' Page 42, line 22, subsection 4 reads,
    ``Incorporation: Puerto Rico shall remain unincorporated until its
    admission as a state of the Union under paragraph three.'' I believe
    the best wording for this paragraph should be, ``Puerto Rico shall
    remain with the same status that it has until its admission as a state
    of the Union under paragraph three. Once again, I thank you for making
    this happen. Please make this draft become a bill. Convince your
    colleagues in the Senate to do the same. This is about equal rights,
    equal citizenship, and equal responsibilities. Puerto Rico has been a
    territory for too long. We are US citizens and we treasure our Nation,
    our flag, our pledge. Before I finish, let me ask you to just think for
    a moment, if you had to stay in Puerto Rico for a period of time, are
    you aware that you lose a lot of rights that you have had for all your
    life? Are you willing to give them up? It doesn't matter if you just
    answer no in your head; just by being here, you have already lost them.
    Statehood for Puerto Rico, it is our best option. Thank you.
    Chairman Raul Grijalva:
        Thank you very much and thank you for the specificity of your
    comments to the sections, thank you. Sir?
    Salvador Vargas Ruiz:
        My name is Salvador Vargas Ruiz. As a Puerto Rican American,
    Statehood is genocide. Statehood is genocide. The Puerto Rican Status
    Act deprives 5 million Puerto Ricans living in the United States to
    cast their vote. The Natural Resources Committee is racist. Let's move
    on. The U.S. Congress doesn't need a Puerto Rican Status Act to
    emancipate the Puerto Rican People under so-called decolonization bill.
    The United States of America withdrew from the Philippine Islands and
    Cuba in the 1930s and 1940s and emancipated the Filipino People and the
    Cuban People without enacting any plebiscite of any kind. Puerto Rico
    must be given the same treatment and be granted emancipation
    immediately. The eyes of the world and the United Nations will be
    focused on the so-called Puerto Rican Status Act bill. For those few
    Puerto Ricans who cry inside the PNP party, that I am a United States
    citizen. And I have rights. Yes, you do have the right to enter into
    any of the 50 states of the United States without refusal under the
    accord signed between the People of the United States of America and
    the People of Puerto Rico, titled Estado Libre Asociado, 1952, that has
    given Puerto Rico five Miss Universe and two gold medals in the world
    Olympics as a sovereign nation, separate from the USA. The Puerto Rican
    PNP members have the right, as US citizens to live in the tent cities
    of California. You have a right to live under the bridges of Florida.
    And even fish for your food. You have a US citizen's right to live in
    the drug infected Philadelphia, Kingston, Chicago slums, Newark slums
    or you have the right, as a US citizen and PNP to live in New York
    City, the crime capital of the United States of America. My idea, US
    Congress, I can't be any clear, United States citizenship doesn't allow
    you, PNP from Puerto Rico and the U.S. Congress to mandate an act of
    self-genocide. Under the biased, contaminated Puerto Rico Status Act
    draft by the Natural Resource Committee that still holds the Puerto
    Rican People as an object of the United States of America. The Puerto
    Rican Status Act states that 51% outcome in the results will constitute
    a win for that option. That would be ridiculous. And very dangerous.
    Puerto Rico can erupt into a full-blown revolution. Has the United
    States of America forgotten the Puerto Rican attacks on Congress in
    1950? Much before January 6, 2020? Has the United States of America
    forgotten the Puerto Rican assassination attempt against United States
    President Truman? Or have we forgotten the seven F-16 United States jet
    fighters burned to the ground in San Juan airport? Luis Munoz Marin?
    The United States citizenship of anyone doesn't give the rights to
    genocide the Puerto Rican people. Furthermore, listen! Only the Puerto
    Rican born and first generations can participate in all plebiscites. No
    other nationality found in Puerto Rico can cast a vote. Meaning
    Dominicans, Cubans, Mexicans, and Spaniards, Venezuelans, Colombians,
    Americans, are expelled from the Puerto Rican Status Act. We must seek
    peace. We must seek peace. Between both of our countries. And not
    revolution. Thank you very much.
    Chairman Raul Grijalva:
        Thank you. Sir?
    Jose Rossello:
        Good afternoon. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Distinguished Members of
    Congress. Resident Commissioner, Honorable Governor of Puerto Rico,
    Democratic Party, Young Democrats of Puerto Rico, local parties and my
    young colleagues, and US citizens of Puerto Rico. My name is Jose
    Rossello. I am an active member of the Youth of the Progressive New
    Party, and the Young Democrats of Puerto Rico and I rise to discuss the
    political status of Puerto Rico, which is home to 3.2 million US
    citizens. As many of you may know, many attempts have been made in the
    past to proceed with federal legislation to try to move forward and
    resolve the Island's territorial, colonial status that has been imposed
    on our people for more than 500 years. First under Spain, and now under
    the United States. However, it is the first time the Federal Congress
    has not only taken into consideration but action to legitimately
    decolonize the Island in a fair and binding process. The options
    provided are non-territorial and full self-governing for the people of
    Puerto Rico to finally obtain a just and democratic government. I am
    pleased to have an objection on Title Two Sovereignty in Free
    Association with the United States. In the past, locals in Puerto Rico
    were impregnated [sic] with the fact that we were actually a
    Commonwealth, or in Spanish, the Estado Libre Asociado. Where a utopic
    fallacy status was believed to be witnessed before the Supreme Court of
    the United States had taken multiple, multiple decisions in the past 10
    years where it was evident that the Island of Puerto Rico was and
    always has been an unincorporated territory since 1898 subject to the
    plenary powers of Congress, with no say, no vote, no consentment [sic]
    and no decisions taken in Congress that benefit or affect Puerto Rico
    negatively. With that said, Sovereignty in Free Association is a total,
    complete opposition status than territorial colonial status, obviously.
    As the draft bill states in Title Two and Title Three, and I quote,
    ``Puerto Rico is a sovereign nation that has full authority and
    responsibility over its territory and population under a Constitution
    of its own adoption that should be the supreme law of the Nation.''
    This clearly emphasizes that Puerto Rico would be totally separated
    from the United States as an independent republic or if not, an
    associated republic or, in Spanish, an Associated Republic. With a pact
    under the titles of Free Association with the Federal Constitution
    which establishes a termination and a due date that could be subject to
    a big risk and fully separating its ties with the United States. By
    that I mean, that the US Postal Service may be at risk, federal courts,
    FBI, social federal benefits for low-income and middle-income citizens
    on the Island, and numerous other federal programs and entities. As
    stated in the language of the project under Title II, this would be up
    to negotiation under the pact of the Titles of Free Association with no
    pre-guarantee of [sic] whatsoever of all of them being implemented and
    secured in the Island or even renovated if so implemented under the
    articles of Free Association. With that said, I invite those local
    citizens in the Island who unquestionably support the permanent union
    with the Nation and having totally guaranteed of securing the most
    sacred rights under the Federal Constitution programs, medical
    benefits, and full priority toward a working class or middle class and
    low-income families in our beloved Island by voting for Statehood. In
    addition, when it comes to the political destiny of a place, the views
    of the minority cannot trump or take precedence over the views of the
    majority. That would turn the concept of democracy over its head. Votes
    matter. This is why I say this, because Statehood has won the past
    three local plebiscites held on the Island which clearly impacts the
    majority of the population in favor of Puerto Rico becoming the 51st
    state of the Union. I reject the notion that Statehood would weaken the
    cultural Puerto Rico or its proud traditions or affect the Islands of
    the People of Puerto Rico. Summing up my presentation, I have no doubt
    that we will become the 51st state of the Union. I will work
    tirelessly, tirelessly with the Young Democrats of Puerto Rico, with
    the President of our organization, Eliza Muoz, and other members.
    Extended delegation of shadow elected congressional delegates,
    including Ricardo Rossello and Roberto Lefranc Fortuno, and others
    elected in May 16, 2021 and the Youth Progressive, the Youth of the
    Progressive New Party to get this consensus moving forward and approved
    in both the House, the Senate, for it to be delivered to the
    President's desk and finally have a binding federal consensus
    plebiscite held on the Island as stated in the language of the project
    in November 5, 2023. With all due respect, putting aside our
    preferences, ideologies, and opinions, I call for every Puerto Rican to
    vouch for this process of decolonization, because if some don't, they
    simply don't support the decades of colonial conundrum as said by
    Congresswoman Velazquez at her press conference on May 16, 2022, thank
    you.
    Chairman Raul Grijalva:
        Thank you very much. Sir?
    Edwin Francisco Rivera Otero:
        Hi, my name is Edwin Francisco Rivera Otero. I am a young
    professional who came here to address my support of the Puerto Rico
    Status Act in this honorable Committee. It is the first time that the
    US Congress is considering a binding process to solve Puerto Rico's
    political status, which has been a colony for 124 years. At the present
    time. It is important to note that on the Island live around 3 million
    of [sic] US citizens that do not have the same rights as the fellow
    citizens in the mainland. It is time that Congress makes [sic] an
    action to treat us equally. Why is it more important solving noncitizen
    issues than to solve the colonial issue of the American citizens living
    in Puerto Rico? Why? The importance of this binding process, is the
    message that Congress is sending: The US wants to solve this important
    issue for the Nation. It is important to mention that several fellow
    Puerto Ricans live in the mainland and some local politicians are
    denying us the right to be treated as equals and have the same rights
    as our fellow US citizens. But those Puerto Ricans enjoy the benefits
    of Statehood. Some fellow Puerto Ricans living in the mainland want to
    vote on this plebiscite. But the Puerto Rico Status Act states that a
    definition of eligible voters as a bona fide residence in Puerto Rico
    who are otherwise qualified to vote in the general elections in Puerto
    Rico. The Puerto Rican residents of the mainland don't comply with the
    definition expressed in the bill. Actually, Puerto Rico's political
    status is discriminatory [sic] with the Supreme Court decisions such as
    Vaello-Madero and with Congress passing PROMESA, it is evident that the
    colonial situation is detrimental to Puerto Rico's well-being. It is
    important to mention that as a colony, the sovereignty of Puerto Rico
    lives in US Congress. Why can the 3.2 or 3 million US citizens living
    on the Island not vote for the President? Why can the 3.2 or 3 million
    of US citizens living on the Island not have representation with vote
    in Congress? That's unequal for the land of the freedom. I encourage US
    Congress to act on this draft bill and bring a complete definition of
    Puerto Rico's political status. It's time to act about this issue for
    our future generations of US citizens. Thank you for your time. I want
    to say in Spanish some words. I know that there are Congressmen in the
    United States that campaign in Spanish. I do not believe that language
    should be a stone in the path blocking this bill either in the Federal
    House of Representative or in the Senate. There are Congressmen that
    represent Puerto Ricans that campaign in Spanish, what's more, both
    from Republicans and Democrats. I believe that should start resonating
    deeply with congresspersons. Additional to that, here in Puerto Rico,
    we have signed and presented projects in the House of Representatives,
    I mean in the Senate. The last one was in 2014. Senate project number
    11-77, which was presented to discuss the language of Puerto Rico as
    Spanish only in order to once again hold back the concept of Statehood.
    I do not believe that to be fair because those very same members that
    prefer telling people to only speak Spanish, many of them studied in
    expensive private schools in Puerto Rico, where they learned English,
    went to American universities, studied in the United States, in
    English, and they live in Puerto Rico or they live in the United States
    quite comfortably and enjoying the benefits of statehood. I believe
    that is the most elitist way to teach people that they cannot advance
    in life. And that should not be like that. I believe that should truly
    start to change. Because Puerto Rico deserves the best.
    Chairman Raul Grijalva:
        Thank you.
    Committee Deputy Director, Margarita Varela:
        Call for order. Ask for order.
    Chairman Raul Grijalva:
        Please.
    Keren Riquelme Cabrera:
        Honorable Chairman and members of the Congress, thank you for being
    here. Thank you for your time, for being here. For the record, my name
    is Keren Riquelme Cabrera. I am Senator at large for the government of
    Puerto Rico. And on behalf of my constituents, and on my own behalf as
    an American citizen, resident of Puerto Rico, I express deep gratitude
    for promoting the proposed draft of the Puerto Rico Status Act. Puerto
    Rican lives matter. Yet after 123 years of political history under the
    plenary powers of Congress, American citizens residing in Puerto Rico
    continue to be subjected to a discriminatory and unjustifiable unequal
    political relationship that denies us the full recognition of our
    constitutional rights. Our soldiers, many who are here today, have
    served, fought, and bled like any other American soldier in armed
    conflicts as members of the United States Armed Forces and have
    participated in more than 100 armed conflicts throughout history and
    remain serving actively today. Nevertheless, Puerto Rico remains the
    oldest existing colony [sic] the Western Hemisphere and a territory of
    the United States. Subjected to the territorial incorporation doctrine
    established by the ``insular cases'', a doctrine developed by Justice
    Edward White, who expressed concerns over ``the evils of admitting
    millions of inhabitants of unknown island people with an uncivilized
    race believed to be absolutely unfit for citizenship.'' And by Justice
    Henry Billings, who considered that America's territories were
    inhabited by ``alien races different from us in religion, customs, and
    modes of thought.'' And by this very doctrine which is still being used
    as a legal basis to perpetuate a treatment to American citizens living
    in Puerto Rico that includes denial of voting rights, denial of
    congressional representation, and denial of equality in federal
    programs. As American citizens, we have long paid our dues in the
    century past. I fully support the proposed draft of the Puerto Rico
    Status Act. In the name of democracy, in the name of justice and civil
    rights but most of all in the name of decency to do what is known to be
    right. During the last three plebiscites on the political status of
    Puerto Rico, [sic] Puerto Rican electorate has consecutively expressed
    its unequivocal preference for Statehood. During the last plebiscite,
    the 53% of the electorate issued a clear mandate to the government of
    Puerto Rico to move legislation with the purpose of achieving Statehood
    as a permanent political status for the future of Puerto Rico.
    Regarding the substantive text of the legislative measure, I wish to
    express my support for Statehood. But I also say that I can say that I
    agree with the definition, just the definition of the other two status
    formula as proposed in the Puerto Rico Status Act Draft. Even though
    there have been requests for the inclusion of the current Commonwealth
    formula in the bill. Under the current Commonwealth formula, Puerto
    Rico cannot be considered a state since it lacks sovereignty, that
    being one of the essential elements of the state. Under such status,
    Puerto Rico is under the plenary powers of the United States Congress
    so that the fundamental government decisions are made by the Congress.
    The Puerto Rican Constitution and laws are also conditioned by the
    North American legal system. Finally, I wish to express my opposition
    to the celebration of a runoff plebiscite as required under the [sic]
    section 584 of the Puerto Rican Status Act draft. Under section 5C, the
    Puerto Rican Status Act draft clearly states that the plebiscites
    authorized by this section shall be implemented by the elections
    commission consistent with the laws of Puerto Rico and federal law. The
    concept of a runoff election is completely foreign to Puerto Rico's
    electoral law, Law 58 2020. Also known as the Puerto Rico Electoral
    Code of 2020. And it does not provide for a runoff election of any
    kind. Thank you for being here again, and for your benefit I will be
    including as an attachment in the digital sent to the Committee a
    concrete resolution of Senate of Puerto Rico 36 in support of the
    present Puerto Rico Status Act draft. Thank you.
    Chairman Raul Grijalva:
        Thank you very much. Sir?
    Antonio Faz Alzamora:
        My name is Antonio Faz Alzamora, past President of the Puerto Rican
    Senate at the beginning of this century. Greetings. As the legislator I
    was for 40 consecutive years, having held different leadership
    positions and as ex-President of the Puerto Rican Senate, let it be
    known that my appearance here is in a personal capacity and also
    representing thousands of Puerto Ricans that for over 30 years ago,
    have been voting for development, growth, evolution, and transformation
    of a non-colonial and non-territorial Estado Libre Asociado as has been
    presented by the Popular Party in its government programs in all
    general elections. I begin by pointing that this draft bill excludes a
    fourth option based on Resolution 2625 of the United Nations General
    Assembly of October 1970, still valid and backed by the United States.
    In it, and on the principles of equality of rights and the free self-
    determination of the People, it establishes a fourth option that
    mentions about the acquisition of any other political condition freely
    chosen by People constitutes an exercise of the right to the free self-
    determination of those People. I believe including this fourth option
    is something just and adapted to the actual reality of international
    law. I must then take advantage of this opportunity to inform you that
    in accordance with the fourth option of the previously mentioned U.N.
    resolution, I have prepared a Pact of Association between the
    governments of the Estado Libre Asociado of Puerto Rico and the United
    States of America. It is of a non-colonial and non-territorial nature
    sustained and based upon the sovereignty of the People of Puerto Rico
    and fully complying with international law. It also recognizes the
    capacity of our People to agree upon a dignified Association within the
    framework of the Constitution of the United States, reaffirming our
    unique national, cultural, Caribbean, and Latin American identity. The
    Pact of Association that I propose ends the undignified territorial and
    colonial relationship and will provide the tools so we may substitute a
    culture of dependence into a culture of self-sufficiency and achieve a
    full economic growth. This pact consists of a preamble and four Titles.
    It transfers Puerto Rican sovereignty, which is in the hands of
    Congress, into the hands of the People of Puerto Rico while
    simultaneously, on the same document, and on the same act that the
    bilateral pact is established. Puerto Rico reserves certain
    jurisdictions, it delegates others to the United States, and shares the
    rest. Therefore, in the same act, we stop being a colony and a
    territory without having to go through separation or Independence.
    Congress holds before its consideration, in a legal format and detailed
    manner, a specific and inclusive instrument on which we can establish a
    dignified and democratic relationship based on respect, cooperation,
    and equality between two very distinct nations. None of the other
    options concerning status has a detailed and legally formatted proposal
    to present before the People and Congress at this moment. The only one
    is mine, and you have it there. I believe your staffers will provide it
    for you. I also submit for the record a copy of the Pact of
    Association, version 2020, so it may be part of the legislative dossier
    of this congressional draft bill, and you may access it at
    pactodeasociacion.com, both in English and Spanish. I respectfully
    submit that the draft be amended and that it includes the fourth option
    mentioned of a non-territorial and non-colonial ELA as defined in its
    totality in the Pact of Association as an additional option and that
    way, the ELA may be present with dignity in the coming consultations.
    Not including the fourth nonterritorial option of the ELA as defined in
    the Pact of Association then, as a second option and only as a second
    option, I submit it as the definition of Free Association included in
    the draft of the Pact. The Pact of Association I present is bilateral
    and may only be altered by mutual agreement. In case it must be
    renewed, the duration may not be less than 50 years with an option to
    renew it again for the same amount of time, and citizenship must
    remain. It must be through blood or birth from Puerto Rican parents.
    The definitions of the different options detailed must be on the ballot
    or at least an accurate summary of each, same as in the campaigns
    leading up to it to avoid demagoguery. To end, I wish to emphasize on
    an unequivocal reality where Puerto Rico, being a Caribbean, Latin
    American nation for more than 400 years of existence, with its own
    identity and culture, Statehood has the effect of disappearing it into
    another nation, eliminating us from the international map as a nation
    forever. The same would have negative effects on the self-esteem of
    Puerto Ricans by losing their international presence in so many areas
    of individual and collective life such as sports, arts, culture, and
    others. Therefore, the change to Statehood must be through a majority
    mandate and different from the other options where Puerto Rican
    nationality remains. In order to protect that irrefutable and
    irreversible fact, Statehood must demand a super majority of votes as
    it has happened in other territories in the past. Thank you very much.
    Chairman Raul Grijalva:
        Thank you, sir. Any questions? No? Many thanks.will now invite the
    next group, please.

                                  Fifth panel

    Representative Nydia Velazquez:
        Gentlemen, you'll be heard for five minutes.
    Alejandro Torres Rivera:
        Good afternoon, Miss Pro Tempore Chairman of the Natural Resources
    Committee of the House of Representatives of the United States and
    distinguished members of this Committee. My name is Alejandro Torres
    Rivera. I used to be President of the illustrious Colegio de Abogados y
    Abogadas de Puerto Rico for the biennium 2016-2018. And I am the
    President of the Commission for the Study of Constitutional Development
    of Puerto Rico for this institution. I appear before you in
    representation of our President, Attorney Daisy Calcano Lopez, and our
    bar association. Since its assembly on September 1, 1944, we have
    categorically and clearly denounced the colonial nature of Puerto
    Rico's relationship with the United States, demanding of its President
    and of its Congress an end to these unjust political relationships. Our
    People has never exercised its right to free determination. The
    political subjugation of Puerto Rico before the United States is a
    problem that presents the validity of the human rights of our People.
    In conformity to the expressions by the United Nations in Resolution
    15-14, XV of December 14, 1960, ``the subjecting of its People to
    foreign subjugation and exploitation constitutes a denial of
    fundamental human rights.'' Something that has already been ratified on
    the International Pact of Human, Civil, and Political Rights. For the
    Bar Association the ideal procedural mechanism to attend our claims of
    decolonization and the recognition of our right to express free self-
    determination, free of interference and obstacles, and at the same time
    negotiate with the United States a final formula of political
    relationship between both People is the Constitutional Assembly for
    Status. But this, which we can see is more clearly defined on the
    content of the Puerto Rico Self-Determination Act Bill of 2021 does not
    impede us from expressing ourselves in regard to the draft bill
    concerning the Status of Puerto Rico Act. As positive elements, we
    point out in this draft the creation of a bilateral commission for
    negotiation, the attention given to each of the options to the aspects
    related to citizenship, nationality, and immigration; the powers and
    prerogatives of our People under each one of these options, acquired
    economic rights earned by the inhabitants of Puerto Rico, personal
    guarantees of citizens, aspects of self-government including the issues
    we must consider during transition toward each distinct option; the
    content of the options of Free Association and Independence as
    decolonizing options that are separate and distinct from each other, to
    be approved on a Constitutional Convention for the scenarios of
    Independence or Free Association such as due process of law, equal
    protection under laws, freedom of speech, press, meeting, association,
    and religion; right of the accused, and other economic, social, and
    cultural rights, and the guarantee that no person born in the Nation of
    Puerto Rico will have no State at the moment of birth. There are other
    important aspects that are considered in the project and that once more
    we point out that we positively value the expressions contained
    therein. Among them, those that are tangent to the elements of
    transmission of citizenship, immigration, free transit, and the
    guarantees of maintenance of what are federal transfers earned by
    Puerto Rican men and women through Social Security, Veterans,
    Disability, Survivors, and the elderly. We also point out that we value
    each and every one of the comments made as positive aspects concerning
    the draft bill. We also point out that it would not be inconsistent to
    replace the mechanism of two plebiscites for the call to a
    Constitutional Assembly on Status so that it is a negotiating
    commission of the Assembly who would then negotiate with the federal
    counterparts the content of the status options and their transitions.
    We consider most important the accuracy of the terms of a pact of Free
    Association in which we define, among other aspects, the competitions
    that each part would retain, its terms and mechanisms to end the pact.
    In the case of Statehood, greater accuracy in regard to the enabling
    act as well as in the case of Independence, the elements of transition
    to be included in a treaty between the United States and the Republic
    of Puerto Rico. In both cases, we must consider the creation of a
    special tribunal to discuss issues and controversies that may arise in
    the implementation of these treaties. Our Bar Association puts at the
    disposal of this Committee its judicial resources, expertise, and
    assistance. Thank you very much.
    Representative Nydia Velazquez:
        Many thanks to you. Next? You are recognized for five minutes.
    Hector Del Valle:
        Good afternoon, my name is Hector Del Valle from Las Piedras,
    Puerto Rico. Dear Mr. Chairman, and members of the Committee on Natural
    Resources. I am a citizen who advocates for the integration of Puerto
    Rico as the 51st state of the Union. Unfortunately, a lot of US
    citizens do not like the idea of Puerto Rico entering the Federation
    because they think that the Island will become ``a paradise for
    welfare''. I will analyze the myth that people believe about Puerto
    Rico's integration as a state as well as the solution. A quote, unquote
    welfare paradise. They claim Puerto Rico is [sic] that 60% of the
    population is below the poverty level. Everybody knows about that.
    Caused in part because the unemployment rate is more than 10%. If
    Puerto Rico becomes a state, the problem can be solved by applying the
    Enterprise Zones concept based on Jack Kemp's model. In Spanish, Zonas
    Empresariales Federales. This will attract more industries into the
    Island's economy and secure the United States supply chain, a matter of
    national security, as we need a measure that will give industries in
    Puerto Rico a wage credit, for example, as an incentive to stay in the
    Island and create more employment opportunities. That is why right now,
    I support the legislation on medical devices by Resident Commissioner
    Jennifer Gonzalez Colon. I am not for a welfare paradise concept, as
    some people say. And think about this, but when a state enters the
    union, it receives what it needs, and gives to the USA Treasury what it
    can give. The economic parity concept. It's obvious, however, that
    Puerto Rico will get more federal funds than nowadays as part of a
    taxation redefinition process. But it will go to the People that
    nowadays really need it: The elderly and the handicapped by means of
    the Supplemental Social Security Income, the Veterans, and more
    Medicaid funds for the poor who need it. The legislation that was
    approved in the past welfare reform, that was some years ago, has had
    the objective of stopping welfare dependency as a destructive lifestyle
    and is requiring able people to look for decent work while giving
    appropriate daycare for single mothers. Puerto Ricans are American
    citizens since 1917. But second-class citizens. We do not vote for the
    selection of the President, and we don't have vote in our Congressmen.
    We only have a Resident Commissioner, Jennifer Gonzalez Colon, who does
    not have a vote in Congress. Fellow Congressmen, with my due respect, I
    think time has come for Puerto Rico and Puerto Ricans to choose their
    final destination. Not to stay in political limbo any longer. I think
    this bill has to definitely resolve the status problem once and for
    all. I support this initiative to solve this problem. House Speaker
    Nancy Pelosi should support this initiative, too. I hope that after
    reading this statement, you will also continue to support the Puerto
    Rican Status Act as well as the sole choice for Statehood for the
    Island. May God bless you. I also hope that you request the statement
    be admitted for the record. Thank you.
    Representative Nydia Velazquez:
        Thank you. The gentleman is recognized for five minutes.
    Jose Perez:
        Good afternoon, Congresswoman and all the people who are here, my
    name is Representative Jose Perez, Representative At-large. I am here
    in substitution of one of my colleagues, Angel Morey, who is at home
    with Covid. So, excuse him. As a strong believer that we don't let
    [sic] spaces empty, I am here, and it is a great honor to have you in
    our beautiful Island. I would like to recognize the tremendous work
    that you have accomplished putting together the Puerto Rico Status Act
    draft and it has been an effort on which all sides put their difference
    [sic] aside and find the common ground and work together to solve once
    and for our interior [sic] condition. It is not a small achievement, it
    is not. Another consequence [sic] bill. It is a bill that will change
    our history forever and we will be remembered as the brave men and
    womens [sic] that end the colonial status of the United States citizens
    of Puerto Rico. It is really hard for me as an official elected [sic]
    try to make public policy when I know that we are under the plenary
    power of the Congress, that we don't have that equal representation.
    That we are now under the power and the decisions of a group of people,
    the Fiscal Oversight Board Management [sic] that don't let us make that
    policy and now they want to impose everything regarding our economical
    issues. It's really hard to do it and it's really hard to think that
    now, right here in the 21st century, we remain as the . . . Some cases
    said, um, we Puerto Ricans, we are belongs to [sic], but we are not
    part of. What a shameful words [sic] for 3.2 million People who live on
    an Island that deserve the same equal treatment. As a Statehood
    supporter, I support this bill and I know that all of you have worked
    together putting aside . . . Like I said at the beginning, many
    differences, but it is now the moment to solve this. It is now the
    moment to let we, the Puerto Ricans, vote for the commander-in-chief
    who sends our soldiers to war. We have many soldiers, brave soldiers
    that fight for the democracy that we don't have right here on the
    Island. This is unfair, and that's why we raise our voice to end this
    shameful situation of the status of Puerto Rico. And have the same
    obligations, the same rights and privileges from [sic] the United
    States citizens who are living on the mainland. It's unfair, and let me
    put [sic] another example, how unfair is have [sic] a Fiscal Oversight
    Board Management [sic]. Everybody is talking about climate change.
    Right here on the Island, we are facing a lot of this problem regarding
    our coastal protections and now, the government is trying to have the
    budget to have [sic] more than 200 people to make [sic] inspectors of
    [sic] the Department of Natural Resources, to apply and to enforce our
    environmental law. But now, the Fiscal Oversight Management Board, they
    don't let to use that [sic] the budget for that. This is another
    example of how unfair is our situation [sic]. We the Puerto Ricans have
    chosen three times to favor Statehood. But now we are here again,
    asking, and thank you for your commitment to end the colonial status.
    Before me, there were a few panelists that were talking about unicorns.
    Let me say that that . . . This audience, this Committee, this will
    that you [sic] have present [sic] to the People, a few months ago was a
    unicorn. Now it is a reality. Our father of the Constitution says that,
    ``all men are created equal.'' But decades ago, a woman, a black
    person, it was not considered under that statement. And now it's a
    reality. So, let's change this. Let's make [sic] together, and work
    together to end colonialism in Puerto Rico. Thank you.
    Chairman Raul Grijalva:
        Thank you, thank you. Sir?
    Speaker:
        Where's my mic? Thank you for all for having us all here, it's a
    pleasure for me to be here. I recognize especially our Resident
    Commissioner Jenniffer Gonzalez, and all the members of the Congress
    here. I want speak some in English and some in Spanish. Puerto Rico was
    besieged and occupied militarily by Caribes, pirates, and European
    powers. Since the time of colonizations [sic] from [sic] Christopher
    Columbus and Juan Ponce de Leon. And it has been 400 years of economic
    instability [sic] and little participation of the People until Foraker
    Act in 1900. Such was the case that in 1874, an American paper
    published that Spain talked to cede the island of Puerto Rico to
    Germany as a payment for its help during a Civil War. That is an
    example of how was the [sic] history of Puerto Rico under the Spanish
    flag. Let's talk about Puerto Rico and the United States. It's
    important to know that hundreds of Puerto Rican creoles in 1779 joined
    the Spanish army under General Bernardo Galves and fought against the
    British in the American War of Independence. John Quincy Adams said,
    ``We would not be ashamed to recognize that our Independence owes . . .
    What are Independence owes to the molasses of the Caribbean.'' This
    coalition of rights and equality that won in 1789 the Independence of
    the United States lit the flame of democracy in Puerto Rican fighters
    who had to return to a monarchy regime in its [sic] own land. Something
    similar that is happening right now in Puerto Rico. We fight in other
    countries for the democracy of others and return to our land to be less
    under our own democracy. My father is a Korean War veteran. He was
    injured by a grenade defending the right of Koreans to be free. And he
    yet doesn't have the real democracy under the flag that he defended in
    that foreign country. But let's say something very important. The trip
    of Puerto Rico to the [sic] Statehood, it didn't commence in 1898. The
    Foraker Law [sic] said that Puerto Ricans became as [sic] a Republican
    government 52 years before the Estado Libre Asociado. It was a Chamber,
    it was an executive branch and the judicial branch, too. The Jones Act,
    in its second article, state [sic] that the rights and privileges and
    immunities of citizens of the United States shall be respected in
    Puerto Rico to the same degree as if Puerto Rico were a state of the
    Union. That is stated in the Jones Act of 1917. I have some final words
    now. I have two sons, my father is a veteran, my hometown is the city
    of El Yunque in Rio Grande, Puerto Rico. A full third of it is under
    the jurisdiction of the federal government of the United States. I have
    heard many things here about culture and about the language, but before
    me, I see a distinguished Nuyorican, two distinguished Puerto Rican
    women, and a man of Mexican American descent directing a Committee of
    the U.S. Congress while some say that Puerto Rico must care for its
    culture if we were a state. Thank you very much for listening.
    Chairman Raul Grijalva:
        Thank you. Sir?
    Mario Jesus Toro Suriz:
        I would like to thank Chairman Grijalva, distinguished members of
    Congress, Velazquez, Gonzalez, and Ocasio-Cortez for the opportunity to
    be before this Committee. My name is Mario Jesus Toro Suriz, General
    Coordinator for the Autonomous Statehood Network of the Movimiento
    Victoria Ciudadana, a recently created progressive, people-powered, and
    community-centered political party in Puerto Rico. The Autonomous
    Statehood Network proudly represents the Statehooders that have found a
    political home in the most progressive political party in Puerto Rico.
    We recognize that the most important development about the Puerto Rico
    Status Act, consistent with the proposals made by Victoria Ciudadana is
    summarized in the following. That Congress offers a binding and self-
    executing process to decolonize that only includes the three plausibly
    [sic] non-colonial, non-territorial options under the United States
    Constitution and International law. That it provides for an informed
    process where the people will know what each option entails and that it
    will be the majority of the people freely choosing a winning option, an
    objective that is guaranteed with the runoff mechanism. In the
    Autonomous Statehood Network, we are satisfied with this consensus bill
    and wish to respond to some of the criticisms that have been raised.
    The consensus bill resolves the two main objectives of a Constitutional
    Status Assembly. First, to commit Congress to act on the self-
    determination mandate emanating from Puerto Rican democracy by
    providing a binding and self-executing process that includes a formal
    offer of the options outside the territorial clause. And second, to
    bring together the anti-colonial forces in a procedural consensus with
    only non-colonial, non-territorial options on the ballot, with their
    corresponding transitions in a federally endorsed process. The
    consensus bill contemplates a thorough, publicly financed educational
    campaign that is sufficient to combat any disinformation on the process
    and the status alternatives. We need there to be open, ample and public
    deliberation with accurate information about the process, so everyone
    can make a fully informed decision in the most transcendental election
    for Puerto Rico to date. But that is not to say that Puerto Ricans are
    not educated enough to make an informed decision, as some argue in bad
    faith. We have been discussing the future political status of Puerto
    Rico since the United States first acquired the islands. And before
    even, as a colony of Spain. The time for talk should be concluding
    soon. The time for action is now. I want to make my final statement in
    Spanish if it's permitted.
    Chairman Raul Grijalva:
        Absolutely.
    Mario Jesus Toro Suriz:
        Having said this, the search for the decolonization of Puerto Rico
    has lasted several centuries. And it has had multiple chapters,
    multiple points of view, multiple characters. But there are always two
    important questions in mind. What is the best for our People, and for
    our Country, and second, when will we have a wide front of the
    different anti-colonial forces independently of the side of the
    political discussion that they normally take in order to do good for
    the People of Puerto Rico; leave all differences behind and finally
    carry out the promise of making our own decision and figuring out which
    direction we will take in the world. I can say with plenty of
    satisfaction that this day has arrived, and we are here to witness it.
    There are people for Statehood here, there are people in favor of
    Independence here, but we all have a single message. The tragedy that
    Puerto Rico has suffered for more than five centuries, which we know as
    the colony, has to end and that today, 70 years after its founding, is
    the Estado Libre Asociado. No more. Those are my words, Mr. President.
    Chairman Raul Grijalva:
        Many thanks. Sir.
    Francisco Amundaray:
        Good afternoon to the Honorable committee, and everybody present in
    the audience, including members of the press. My name is Francisco
    Amundaray. I was born in San Juan, where I also currently live. I work
    in the tourism sector as a tour guide, and tourism consultant. I am one
    of various collaborators in Puerto Rico of the NGO, Boricuas Unidos En
    La Diaspora. We see this project as a positive step toward a true
    decolonization process for my country, Puerto Rico. Puerto Rico is an
    intervened nation which has never been assimilated by the US. We are a
    Latin American and Caribbean country, not just an island that happens
    to be inhabited by US citizens. The process considered here should be
    slow and careful and always looking to have a broad participation of
    all civil society in Puerto Rico. Historically, Puerto Rico status
    discussion has been kidnapped by the pro-annexation party and the pro-
    colonial Commonwealth party, severely affecting the perception of the
    people toward Independence and toward Free Association. To make matters
    worse, the Independence movement has been historically persecuted by
    the FBI, the CIA, and the Puerto Rican police. To be truly democratic
    and fair, the Puerto Rican People need to have all true facts at hand.
    Not only the classic political parties should participate, but also
    community, environmental, the LGBTTQI community, NGOs, small
    businesses, the scientific community, feminist groups, labor unions,
    sports, and nonpartisan political organizations and very important, the
    two island municipalities of Vieques and Culebra. The people who
    compose the Puerto Rican Nation have very different circumstances in
    their lives depending on where they live. The necessities of a teacher
    that is also a single mother living in the suburbs of Bayamon are not
    the same of a coffee farmer in the mountainside town of Maricao or of a
    fisherman in the island municipality of Vieques. On this draft, once
    this draft becomes a law project, it needs to have numerous public
    hearings both in Washington DC and in Puerto Rico. Important point: The
    definition of Statehood has to be more deeply discussed, especially in
    its economic consequences. What is going to happen with language in the
    courts and in schools? What will happen to our Olympic national team
    and the participation of Puerto Rico in regional meetings? The proposed
    transition plan for Statehood is not realistic and is not supported by
    historical events of States of the Union before their final admission
    as a formal part of your country. On the other hand, a bill that will
    compromise a future Congress by admitting the colony of Puerto Rico as
    a state is doomed to fail. So language in that sense should be
    eliminated. Also, Puerto Ricans should be clarified [sic] in the sense
    that Statehood is a concession, not a right. On the other hand,
    Independence is an international . . . Internationally inalienable
    right. It is our opinion that if 51% Puerto Ricans want any of the two
    forms of sovereignty, a transition process should be immediately
    started following international law. Nonetheless, the Statehood
    admission should require an 80% or more super majority since Statehood
    is irreversible and Puerto Rico as a nation will stop existing.
    Concerning the diaspora, there are 5 million Puerto Ricans living in
    the United States. They should also be part, at least of the discussion
    of a binding plebiscite. A committee should be created to explore how
    to include them. Concerning this particular event that takes place
    today, I respectfully ask that in the future more time should have been
    given to the Puerto Rican society to prepare to then participate. In
    the website, the speaking option was never opened. The Independence
    movement has many organizations that were not invited and in a future
    occasion they should be here to truly have an inclusive process. I also
    respectfully ask you to please communicate to your fellow Congressmen
    and Congresswomen that not all Puerto Ricans want to be part of your
    country. Thank you for your time and attention.
    Chairman Raul Grijalva:
        Thank you. Are there any questions for the panelists? Thank you
    very much, appreciated. As I invite the next group up, let me say that
    anyone can submit comments to the committee. Our website is
    naturalresources.house.gov. And there are comment cards and information
    at the back of the room and we welcome all of them, thank you.

                                  Sixth Panel

    Chairman Raul Grijalva:
        Thank you very much. Thank you. Please? Sir?
    Speaker:
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Congresswoman Velazquez, Congresswoman
    Ocasio, it's nice to see you again. Well, I thank you all as I thanked
    you yesterday. Thank you for this opportunity. I would like to
    elaborate on a point that in my view is critical to this discussion.
    The issue of democracy and democratic values and the historical
    repercussions of the process that this committee has set in motion. We
    live in a democratic society in a country that prides itself to be the
    beacon of freedom and democracy. Democracy for all. This point is so
    important to understand because . . . Every day we watch people, from
    all over the world, trying to get access to the liberties that we all
    take for granted. Democracy is not perfect. And from time to time, it
    may be threatened by forces who make a living from inequality and
    discrimination. That's [sic] the people that we are fighting against.
    The same people that will move mountains to try to shake this Committee
    down to try to stop this agreement from becoming the law of the land.
    Believe me when I say, that there are forces, here on [sic] this room,
    within this room that hopefully . . . They are trying to stop these
    proceedings. You have seen them. And you will hear from them. Not only
    in Puerto Rico, but also in Washington. That's what this Committee will
    face . . . And from what I've seen, they will not succeed. You know,
    the historical ramifications of this agreement are unprecedented. As
    I'm sure that its results will also be unprecedented. This process is
    being designed in such a way that it would set an example for the world
    to follow. That's why the territorial or colonial options cannot be
    part of the solution. You now, in order to//
    Chairman Raul Grijalva:
        //Sir, if you would make your point//
    Speaker:
        //Have a process that actually makes sense, you know? That process
    cannot include the problem. Because, if there's no problem, why are we
    here? Why are we having this discussion at this time? Why this
    Committee has invested so much time and effort and have had the
    opportunity to get the input, to take the input of so many people? Why
    are they interested? Why are they interested, if there's not a problem?
    The fact of the matter is that the status that we have is a problem.
    The fact of the matter is that it was rejected by the People of Puerto
    Rico, and it should not be on the ballot. And whatever this Committee
    finally adopts and passes, I'm sure that this agreement . . . It will .
    . . It's going to be something that will be a model for the world to
    follow. Because this . . . That's who we are. That's what this
    Committee is all about. So, finally, I would argue, and I would
    challenge this Committee to rise up to the challenge, rise up to the
    moment, I know that you're doing, the fact of the matter that we are
    here discussing this.u know, a few months ago no one would have
    expected that. And, I know because I talked to you yesterday,
    Congressman. You do understand the historical repercussions of this
    moment because this is history in the making. And thank you, thank you
    for being here, thank you Mr. Chairman, and hopefully, we can actually
    pass a bill that, you know, let the Puerto Rican People finally choose
    in a binding referendum what we actually decide to be. Thank you.
    Chairman Raul Grijalva:
        Thank you. Sir?
    Pedro Aniel Rodriguez Mercado:
        Greetings. My name is Pedro Aniel Rodriguez Mercado. Thanks to all
    the audience watching and thanks to you for being here. I am the
    Executive Director of the Young Professionals for Puerto Rico Statehood
    and it's very evident that I'm not Albert Einstein or Abraham Lincoln.
    Or any other brilliant person you have listened to today. There's
    nothing I may say today that has not been mentioned before. So, I'll be
    as brief as possible. There's only one statement I want to make clear
    on behalf of the youth I represent. But first, I want to say thank you.
    Thank you for listening to the 3.2 million American citizens living in
    Puerto Rico. Bridging the divide is almost impossible in this era of
    rapid information transit, where sometimes opinions move faster than
    logic. The fact that the Committee is here today, in Puerto Rico,
    presenting this draft consensus bill is an achievement of civility.
    Your consensus shows progress in humanity's ability to not only
    challenge the status quo but to also reach a middle ground with people
    we profoundly disagree with on multiple subjects. And in the words of
    our previous Governor, Dr. Pedro Rossello, this issue is complex, the
    historical baggage is heavy, opinions on the subject are many, varied,
    and passionately held. Bridging the divide is how we bring forward
    positive change to this world. And for this, we thank you. This act, to
    finally end 124 years of colonialism under US sovereignty shall serve
    as an example of what Republicans and Democrats can do when working
    together for the greater good. With that said, the Young Professionals
    for Puerto Rico Statehood favor this bill as is written, with the
    binding plebiscite. We encourage the Congressmen and Congresswomen in
    the Committee to submit the bill as soon as possible to end the most
    prolonged dilemma in our Island's history. In 1952, P.R. adopted a
    constitution that gave us a local government without federal
    representation. Since then, we have debated the following steps to
    become an autonomous Island, the Estado Libre Asociado did not change
    our colonial status, which has been the root cause of most of our
    problems for half a millennium. And as long as Puerto Rico's status is
    not solved, we won't be able to focus on other important matters to
    advance society and drive positive change in this world. I grew up in a
    house divided against itself. With my mom's side being pro-Statehood
    and my dad's side being pro-Independence. My dad used to repeat some
    words of similar to [sic] Pedro Albizu Campos: The youth must defend
    our country with weapons of knowledge and that is precisely why we are
    here today. The youth is clear. And their country and that the
    opposition will prolong this debate forever if they could because their
    intention is not to move forward with the majority's desire, but to
    maintain the failing status quo. This consensus bill is meant to end
    the longest colony in the history of the world and the only way
    decolonization via self-determination can be achieved is by not
    including the current colonial status in the plebiscite and by making
    the result a binding one. It is time to move this bill as is, to
    conclude America's unfinished business of democracy. And guarantee that
    future generations live to see 51 stars United as one nation, under
    God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. And I also want to
    say some words right away . . . Being bilingual, being able to speak
    English and Spanish doesn't make me less Boricua. I am in favor of
    Statehood, and I would be Borincano even if I was born on the moon.
    Thank you. [scattered applause].
    Chairman Raul Grijalva:
        Thank you. The floor is yours.
    Lucy Arce:
        Chairman Grijalva, Representatives Velazquez, and Ocasio and
    distinguished guests participating in this forum. I am honored to be
    here today to share my views on the discussion draft of the Puerto Rico
    Status Act. My name is former Senator Lucy Arce, and I'm here in
    representation of Puerto Rico Escogio Estadidad, a nonpartisan
    grassroot nonprofit organization that advocates for the recognition
    that [sic] majority of Puerto Rican voters have already chosen
    Statehood for Puerto Rico. I want to start by expressing my sincere
    gratitude for all of the effort that you have made to develop this
    compromise deal. Although, I continue to support H.R. 1522, I am also
    proud to state my support for the Puerto Rico Status Act. As a lifelong
    advocate of Statehood, I support this compromise bill because it
    respects the will of the majority of Puerto Rico voters who have chosen
    Statehood in 2012, 2017, and 2020. This bill does this by making a
    formal offer of Statehood for Puerto Rico and then providing the
    mechanism for its implementation if the majority of voters choose it
    once again. The bill also offers voters the non-territorial option of
    Independence and Free Association. This is critical because the People
    of Puerto Rico have repeatedly expressed their desire to end the
    current territorial status and Congress must provide us clear and
    constitutionally viable choices. The compromise bill does it. And for
    the first time, ever, would represent a commitment for . . . By
    Congress to implement it, the choice made by voters in Puerto Rico. I
    also commend the compromise bill for offering all voters only the non-
    territorial options. The problem cannot be part of the solution. So
    please, hold strong on this aspect of the compromise bill. Anyone who
    knows me knows of my commitment to Puerto Rico veterans. This bill
    offers our veterans and their families the opportunity to vote for full
    equality and voting rights as US citizens which our veterans have
    earned through their service and sacrifice. As a former member of the
    Puerto Rico Senate, I know how hard reaching a legislative compromise
    can be. And I know that once an agreement is reached, making any
    changes to it could cause the agreement to fall apart. So even though I
    would offer suggestions for the bill's improvement, I am more than
    willing to accept the compromise bill as current draft [sic] if that
    will allow the bill to have a chance to pass Congress and become law.
    That been said, I would urge the Committee to consider amending the
    option of Sovereignty in Free Association into Independence in Free
    Association. I offer this suggestion because it is critical that voters
    understand that the choice they would make with Free Association means
    they would exit the protection of the US Constitution and that Puerto
    Rico's relationship with the United States under that option will only
    be based on a treaty that can be terminated by either size [sic] in
    favor of Independence. Using the word Independence before Free
    Association would make the implication of this monumental change more
    clear [sic] to voters that [sic] the use of the word Sovereignty, whose
    meaning is less clear and more ambiguous. This is necessary to ensure
    that Puerto Rico voters provide in full concern and are not misled into
    voting for a status option that omits Puerto Rico from the protection
    of the United States Constitution without them being fully aware of
    what it is, what they have chosen. I also want to say that after 124
    years under the US flag with this bill, Congress has finally recognized
    that the current territorial status represents an inherent limitation
    for Puerto Rico's development. Now, we need your leadership to get this
    bill going through the legislative process before the current window of
    opportunity draws to a close. We will continue our citizen advocacy
    efforts but look to you to do everything in your power to make this
    bill become a law so Puerto Rico can finally bloom into its potential
    of democracy, equality, and prosperity. Thank you.
    Chairman Raul Grijalva:
        Thank you. Sir?
    Josue Rivera:
        Good evening, Mr. Chairman, and members of this distinguished
    Committee and my fellow Americans. I am Josue Rivera, a public servant,
    former State Director for Puerto Rico at the US Department of
    Agriculture Rural Development. Former Policy Advisor of the Office of
    the Governor in Washington, former National President of the Board for
    Statehood Association, and current Ideas Fellow of the Aspen Institute.
    But for the record, I am not here in any of these official capacities
    but rather, as a private citizen concerned about Puerto Rico's
    political, and economic future. There is a saying that goes as follows,
    ``It's better late than never.'' Therefore, please accept my sincere
    appreciation to all the parties involved in reaching this historic
    agreement. Your leadership and detachment in finding common ground is,
    without a doubt, key to resolving [sic] long-overdue colonial
    relationships between the United States and Puerto Rico. We all know
    that the common ground here in Puerto Rico is that we, Puertorriquenos,
    treasure our American citizenship. The Constitution, our love for
    freedom, the pursuit of happiness, our belief that all men are created
    equal, and we cherish our multicultural, multilingual link between
    mainstream America and our Puerto Rican culture. Therefore, I am
    Boricua and American, just so you know. Statehood does not change that.
    But the two other options of Independence will. I come here in support
    of H.R. 1522, the Puerto Rico Statehood Admission Act and the draft
    bill, the Puerto Rico Status Act which provide the American citizens
    residing in Puerto Rico a process to exercise our right to self-
    determination. This time through a binding, self-executing process
    initiated by federally sponsored legislation. The American flag has
    flown over Puerto Rico since 1898. In 1900, Congress established a
    civilian government on the Island through the Foraker Act. In 1901, the
    Supreme Court struck this act with Downes versus Bidwell decision. And
    its progeny held for the Constitution an informative clause, ``Puerto
    Rico was not part of the United States but subject to the plenary
    powers of Congress. Which turned into a colonial relationship ever
    since. Congress need [sic] to act with a sense of urgency. Then in
    1950, Congress passed Public Law 81-600; The Puerto Rico Federal
    Relations Act. And still, with the passage of [sic] Puerto Rico
    Oversight Management Economic Stability Act of 2016, better known as
    PROMESA, and [sic] recent Supreme Court determination, such as United
    States versus Vaello-Madero, once again, Congress and the Supreme Court
    remind us all that the centennial colonial relationship is still
    present and pending resolution. I strongly support the admission of the
    Commonwealth of Puerto Rico as a State of the Union. It is the best
    path forward given that we have had a relationship for over 120 years,
    a relationship that binds the US and Puerto Rico by sharing and
    benefiting from the economic, cultural, political, and societal
    aspirations of our People. I am concerned about the educational
    campaign for the other two options of Independence included in this
    draft bill. As a clear reminder, Independence has never been an option
    favored by most of the People in Puerto Rico as evidenced by all local
    plebiscites held about this point, this Congress needs to address many
    important questions about the two forms of Independence, and instruct
    the executive branch of the US government on how we will effectively
    transition the over 10,000 federal civilian employees and thousands of
    military service members, including their families. Second, estimate
    the cost of transition. Are we going to fire them? Third, there's need
    [sic] to be an estimate of impact and cost for the residents of the
    Republic of Puerto Rico and the implications of ending federal programs
    that currently benefit our most vulnerable and low-income communities,
    our women, our children, our elders, veterans, and socially
    disadvantaged small businesses in Puerto Rico. Fourth, what is the cost
    of the new nation [sic] defense? What is the cost of admission to the
    United Nations? The international monetary fund, and many other
    institutions and regulating bodies. What are the processes and
    implications establishing currency? Federal insurance for natural
    resources? Taxation? Managing current and future debt obligations? How
    many embassies will Puerto Rico have? And what will be the cost to the
    People of Puerto Rico? What happens to in, investment certainty? And
    the economic market rates? What will be the US citizens current
    benefits and responsibility and laws within the two Independence
    options? I am also concerned that the two options of Independence will
    continue to sponsor citizenship for the residents: That's against
    United States Constitution and our national interests. Citizens living
    in the Nation under COFA are regarded as national, therefore, I am
    proposing an immediate transition to US nationals established as
    residents of Puerto Rico in these two types of Independence. Concerning
    the legislative process, I urge you to advance this proposal, the
    Puerto Rico Status Act. And in my opinion, the best path forward for
    the People of Puerto Rico is Statehood, but I invite all the parties to
    join us in support. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, thank you.
    Chairman Raul Grijalva:
        Thank you. Sir?
    Humberto Marchan:
        Hi, good evening. Many thanks. Chairman Grijalva. And my regards to
    the beautiful people of Tucson, Nogales, and the Sonora desert. It is a
    very beautiful area, I have been there in the past. And warmest regards
    to our three Boricuas representing us in Congress. Two of them are
    here. And as a Progressive Democrat, I am proud of what you're doing in
    Congress. And, just so you know, I've been observing the way you,
    Alexandra, pay attention to what the People are saying. We, the common
    people, appreciate that. Thank you. I'm Humberto Marchan. I'm a retired
    federal probation officer, career federal probation officer, and a
    correctional psychologist. So, as a Progressive Democrat, I will
    address you from that framework. Puerto Rico is a Nation. Culturally,
    sociologically, and anthropologically. Sovereignty is an inherent,
    inalienable right of any nation. Regardless of how people vote. Saying
    that, after almost 125 years as a US colony, and 400 years as a colony
    of Spain, I believe that the best path for Puerto Rico to transition to
    a sovereign nation is Libre Asociacion, Free Association. I commend the
    Committee for taking the morally righteous decision to include this
    path as a logical step to decolonize Puerto Rico. The transition
    mechanisms, agreements toward national sovereignty via Free Association
    or full Independence is a recognition that the colonial oppression to
    us, Puerto Ricans, whether it be in the Island, in the mainland, or
    anywhere else in the world deserves a responsible and restorative
    process by the colonial power. The most recent example of this
    responsible and peaceful transitional process is England and Barbados.
    Please, take the time to study this example as a way to improve the
    bill. US citizenship in this transition process is the most significant
    component from the perspective of this restorative and moral
    obligation. It is a great step by this Committee to put US citizenship
    as a central aspect of this transition. Our colonial history has deep-
    rooted myths and disinformation with regards to US citizenship.
    Therefore, the bill needs as most detailed clarification in this matter
    of US citizenship to eliminate ambiguity and misinterpretation. From my
    view, now in the 21st century, common citizenship agreement [sic],
    double, triple citizenship is the norm, and the bill should reflect
    that. That is the way we live now in the world. We have to have a 360+
    vision of the world. Now, to the Statehood option. Hawaii is the only
    Island archipelago state. We all know that. This brings me to our
    closest neighbors, fellow US citizens of the US non-incorporated
    territory of the Virgin Islands, which is actually the most southern US
    hold in the world. It is not Puerto Rico. Again, 360 vision. As a good
    friend and colleague from the US Virgin Islands once told me. We have
    more US citizens living in these two Caribbean colonies than about 30
    states. Figure that out. Than 30 states. If Statehood is to be
    seriously considered by US Congress, the moral path is to have these
    two Caribbean colonies joined as the second archipelago state. It is
    the right and moral path to Statehood for the almost 3\1/2\ million US
    citizens that call the Caribbean their homeland. Together, they would
    have two US senators, about five or six congressional districts,
    hopefully Democrat, because I'm a Democrat. Now, this would be a
    serious and consequential commitment to finally end US colonialism in
    the Caribbean. And last, I just want to thank the Committee for moving
    forward in a serious and courageous effort to end our current colonial
    condition. And last, I want to highlight the fact that we have three
    Puerto Rican women as part of this commitment in this Committee and
    they have taken up a leading role in this process and have shown to us
    the capacity to sit down and dialogue to achieve compromise. No offense
    to you Mr. Grijalva, but I wish to recognize them.
    Chairman Raul Grijalva:
        No offense taken.
    Humberto Marchan:
        OK. This is a great example to our people. But as a parent of a
    daughter, you serve as a great role model to our daughters. That's all
    I have to say.
    Chairman Raul Grijalva:
        Thank you.
    Humberto Marchan:
        And I do, once again say that I know the binding clause is the
    right thing on principle. But I think that with the political
    environment right now, especially on the Republican side, it is going
    to have problems because they don't want . . . OK. I'm done//
    Chairman Raul Grijalva:
        //OK, thank you very much. Sir?
    Speaker:
        Thank you, Mr. Grijalva. Someone said some time ago, in these
    panels that Puerto Rico is Hispanic and that that's going to bring a
    lot of trouble and I just recall the history of New Mexico and Arizona
    being part of California and then being part of Mexico, and now being
    both different states, so, I wanted to bring the point that, being
    Hispanic, is part of the multiculturalism that the United States is
    enhancing in all venues. Let me say to start that I believe in the
    character and the work being done by Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. I follow
    her in Twitter. Also, Nydia Velazquez, which I met many years ago with
    Alvaro Cifuentes in his chief of staff office and obviously, Jenniffer,
    our friend. Mr. Grijalva is a newcomer, and you are welcome because you
    have demonstrated that you are more bilingual than many of us. And
    that's a true example of what the Puerto Rico could do in the United
    States as part of the coalition of different people and that way, some
    people won't lose their pensions for working in other places. So I am
    going to say a few words and I don't think to consume all the time on
    the specifics, because so many people are talking about the legalities
    of this and that and there's so many experts that I get confused. I
    don't represent any group other than the young guys from my age and I
    tend to look for taxes and things like that, because I am a CPA on my
    own. Also, on accounting. On accounting of the votes in section 3,
    section 5A 3, it says that you have to . . . The valid votes are cast
    and on item B1, it talks about the valid votes. If you exclude the
    blank votes and the . . . Nullified votes, somehow, you come out with a
    number. So, you are making the accounting anyway. So that's for you to
    know that there's an accounting that people are going to use as an
    argument after the votes are cast. I wanted you to become aware that
    the Puerto Rico Electoral Commission is in a financial crisis, an
    administrative crisis, and that I personally don't think it will run
    the process unless the whole thing is being overhauled. The Electoral
    Commission has a projected deficit for the past few years. They have a
    mess inside. I know it because I worked there for a year. So I can tell
    you, they're going to burn me, but I have to tell you that you have to
    devote some time to put their act together so they can do the job. I
    think another panelist brought this topic this morning. And//
    Chairman Raul Grijalva:
        I agree with you.
    Speaker:
        And there's no mention for FEMA or CDBG extraordinary funds as a
    consequence of Maria. The law doesn't . . . The project of the draft
    doesn't say what's going to happen on Independence. What's going to
    happen under Statehood. I think you have usual . . . You should look
    for that. On Statehood, there's no adjustment for SSI for the people
    who are not making the payment while they have been claimed for many
    years. Same thing happens with the pension of the veterans that are
    being calculated based on a non-continental residence and that has to
    be taken for . . . There's no phase-in of the tax liability. You are
    proposing some incentives for Independence and giving some extra funds
    on a huge amount, as a block grant, but you are not proposing any
    incentives for the People of Puerto Rico if we could become, as I
    expect, a state, to facing the tax liability and also to promote
    economic development using zones or something like that. And then . . .
    Why, for me, in my personal basis, this is important? Because I have a
    grandson living in the Panhandle and their fathers [sic] cannot come to
    Puerto Rico because he is a six-times Afghanistan active-duty veteran,
    and he needs some special health treatments and Puerto Rico Hospital,
    Veterans' Hospital does not provide those so//
    Chairman Raul Grijalva:
        //Thank you.
    Speaker:
        Respectfully submitted, I will include a paper later on in the
    night, thank you.
    Chairman Raul Grijalva:
        We appreciate that sir, and your point is something that is . . .
    Our collective mind having to do with the importance of . . . If we get
    to the point of an election, the integrity and the sanctity of that
    election is going to be vital to the confidence and trust that we have,
    that that election will have among the Puerto Rican People, and we are
    aware of that, and dealing with that. Sir?
    Nixon Rosado Velez:
        Cordial greetings to all. My name is Nixon Rosado Velez. I reside
    in the town of Vega Baja. At the age of 10, my parents came from
    Brooklyn and I love this Island. I met my wife; we've been married 39
    years. I see . . . The young Congresswoman and I see my daughter. And,
    to, to Ms. Congresswoman Velazquez, we are related. Distantly, but we
    are. Maybe someday I will let you know.
    Representative Nydia Velazquez:
        Maybe later.
    Nixon Rosado Velez:
        In a bit.
    Representative Nydia Velazquez:
        Now.
    Chairman Raul Grijalva:
        Now [scattered laughter].
    Nixon Rosado Velez:
        For the record, again, my name is Nixon Rosado Velez. I served 23
    years, active military. In the United States Army. I retired as a CW4.
    I understand that federal taxes and Puerto Rico taxes will have changes
    if we become a state. It has to happen. All these IRS codes and
    Internal Revenue Codes in Hacienda would have to be . . . Make [sic]
    changes. I pay federal taxes. I pay local taxes. But I cannot vote for
    the President of the United States, and I do not have proper
    representation in Congress with the exception of Jenniffer Gonzalez,
    who I have met. We currently have 350,000 Puerto Ricans as veterans. On
    this Island, 10 years ago, we had 145,000. Today, that number is at
    83,000. They are all moving up North. We have 35,000 active-duty
    military members, 10,000 National Guard and Reservists. What will
    happen to our VA Hospital and our VA services if this is not a state?
    And we have a different option of Free Association or Independence?
    That is a great concern. As a federal taxpayer, and as I've stated
    before, I cannot overemphasize this, we are second-class citizens. We
    have to move up North in order to have those full rights. The People of
    Puerto Rico on this Island pay $5 billion in different types of federal
    taxes; Social Security, Medicare, unemployment, and customs, just to
    name a few. Yet we don't receive the fair amount that other states do.
    The other thing that we have as a problem is with paying taxes. We pay
    more taxes than six other states in the Union. My father came from Las
    Piedras, Puerto Rico. At the age of 15, he moved to the States to pick
    tomatoes and lettuce. He had a saying, he would tell me, ``living off
    of pride is how you starve to death.'' And he would tell me, ``What
    happens is you don't know the pain of hunger.'' I went on a 51-hour
    hunger strike in Washington, DC in favor of Statehood and I know what
    that pain is. Because I have hunger for Statehood. The draft is a
    historical one. It comes from Congress, no more excuses. We have always
    been told that they don't want us. But we don't know who ``they'' are.
    With this bill, we will know on the no votes who ``they'' are. I ask
    for one thing: Take it to the floor. Even if we do lose, we have won.
    Because this has never happened before. I ask the Senate to do the same
    thing. Because even if we lose in the Senate, we still win. We win even
    when we lose. Because this is a historical event. And this type of
    bill, we only need a simple majority. Not a super majority, like others
    think. The Constitution has a term for new states. It's called equal
    footing. So, to treat us differently than any other state which didn't
    require a super majority to become state would be wrong. It would be
    undemocratic not to treat Puerto Rico in the same manner as other
    states. I say it would be unpatriotic for anyone voting ``no'' on
    American citizens that want to be part of this great Nation and Union.
    Just wanted to state, thank you for giving me this opportunity to speak
    to you all and to Congresswoman Velazquez, my grandfather and your
    father were cousins.
    Representative Nydia Velazquez:
        Hm. OK. Don't go anywhere. So I can say hello.
    Nixon Rosado Velez:
        Thank you very much.
    Chairman Raul Grijalva:
        Thank you very much, sir.
    Cristobal Berrios:
        Thank you Mr. Raul Grijalva, Nydia, good afternoon.
    Representative Nydia Velazquez and Chairman Raul Grijalva:
        Good afternoon. Good afternoon.
    Cristobal Berrios:
        And you as well, good afternoon, Alexandra [sic] Ocasio. I'm
    missing Jenniffer. I would've liked her to be here.know you are all
    tired, me too. Because I got here early. But let's move forward to see
    if we can finish this with much pleasure. Good afternoon, my name is
    Cristobal Berrios Davila, President of CENA, Congreso Estadista
    Nacional Americano. This organization was created out of the
    celebration of the hearings of the House Resources Committee concerning
    project 47-51 from Representative John T. Doolittle from October 4,
    2000, where the project of Free Association of the Popular Democratic
    Party was presented which was declared unconstitutional. I am happy to
    inform that I have been involved in Puerto Rican politics since 1954. I
    participated as creative director, composer, publicist, producer,
    despite the fact that my main job was always as a comedian, like my
    dear friend Zelensky. With no desire to compare myself to someone whom
    I admire so much. We are thankful for the opportunity to be allowed to
    express ourselves concerning this situation that is so important for
    all the residents of this beautiful island, especially those that have
    not been able to reach a life of full enjoyment due to the precarious
    economic situation that is the result of an economic system based on
    consumption and slavery which holds a system of government created by
    Congress that has not worked, keeping Puerto Rico at the precipice of
    bankruptcy and which forces the Puerto Rican to depend on assistance
    that doesn't even arrive most of the time. Today we represent that, the
    greater sector of Puerto Rican citizens, including a great number of
    brothers and sisters from other countries that decided to accompany us
    on our journey to the future and reside in this island, possession of
    the United States but of which we are not part of yet, with the hope
    that one day our colonial status may finally be resolved. I want to say
    that there is a famous saying that goes like, ``If men will not fix the
    world, women will fix it.'' And I see a large group of women here, so I
    really hope that happens [scattered laughter]. Puerto Rico can be
    sovereign in two ways. It may be sovereign as an Independent Republic,
    as it can be sovereign as a State. Like the sovereign state of Hawaii.
    Or the sovereign state of New York. The sovereign state of Puerto Rico.
    Almost at the end of the Spanish-American War, with the arrival of
    General Miles and the American troops to Puerto Rico, some Puerto
    Ricans thought that the U.S. Congress would do to Puerto Rico the same
    thing that it has done with other territories that were incorporated
    and converted into states. Yet unfortunately, we were very far, very
    far from that. The signing of the Treaty of Paris, article 9, placed us
    as slaves to Congress. Slaves. The article again states that the
    political condition and the rights of those who live in this territory
    are determined by Congress. We do not have any power. We are slaves to
    Congress. That's why, it doesn't matter what we suggest. Because
    Congress will do whatever it wishes. However, I think the effort is
    worth it. I believe you are doing a great job. A great job, for the
    first time I see a possibility for Puerto Rico to change its status.
    Whichever it may be, whichever it may be. Puerto Rico today is the
    reflection of a People that in its moment did not know how to choose or
    how to claim what it was owed to them by right and respect, their non-
    colonial and non-territorial status as a 51st state of the great
    American nation in the year 2012. The personal ambitions of a few
    prevented it.
    Chairman Raul Grijalva:
        I know.
    Cristobal Berrios:
        The three political parties have simply become an employment agency
    instead of being civil servants. Some career politicians just coast by
    election after election simply to avoid unemployment. An example of
    this was a legislator who spent about 40 years living off of his
    People//
    Chairman Raul Grijalva:
        //Well, sir. If you would allow me//
    Cristobal Berrios:
        //I will not mention it, done//
    Chairman Raul Grijalva:
        //Many thanks, many thanks to all of you and to him. Do my
    colleagues have any questions? If not, many thanks, it was lovely.ank
    you very much, we are. Before we end up, we close the session, let me
    ask my colleagues on the dais if they have any comments they would like
    to make before we conclude and gavel the meeting.
    Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez:
        Thank you.
    Chairman Raul Grijalva:
        Congresswoman?
    Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez:
        Of course. Many thanks to Congresspersons Velazquez, Grijalva, and
    Gonzalez-Colon for your collaboration on this project. I wish to thank
    all of you here for your participation and for expressing your thoughts
    and worries concerning this draft. Your comments are essential to
    assure that this proposal accurately reflects the will of the People.
    And it is very important for Congress people to hold more public
    hearings once we arrive back at Washington DC. For over 100 years, the
    American territory of Puerto Rico has been subject to policies imposed
    upon it by a frequently disinterested Congress in the welfare of the
    people living here. This reality affects all aspects of Puerto Rican
    life. Puerto Rico receives an unequal treatment for the reimbursement
    of Medicaid, nutritional support, and a series of other social welfare
    safety net programs. Despite the fact that it is poorer than the
    poorest state of the Union, Mississippi. What is more, our People are
    still feeling the devastation of hurricane Maria. These problems, among
    others, derive from the unique and long-lasting colonial status of
    Puerto Rico. This has resulted in residents of the Island being treated
    like second-class citizens. Without a doubt, we believe that Puerto
    Rico must have the freedom to design its own future. In this proposal,
    there are three options which the People Puerto Rico can vote for. The
    first is Independence. The second is Sovereignty with Free Association
    with the United States, and the third is the category of Statehood.
    Congress imposing any given status on Puerto Rico would be the
    culmination of colonization. This legislation must be objective to the
    result. Community organizations have defended a process of democratic
    decolonization for Puerto Rico and have survived against powerful
    interests. It is the responsibility of the federal government to allow
    the People of the territory to freely express their desires concerning
    their political status. This proposal brings us a step closer to ending
    520 years of colonialism. Concerning the status of Puerto Rico, more
    than 535 members of the United States Congress, it becomes clearer now
    that the Island must have the freedom to determine its own future. That
    is why I approve a transparent, just, and inclusive process for the
    People to decide. It is imperative that any election be free of
    corruption, private money interests, and misinformation. Every voter
    must have all the information necessary to emit an informed vote
    concerning the three options and what each option implies in terms of
    legal, economic, and social repercussions. The most important thing is
    that the People of Puerto Rico recognize this election as legitimate
    and fair in order to respect the result. That is what all of us, as
    members of Congress, must ensure. Our role is to guarantee that this
    legislation is fair and balanced. Thank you very much.
    Chairman Raul Grijalva:
        Thank you very much. Ms. Velazquez?
    Representative Nydia Velazquez:
        Well. Many thanks. It has been a long day, it has been a week of
    many meetings, we have wanted to allow ample participation to all
    Puerto Ricans that wish to express themselves, as you know, the draft
    is on the website for the Natural Resources Committee and obviously any
    comment, suggestion, will go on record, so we continue to invite all
    Puerto Ricans to express themselves. This is a very emotional moment
    for all of us. This is not just another business. This is the future of
    the People. This is the recognition of the moral responsibility of
    Puerto Rican members who are in Congress and that it falls on us to
    basically take the flag and bring up the conversation about Puerto Rico
    in Congress. This has not been easy. The lack of clarity and the lack
    of education. The empire that has maintained a colony for 122 years.
    You cannot imagine what it is like to exercise to try to capture the
    attention of Congresspersons that were elected by their respective
    districts, and that for them the most important thing is to simply
    represent their districts. Puerto Rico has always been an asterisk, and
    we have reminded them, every day of the moral responsibility that they
    have. We cannot be giving speeches on democracy to other parts of the
    world and then fail almost 9 million Puerto Ricans. Therefore, we are
    committed not only to push this debate forward, but to us it is
    incredibly important to provide the right information and to have clear
    definitions. Because this is for you and your children, the future
    generations. What is more, something very important that Alexandria has
    mentioned, and we have discussed throughout these negotiations: The
    lack of faith in Puerto Rican institutions. I mean, we must guarantee
    to Puerto Ricans that when you go to exercise a vote, that your vote
    will be counted. We must ensure and guarantee that there is
    transparency in the process. We must provide the resources to each of
    the factions that will participate so you may carry out a campaign that
    is effective where nobody has any advantage over anybody else or any
    other political party or whatever. That is our commitment with you.
    Help us to get to the final moment and to once and for all, solve a
    fact, a problem, an issue that separates and divides the Puerto Rican
    family. God bless you [applause].
    Chairman Raul Grijalva:
        Thank you. Well, many thanks to everybody who has participated. To
    those that will participate, in the sense of their giving us
    information or recommendations, etc. But I also wish to thank to my
    three colleagues, the leadership and courage of you three have been the
    push, the key point in all of these discussions. And that is why we are
    here today. I wish to thank you all. Listen, I can't claim to share the
    experience of Puerto Ricans on this Island in terms of our shared
    citizenship. forefathers, at a war that they lost against the Unites
    States, they lost their lands. My native forefathers lost almost
    everything. And that experience, is what we have in common, is that
    hatred toward inequality. The lack of equality. It's a shared fight.
    And it's a shared fight for all Americans. And, so, those are colonial
    legacies that we can't change. But, from what I've seen here in Puerto
    Rico, with this so very important and historical document is the
    opportunity to change, to change that legacy. That's my commitment to
    my colleagues and, and we'll go forward with hard work ahead, but with
    the expectation that we will move this forward. Thank you very much
    [applause]. Thank you a lot.

                                 [Forum Ends].

                                     ______

                  Public Comments submitted on POPVOX Platform
                          (May 19, 2002-July 14, 2022)

    Dennis Freytes
        ``Patriots call to Arms-Equality for a more perfect Union!''-PR
    Status Bill draft (MAY 2022) must be improved!----
        US Citizens-Veterans in the US Territory of Puerto Rico have no
    Federal consent of the Governed (since 1898)! Thus, a draft bill called
    the Puerto Rico Status Act, brought forth by Majority Leader Hoyer, is
    a step in the right direction! A proper bill is crucial because the US
    Congress, in over 125 years, has not let Puerto Ricans (US Citizens-US
    Veterans)-part of ``We the People''--Vote to resolve this Federal
    inequality that strikes at the heart of our Republican Government with
    a (We the People) Representative Democracy where the Power resides with
    all the People; not just some.
        Overall, the PR Status Act (draft) allows a Vote to end Federal
    inequality . . . BUT, it can't compromise with what the US Constitution
    and good reasonable sense will allow; has some confusing parts that
    ``doublespeak'' or tries to have it both ways (like ELA-Soberano in
    disguise or Independence--with US Citizenship & benefits for Life) that
    might not be viable, per our US Constitution; US Supreme Court
    Decisions, standing Law or other Reports. Thus, some reasonable
    analysis and suggestions are:
        1. The draft bill wrongly ``doublespeak's'', under Independence and
    Independence with Pact of Free Association first says--``Puerto Rico
    has full authority and responsibility over its citizenship and
    immigration laws, and birth in Puerto Rico or relationship to persons
    with statutory United States citizenship by birth in the former
    territory shall cease to be a basis for United States nationality or
    citizenship,'' Then turns around (On what authority?) to state----
           except that persons who have such United States citizenship
    have a right to retain United States nationality and citizenship for
    life, by entitlement or election as provided by Federal law.''
        **On what authority does the US Congress makes a non-permanent
    statutory US Citizenship and benefits for ``Life''? The US Congress--is
    not above the US Constitution to exceed its authority or be misleading-
    confusing. . .; shouldn't, for political distorted purposes, jeopardize
    the legality of the Plebiscite and its outcome . . . Summary of some
    FACTS are:
         The US Congress has the right under the US Constitution,
    to amend or change any Laws or Codes it makes. A future Congress can do
    likewise.
         The Territorial Clause and Insular Cases, and the 1917
    Jones Act that define statutory US Citizenship, Federal Laws, and the
    protection of the US Constitution--ENDS upon Independence where PR is
    no longer a US Territory. . .
         There are US Supreme Court Decisions that indicate or
    imply that the US Congress has the right to not fully apply the US
    Constitution to ``unincorporated'' US Territories) like Puerto Rico. .
    . except for some broad rights that are not defined. . . (See Enclosure
    below)
         There is no ``Group'' dual US Citizenship in our US
    Constitution (even though, to an extent, ``Individual'' dual
    Citizenship is permitted. . .).
         A Nation can't be independent with the Citizenship of
    another Nation. (See Enclosure below).
        Thus, to state statutory Citizenship and benefits are for ``Life''
    is misleading. . .BESIDES--Also, buried later in page 39, it states
    that US Citizenship benefits would continue under Independence-Free
    Association. ``RIGHTS AND BENEFITS.--All vested rights and benefits
    which accrue to residents of the territory of Puerto Rico under the
    laws of the United States from past services or contributions. . .
    shall not be interrupted after the proclamation of international
    sovereignty through free association but will continue. . .'' (Again,
    on what authority. . .? All US Laws; benefits end upon Independence. .
    .) Thus, the Status and Benefits descriptions of Independence or
    Independence with a Pact of Free Association should be correctly worded
    to reflect the above and below enclosure-FACTS. Also, Statehood can be
    better described. Example:
         STATEHOOD MEANS: Admission to our diverse ``UNION of
    STATES''--with OWN--STATE Identity; Constitution; Flag; Sovereignty;
    EQUAL/permanent US Citizenship with full rights, benefits, and
    responsibilities. . . (as other States and other US Citizens-US
    Veterans have).
         INDEPENDENCE-MEANS: Puerto Rican National Sovereignty with
    PR Constitution & PR Citizenship; gradual loss of statutory US
    Citizenship, Rights, and Benefits. . .``Puerto Rico has full authority
    and responsibility over its citizenship and immigration laws, and birth
    in Puerto Rico or relationship to persons with statutory United States
    citizenship by birth in the former territory shall cease to be a basis
    for United States nationality or citizenship, ``
         INDEPENDENCE with PACT of Free Association-MEANS: Puerto
    Rican National Sovereignty with PR Constitution & PR Citizenship;
    gradual loss of statutory US Citizenship, Rights, and Benefits; a
    negotiated PACT (on Defense, Trade, Finance,. . .) that can be
    terminated by either side. Puerto Rico has full authority and
    responsibility over its citizenship and immigration laws, and birth in
    Puerto Rico or relationship to persons with statutory United States
    citizenship by birth in the former territory shall cease to be a basis
    for United States nationality or citizenship,''
        2. Change the Ballot order-place Statehood first (since it has
    received the most Votes in local Plebiscites).
        3. In order to avoid confusion. . .change ``Sovereignty in Free
    Association w/US'' to a better clear description that is-``Independence
    with a PACT of Free Association''. (Remember, Free Association is not a
    Status, but, the name of a PACT.)
        4. Millions of statutory US Citizens residing in the States have a
    stake in the fight since they have a statutory non-permanent US
    Citizenship; could lose it.., but they can't Vote in the Plebiscite.
    Even though, the draft says that statutory US Citizens will keep their
    US Citizenship for life under Independence-Free Association, but, their
    Kids will not. . . (which can be misleading or questionable). Thus, we
    should have a say! Plus, it should be added to the draft something to
    the effect: ``Statutory US Citizens, residing in the States, will be
    naturalized, per the 14th Amendment, should Independence or
    Independence with Free Association win, since the US Constitution & all
    US Laws will end. . .''
        *There is NO authority in the US Constitution for the US Congress
    to pass a statutory US Citizenship to an Independent Nation!
        *The Territorial Claus, Insular Cases, nor the 1917 Jones Act will
    not be in effect upon Independence, thus, statutory US Citizenship will
    end. (See other facts above and in the below enclosure.)
        5. In the Draft, under Independence-Free Association, there are
    many instances where it mandates what the US Constitution of PR must
    contain. . .; what a PR Independent Government must do. . . On what
    Authority can the Federal Government make mandates to an Independent
    Nation?
        The facts should be taken into consideration in the final PR Status
    Act Bill. Please, see Enclosure. THANKS!
        Dennis O. Freytes (MPA, MHR, BBA), Officer US Army Retired, Florida
    Veterans Hall of Fame; Community Servant Leader; former PMS-Professor/
    Commander USA Officer School, University of Puerto Rico; Commander of
    Infantry, Special Forces, Airborne, PACCE (Medical and Engineer Units).
    . .; Civic/Board Advisor to a US President, Governors, Mayors. . .
    Michael Torres
        I think the Draft is a good step toward the process but I believe
    an option should be included to also include the Puerto Rican Diaspora
    on the process as they have also been affected by the difficult
    situation in regards to status that Puerto Rico has been facing and if
    God forbid any tragedy occurs, they are the ones to respond and provide
    help and support to their brethren in the Island. The Puerto Rican
    Diaspora has also been very influential on making sure Puerto Rico's
    voice is heard on the process, therefore due to all these reasons I
    believe the Diaspora should be taken into consideration for any vote on
    the Status of the Island.
    Zayira Jordan
        Reason and facts are the realm of academicians, scientists.
    Political gain and, ultimately, permanence in power is the sound of
    music for politicians. But where has that left us, we, the people,
    those of us who conform the demographic otherwise known as the US
    citizens who live in Puerto Rico?
        The result of rivers of ink has ultimately been poverty and lack of
    opportunities for the majority. Not only our people is condemned to
    preserve life and health in a substandard society, not living but
    rather surviving, but we are also excluded the opportunities promised
    by our Constitution that We the People may ``Secure the Blessings of
    Liberty.''
        Before our Congress, the Congress of the United States of America,
    I enter a plea on behalf of the majority of the US Citizens who call
    Puerto Rico home that the ladies and gentlemen who represent We The
    People, intact, as a whole, without artificial separations, acknowledge
    exactly that. That the situation in Puerto Rico is untenable. That for
    more than 120 years, there has been and us and a them. That the US
    Citizens of Puerto Rico have been kept separate under the rule of the
    law, excluded from the American Dream, unable to pursue in the land we
    were born the very same dream promised and available to We the People
    in the 50 states that conform the Union.
        Our mandate has not been honored thereby denying the exigency that
    our vote be acted on, that Congress enacts our will, and that once and
    for all Puerto Rico is admitted as a State of the United States of
    America.
        Reasons to act with justice, there are plentiful. Legalities, facts
    and figures are copious in the matter of documenting the inequalities
    withstood by the US Citizens of Puerto Rico. History demands We the
    People honor the values upheld in our Bill of Rights that the
    satisfaction of justice being served rather drives their
    representatives, elected through a vote that constitutes the democratic
    mandate, to recognize our vote for statehood and act swiftly to make
    Puerto Rico a state.
    Jayson Velazquez
        There should be conversation on the role of the Diaspora in this
    process. There also needs to be some clause to hold the United States
    responsible and pay reparations for austerity and the manufacturing of
    Puerto Rico's economic and climate crises.
    Antonio Diaz
        Hello, I am not following the language below. What does a majority
    vote required mean, more than 50%? If not, why would there be a runoff?
    I infer the majority refers to more than 50%, but this needs to be more
    explicit in the bill.
        "(3) MAJORITY VOTE REQUIRED.--Approval of a status option must be
    by a majority of the valid votes cast.
        (4) RUNOFF PLEBISCITE.--If there is not a majority in favor of one
    of the three options defined in this Act, then a runoff plebiscite
    shall be held on March 3, 2024, which shall offer eligible voters a
    choice of the two options that received the most of votes in the
    plebiscite held under paragraph (1).''
    Edmundo Quinones
        This is a good beginning to resolve the status question of Puerto
    Rico. Please support this bill. Puerto Rico is the world's few
    lingering colonies. If you support freedom and individual's right to
    self determination, support this bill.
    Timothy Frank
        Puerto Rico is the World's Oldest Colony. The Declaration of
    Independence of the United States of America is clear, in order to be a
    just and lawful Government abide by the following principles: ``--That
    to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving
    their just powers from the consent of the governed...'' Puerto Rico has
    never had the opportunity to give its ``CONSENT''.
        The United Nations Charter and the United Nations statement on
    Human Rights affirm:
        ``PART I--Article 1
        1. All peoples have the right of self-determination. By virtue of
    that right they freely determine their political status and freely
    pursue their economic, social and cultural development.''
        How the United States of America, founding Member of the United
    Nations, has been able to get away with holding Puerto Rico as the
    World's Oldest Colony defies reason. Puerto Rico lacks the ability to
    Self Determine their status in the World and the Status of it's people.
    Puerto Rico is the United States of America's Greatest Sin and the
    worst kept ``Dirty little secret''.
        How can the United States of America look at Russia with a straight
    face and say: ``You can't take Ukraine as a Colony'' while holding
    Puerto Rico as a Colony? The United States cannot claim the moral high
    ground here. As long as the United States of America keeps Puerto Rico
    as a Colony, what is to stop Russia from taking Ukraine, or China
    taking Taiwan, or North Korea taking South Korea? All would be a
    violation of the Human Right of Self Determination which the United
    States of America has no problem of doing, while condemning others for
    doing.
        Please right this wrong. It's immortal. It's unjust. It's
    indefensible.
    Arivel Figueroa
        Dear Committee Members, my name is Arivel Figueroa, I'm the
    director of the Committee on Federal and International Relations,
    Status and Veterans Affairs of the Puerto Rico House of
    Representatives. This committee has been doing public hearings on
    different proposals on PR's status and we think it will be a great
    opportunity for the PR's Status Act Draft to be part of the work we've
    been doing in the committee.
        Therefore, we would like to extend an invite to Chairman Grijalva
    and the natural resources committee to collaborate in creating an open
    space for the evaluation and discussion process you're starting in
    June. We have the resources and space for you to do the public hearings
    and the discussions of the draft. We would like to be a part as well.
        Please let us know if this is possible, and don't hesitate to
    contact us. Thank you.
    Abraham Arce
        I want independence for Puerto Rico.
        We are a separate culture with different history, language, and
    leaders. We don't share any history with exception of military service
    that was forced on us for all conflicts USA has had in the last hundred
    years.
        We do not consider Abraham Lincoln or George Washington our
    forefathers. We have our own history, leaders and no connection to USA.
        Again, independence is the only sensible outcome to our colonialism
    status.
    Michael Santiago
        This bill will affect the legal status of any U.S. citizen born in
    Puerto Rico but living in a U.S. State; therefore, U.S. citizens born
    in Puerto Rico but living in U.S. States must be allowed to vote by
    mail in the plebiscite. Otherwise, the status of U.S. citizens born in
    Puerto Rico but living in U.S. States will lie entirely in the hands of
    others, thus denying U.S. citizens born in Puerto Rico but living in
    U.S. States the right to consent and self-determination.
    Valerie Rogers
        Another question: If a child is born in the US to parents of a
    different nationality (say Mexico for example) that child automatically
    becomes a U.S. citizen. Even if the child is taken away by it's Mexican
    National parents to be raised and educated in Mexico. So, it stands to
    reason that anyone born in the US would retain their citizenship. For
    those born in PR and already US citizens it would seem they would
    retain their citizenship, while possibly those born after independence
    would not be US citizens. Many US citizens were born in PR and moved as
    children or after serving in the military to the US mainland. They may
    have paid into SS and Medicare their whole work life so it would stand
    to reason their citizenship and resulting benefits would be remain in
    place. How would that play out?
    Joel R
        `Specifies and defines Puerto Rico's non-territorial status
    options--Statehood, Independence, and Sovereignty in Free Association
    with the United States. ``
        This language is sleezy. That ``third option'' was purposefully
    crafted to be confused with non-indendependece. Sovereignty in Free
    Association sounds like non-independence and essentially like the
    current status quo. Even the media I consume has required those
    reporting to verify that this option is not the status quo because it
    is clearly intended to be confused with the status quo. Those proposing
    this third option know Puertoricans would NEVER vote for independence
    if it was clearly articulated as such. Tricking them into it might have
    a higher chance. It must not be 3 options because Sovereinty in Free
    Association is dependent on choosing option 2. Be clear. Make it a 2
    option vote and then a followup vote if PRicans choose independence,
    THEN they can choose to have the compact of free association or not as
    an second vote.
    Armando Perez
        I believe that the essential choice is between statehood and
    independence. To include independence with a free association treaty
    amongst the choices for the initial referendum is to put the cart
    before the horse.
        We should first decide if we want sovereignty in or out of the US.
    Only if the answer is out should we then discuss the possibility of
    having or not having a treaty. I believe this makes the most sense,
    this order of operation. But the draft as written is better than
    nothing, so I'd get over this.
    Jean C. Delgado Algarin
        Being born and raised in Puerto Rico, I've seen the disaster of big
    government, monarchical government in definition and practical
    approach, and there needs to be a total and radical change in our
    system as a whole. As a fellow US Marine veteran and constituent that
    has dedicated himself to self education, especially regarding
    constitutional rights and in this particular case, the status of my
    island of Puerto Rico, I have to input on the following. Since the
    Insular Cases (1900-1922) we have been a non-incorporated territory
    still to the day (meaning it cannot be a state unless it actually
    incorporates, otherwise Alaska and Hawaii wouldn't have had achieved
    their statehood since in the definition of the SCOTUS; incorporated
    territory is such those that are on clear path for statehood). Free
    association; we've seen precedents following the case of Palau Islands,
    Federated States of Micronesia, and the Marshall Islands, but here is
    the main detail. All of the above had to declare and proclaim full
    independence and then later on agree to accord a free association pact
    with the US, and none of them had nor kept US citizenship since it's
    not viable in the eyes of the US Constitution to have on a group basis
    a dual citizenship, only on a individual level.
        In addition, let's talk about independence: such option has never
    been supported, nor will it ever have even a 1/6-1/3 electoral support
    to simple majority, because the majority of Puertoricans (including the
    descendants of those that moved to the mainland since the 1940s exodus)
    value and treasure the US citizenship. If independence was so clearly
    supported, then how come we have over an approximate of 6 million
    Puertoricans and descendants living in the mainland vs the barely 3
    million living in the island? Must be good to be a natural born citizen
    with all the guaranteed rights of the US constitution.
        Also, not to mention, the statehood option: Sadly the island in
    some aspects is like a state, but in a good majority it still keeps the
    bad governmentally organizational setting from the Spaniards that needs
    to be eradicated, by that I refer to the centralized form of
    government, rather limited and secluded from state to counties and
    towns within the counties. Part of the collapse is just the fact of
    having municipalities relying on the state budget to make up their
    budget, rather consolidating an x amount of municipalities/towns, for
    example 5-6 of those into a county, to which the county collects the
    local/property/county taxes in order to make their own budget and
    administration. We have an internal mess in that aspect, and we need a
    good adjustment period to perfect it the way it runs in most states.
    Since the island doesn't pay federal taxes, but benefits from the
    welfare state that is funded by federal tax paying dollars, I support
    putting the island under incorporated territory for a small window of
    time, so the government and the people can start making the necessary
    adjustments for statehood.
        Such adjustments for statehood would be: requiring more than 2
    hours of English teaching in our schools in order to establish a unique
    bilingual population, decentralizing the government in its entirety in
    order to create stable and balanced state budget, unite a couple
    municipalities (taking reference the police districts) to make the
    counties and assign county commissioners, county police, county
    education regions, county sheriff, etc. Make the necessary amendments
    to the state constitution such as: regulating the seat of the governor,
    legislature, city mayors, and all elected officials, and not infringe
    on the second amendment right that has been infringed for many decades
    in Puerto Rico in order to fight criminality and pursue natural
    justice. Also, in order to advance toward the cause of statehood, the
    laws that defend fiscal paradises for foreigners and people from the
    mainland US needs to be repealed, because in every society you cannot
    give everything to the outsider while you squeeze the juice out of the
    one person in their own backyard, it is unfair and undignified.
        Point here taken is this: neither independence/free association can
    guarantee us equality under the law (citizenship under the US
    Constitution), only statehood can, even by being completely an
    incorporated territory on the path toward statehood. If a plebiscite is
    to be voted on, only put statehood and independence, because you need
    independence to get to free association, not the other way around. If
    such plebiscite goes as planned, and statehood is the winning vote,
    initiate an immediate incorporation mechanism for a minimum of 5,
    maximum 10 years in order for us to get all our local and state issues
    in order, so we can be able to enter the Union as a well economically
    stable and prosper state. I favor statehood personally, but my island
    is in dire need of being out on the right path for such transition, and
    our elected officials do not do anything about it while bragging
    nonstop about pushing this forward. I may not be a Harvard man, or
    college graduate, but my tools are historical precedents and the
    Constitution of this great nation, follow the rule of law, not the
    agenda of whoever is in power to meet their party goal.
        Thank you very much for allowing me to give an input.
    Carmen Cadilla
        It is time that Congress considers the political future of US
    Citizens who live in the island of Puerto Rico. Our colonial status has
    to end. We need to have our voices heard, not by a non-voting
    representative, but by voting members in both the House and the Senate
    and that we can exercise our right to vote, including for the
    President, regardless of where we live, but especially when living in
    Puerto Rico. It is also time that we become first-class US citizens and
    we get treated the same as others US citizens by the US Government at
    all levels. The consequences of Puerto Rico not being a state impact
    our economy, our health and well-being greatly. We are considered by
    many entities and companies part of the international community and not
    part of the US, but do not have the power to change many US laws that
    support this treatment. We have made many plebiscites and referendums
    on the island's political status, which have been ignored by the US
    Congress. The majority of Puerto Ricans have moved to the mainland US,
    looking for opportunities that we know we will never have in Puerto
    Rico. It is time for Congress to act on this important issue affecting
    over 3 million US citizens.
    Rebecca Haden
        Thank you for your hard work preparing a compromise bill. Puerto
    Rico has voted three times for statehood and will probably do so again.
    However, the description of Sovereign Free Association seems to have
    some ambiguity in its claims about citizenship. One reading means that
    citizenship could continue in perpetuity, as long as parents are both
    U.S. citizens. The other suggests that babies born in a new nation of
    Puerto Rico could acquire citizenship--perhaps by naturalization, as
    other COFA nations can. If this will require negotiation between the
    U.S. and the new nation of Puerto Rico, that should be made clear
    before the vote. People should not be misled into believing that
    continued U.S. citizenship is guaranteed if it really is not. Thank you
    for your attention.
    Jesus Nunez
        Thanks you for the hard work of finding a consensus bill to finally
    solve Puerto Rico's territorial status. I am a strongly believer that
    puertoricans living in the island will select statehood to finally have
    the political power in Washington and to contribute to this great
    nation. The three options presented in this bill and the information
    provided for each one will give the puertoricans living in the island
    the necessary information to do an informed decision in Puerto Rico's
    status. Please don't include the territorial status as an option and
    this shall be decided by puertoricans living in the island.
    Ivan Hernandez
        This is a great opportunity for Congress to resolve the centenary
    problem of the colonial status of Puerto Rico. Most of the people of
    the island had reject the actual territorial status and the vast
    majority of the people of the island want to resolve this. This is the
    right bill at this point with a binding procedure absolutely necessary.
    The people of PR are tired of been discussing this issue for a very
    long time and this id the time for a permanent solution!! Lets make US
    bigger!! Let's make this bill the Law!!!
    Nathaniel Morell Gonzalez
        It is a undeniable fact, the current territorial status of the
    ``U.S. Commonwealth of Puerto Rico'' is colonial in nature. For more
    than 120 years the U.S. Citizens of Puerto Rico have been discriminated
    by Congress when it denies the same basic civil rights that are seen on
    any other part of the United States. The resident of Puerto Rico are
    denied the right to vote for President of the United States or to have
    voting representation in the Congress. American citizens on American
    soil without any says on the political bodies that decide their
    political futures. It is a stain in fabric of the American experiment,
    a stain against the idea of our republican form of government and an
    insult to the more than 100,000 veterans from Puerto Rico have serve
    honorably in the defense of the Unites States since World War I. The
    consensus is that the current colonial/territorial status loss the
    consent of the governed. The time has come for Congress to do its duty
    under the Territorial Clause of the constitution and pass the Puerto
    Rico Status Act now!
    Jose Alvarez
        Thank you all for the hard work so far. Thanks to Jennifer and
    Nydia for getting together and reaching an agreement for the well-being
    of Puerto Rico so we can finally decide FOR GOOD the final political
    status our island can reach. After 124 years is just too much to go on
    like this. We all agree the current status is colonial in nature and
    should not be included in the plebiscite. The problem can't be part of
    the permanent and final solution. I'm a licensed attorney and CPA
    living on the island and I can see the daily disadvantage our colonial
    status causes. We can't vote for the President, the one that can send
    us all into war. We don't get two senators and at least four
    representatives that can fight for us DIRECTLY, with a vote that
    counts, in Congress and that also can provide their help and insight on
    how our nation can be better, more just, and protect the rights our
    constitution allows. On behalf of my fellow Americans living on the
    island please move as fast as possible so we can ONCE AND FOR ALL bring
    this issue to an end.
    David Colon
        Hon. Grijalva, Permitame presentarle ``ELA de Puerto Rico-
    Defensores Inc. ``incorporado bajo los estatutos del Departamento de
    Estado de Puerto Rico como una organizacion sin fines de lucro. Nos
    identifica el pueblo puertorriqueno como los Defensores del Estado
    Libre Asociado.
        Nuestra mision es asegurar que los ciudadanos conoscan, entiendan y
    se unan a la defense del Estado Libre Asociado de Puerto Rico como la
    major alternativa de estatus politico para la isla de Puerto Rico.
        Es un honor para nosotros tener una union permanente con los
    Estados Unidos donde garantice la ciudadania Americana por nacimiento
    en Puerto Rico.
        Respetuosamente llamamos a su atencion, conociendo su compromiso
    democratico, para que logre que la misma democracia impere en el
    PROYECTO 2070 de Honorable Nidia Velazquez y de Honorable Alezandra
    Ocasio honrando al Estado Libre Asociado de Puerto Rico como
    alternativa, haciendolo uno democratico. Al momento en las pasadas
    consultas no han querido incluir el mismo como alternative, y el motivo
    es que, en el plebicito del 2012, VOTARON 828,088 MIL PUERTORRIQUENOS a
    favor de que el Estado Libre Asociado permanesca en union con los
    Estados Unidos de America, en forma permanente.
        La ley de relaciones publicas 7 trata de implementar la Ley Publica
    113-114 aprobada por el congreso bajo la administracion Obama que preve
    la financiacion de un plebicito y llama al Procurador General a hacer
    una constancia y que se incluya al Estado Libre Asociado de Puerto
    Rico.
        El Proyecto 2070 no incluye el Estado Libre Asociado actual de la
    mancomunidad como una opcion. Las Unicas disponible para los votantes
    son: Estado, Independencia y Libre Asociacion. Segun lo definido por el
    derecho internacional-Una asociacion entre dos naciones soberanas.
        El Estado Libre Asociado de Puerto Rico, el estado en que vivimos
    actualmente desde 1952, fue concebido y disenados por mentes abiertas,
    creativas y notables tanto en el congreso como en Puerto Rico, y
    responde asi a la politica publica de los Estados Unidos contenida en
    las Leyes Publicas 600 de 1950 y 447 de 1952.
        La constancia de que la papeleta contenida en la Ley de Relaciones
    Publicas 7 es consistente con la constitucion y las leyes y politicas
    de los Estado Unidos, seria contraria a los derechos de cientos de
    miles de puertorriquenos que desean mantener y perfeccionar al actual
    Estado Libre Asociado establecido bajo leyes de El Congreso Ley 600 de
    1950 y el 447 de 1952. La politica de Autodeterminacion verdadera e
    inclusiva del futuro politico de Puerto Rico como defendida por todos
    los presidentes desde el Presidente Honorable Truman hasta el
    presidente Honorable Joe Biden.
        El derecho a determinar el future estatus politico de Puerto Rico
    pertenece a todos los puertorriquenos. Al excluir el Estado Libre
    Asociado de Puerto Rico de la boleta electoral, los partidarios del
    mismo estado privado de sus derechos por sus creencias politicas; Sin
    derecho al voto por la creencia en un estado creado por el congreso,
    respaldado por las Naciones Unidas y por el pueblo de Puerto Rico.
        Le instamos con mucho respeto a que determine incluir la opcion del
    Estado Libre Asociado de Puerto Rico.
    Carmelo Rios
        Dear Raul Manuel Grijalva, the delegation of the New Progressive
    Party in the Senate of Puerto Rico is formally requesting to schedule a
    meeting with you and your staff during the public hearings you will be
    holding for the historic Puerto Rico Status Act in June. We are
    extremely excited to discuss a bill that finally puts an end to our
    colonial status and gives us the power to decide our own destiny.
        It is important to our delegation that we receive an opportunity to
    sit down and discuss the many positives we feel are present in the
    bill, while also taking time to explain some of our recommendations to
    amend and better it. As you have previously stated, it is important
    that all sectors of the Puerto Rican People residing on the Island be
    given the chance to air out their opinions and misgivings with this
    legislative project to produce something that will not only have the
    support of the majority of the People, but also be something that can
    be approved in Congress.
        The Puerto Rico Status Act is a shining example of what can be
    accomplished when we put aside our differences and come together in
    order to produce a bill that we can agree on. This bill has all the
    most important elements that each side was looking to include and makes
    everyone involved feel hike their voices were heard and respected.
    Thank you for your time and consideration and we look forward to
    meeting with you soon. If you would like to reach us, you can contact
    the NPP Minority Whip's office number (787) 945-5333 or through his
    email crios@senado.pr.gov.
        With regards, Thomas Rivera Schatz NPP Minority Leader

        Carmelo Rios Santiago NPP Minority Whip
            Henry Neumann Zayas           Keren Riquelme Cabrera
            Migdalia Padilla Alvelo       Nitza Moran Trinidad
            William Villafane Ramos       Wanda Soto Tolentino
            Gregorio Matias Rosario       Marissa Jimenez Santoni
    Jaime Aldarondo
        Voters in Puerto Rico should be allowed to have another option in
    the plebiscite. This option should be the reunification with Spain.
    Puerto Ricans voters should be allowed more time to get educated on the
    proposed draft. The proposed draft prevents a big segment of the
    population from expressing their views on the ballot. As a taxpayer I
    request that the proposed draft be amended to include the alternative
    Reunification with Spain as an additional option on the ballot.
    David Vazquez
        This a great beginning to end the colonial status of PR by the
    people of PR
        Definitions
        I would like to a get a clarification on the definition of ``bona
    fide resident'' because of the number of Boricuas in the diaspora who
    might think they can vote in this special elections (Nov 5, 2023; March
    3, 2024)
        What does majority of the valid votes cast? (for one of the three
    options)
        What percentage for voter participation is expected and what number
    of votes is considered a majority? (over what % will prevent a runoff)
        How long is the expected 1st agreement duration exactly? Articles
    of Free Association
        Page 13 not clear sec 10. Under which status or how it relates to
    the voter education
        Citizenship
        It is not clear what you mean when you state that during the
    Articles of Free Association
        1st agreement duration only if both parents are US citizens shall
    be eligible to acquire. . . US citizenship (page 7). Currently, all
    Boricuas are US citizenship, so are you talking people born after this
    date? It is not clear who remains as US or can get in the future
        If it becomes a State, we continue with US citizenship, no need to
    write (c) on page 9. (it seems like a political statement)
        If it becomes a Free Associated to the US, page 35 not clear the
    citizenship definition.
        In black and white under free association, how do we keep US
    citizenship? What is proposed in the bill is not clear? It can be
    misinterpreted.
        Transition
        Page 37 (2) no clear how you can educate the people if the
    negotiations are not prescribed that relate to foreign affairs, trade,
    finance, taxation, security and defense, dispute resolution,
    immigration, economic benefits (grants), etc. . . . It seems this
    status can fall by default on our current Commonwealth status, which
    then needs to be improved and not under the power of Congress. What
    would happen with the Jones Act? As example . . . that should be part
    of this list that need to be negotiated.
        As a free association, can we keep US citizenship if we keep
    enlisting in US Armed forces as well as social security.
        Free Association information in this proposal is weak, it seems it
    will be hard to inform the people if we do not know the types of
    agreements we can negotiate with Congress. It just seems that Free
    Association will fall into the current status of Commonwealth and the
    purpose of this bill is eradicating the colonial relationship between
    the US and PR.
    Antonio J. Fas Alzamora
        Dear Chairman Grijalva, First, I want to thank you for your ongoing
    consideration and support to the people of Puerto Rico. I appreciate
    that while so ably representing the state of Arizona, you continue
    advocating and enacting policies that improve the lives of our
    constituents in Puerto Rico.
        I am writing to you as former Senate President of the Commonwealth
    of Puerto Rico, and the longest-serving legislator in the history of
    Puerto Rico (1977-2017), former Secretary General of the Popular
    Democratic Party (PDP) and actual member of the PDP Governing Board,
    since 1978.
        Despite having been a strong supporter of Commonwealth for most of
    my political career, I have dedicated the past 12 years of my life
    working on a non-territorial and non-colonial free association
    proposal, entitled ``Compact of Association between the governments of
    the Free-Associated State of Puerto Rico and the United States of
    America''. 12 years ago, I presented the first draft of this proposal
    with an inclusive process of public hearings around the island to
    discuss it and consider amendments that were included in the 2020
    version of the compact proposal. I'm including you a link with all the
    information of my compact proposal in www.pactodeasociacion.com.
        I would like to share with you and your staff a summary of my
    proposal, so I'm formally requesting the opportunity to meet with you
    and your staff in the Committee's visit to Puerto Rico.
        I am also available for any virtual or in-person meeting that may
    be necessary to advance initiatives in favor of Puerto Ricans. I look
    forward to meeting you.
    Guillermo Gonzalez
        To: US Congress Representatives Grijalva, Velazquez, Ocasio-Cortez,
    Gonzalez
        I am writing these words to congratulate all of you for making
    history with the process of decolonization and self political
    determination for us, the People of Puerto Rico. This is the first time
    in our 528 years, and running, as a colonial possession that our real
    government-Chief of State of PR is Joe Biden-asks the people living in
    their territory how do we feel about it, and which are our wishes and
    goals for our common relationship. It's like living with your wife for
    years and never talking to her. 405 years under Spain's control and 124
    years under USA control. Nobody during the signing of the Treaty of
    Paris, to end the Spanish American War, asked us, the Puerto Ricans,
    our opinion of the property transfer of ownership of the land in which
    we were born and live. Living in a colony is like living as a test tube
    baby--you do not own your habitat.
        My name is Guillermo Gonzalez Roman, aka, Guillermo Gonzalez MD for
    my writings. I was born in Santurce, PR in 1949. I am a retired
    physician, specialized in Psychiatry and Neurology. Now living back in
    PR after 30 years of medical practice in the states of New York and
    Massachusetts. I have read and fully agree with the draft of The Puerto
    Rico Status Act.
        It is my opinion that the USA has been dodging its responsibility,
    as assigned by the Treaty of Paris, which was signed in 1899, to
    determine the political future of the relationship of the US with PR.
    None of you before has talked to us expressing your divided and
    conflicting opinions regarding the future of our relationship. You have
    mascaraded your ambivalence to us, as described in the Insular Cases
    and the recently decided case of Vaello Madero by the US Supreme Court,
    by using the excuse that there is no consensus between us and not you.
    How could there be consensus among us when there are multiple mutually
    excluding possibilities, which are not defined, and we have no power to
    decide? We are requested consensus on issues that only you have the
    power to enforce, and you have never defined which are the
    possibilities. Are you playing with us ``blindly tagging the donkey''?
        It is always easier to blame the weakest and defenceless. Article
    IV, Section III, Clause II of the US Constitution gives you unilateral
    rights to legislate the rules for our lives and society--in a
    unilateral unquestionable and irrevocable way. To the point, based on
    monetary claims that we are poor and do not pay enough taxes to receive
    equal treatment under the Constitution, you allow the SSI benefits
    assigned from you to the poor, except not for the poor people of PR. In
    1984, the US Congress took away the federal bankruptcy protection to us
    during insolvency. You also put for cheap sale the triple tax exemption
    Commonwealth bonds in their portfolios, which by 2015 over 70% of the
    Mutual Funds in the US had Commonwealth bonds with excellent and above
    average interest rates, and they were Joker bonds that anybody could
    buy them, tax exempt, especially for states with high taxes. All of
    this, in conjunction with our financially incompetent and irresponsible
    local government that is still two years behind in submitting audited
    consolidated financial statements, lead us to insolvency and incapacity
    to defend ourselves from Wall Street. It may sound paranoid, but the
    path was set for Wall Street to take over all the actives of our local
    fictitious government. We were defenceless people with no political
    power in our real government--the federal government--left to face the
    mammoth of Wall Street alone.
        The Russians are invading Ukraine and not respecting their right
    for self political determination. US Congress has been doing this to us
    for all these years; ignoring our will and democratic right for self
    determination. For some of you, it is an issue of not wanting PR to be
    a purple or swing state that will decide presidential elections. For
    us, it is a request for our sovereignty, residing today with you in the
    US Congress, ending the unilateral control from you on your colonial
    territory possession. Maybe, to the surprise of some of you, I believe
    that with our sovereignty we will successfully survive in both possible
    scenarios--statehood or independence.
        For the past 16 years I have been writing about the colonization
    process of PR and the effects on the Puerto Rican personality. I have
    published six books on this topic and I am in the process of writing my
    seventh book in support of The Puerto Rico Status Act--``Puerto Rico
    and Ukraine from a Bird the Two Wings-Self Determination Missing''.
        It is my opinion, based on my experience, that you are not the only
    ones to blame for the persistence of the colonial situation of PR for
    all these years--we have also contributed. Experience, biology, and
    personality interact, being cause and effect of each other. The
    Colonized Personality has evolved from years of colonialism, creating
    dependence in the metropolises, and inferiority feeling and
    insecurities about a future of our own, with the responsibility of a
    government that could support its own structures and facilitate the
    self and financial support for all of us Puerto Ricans. Habits are
    difficult to change and at times we are our own worst enemy.
        Thank you for providing me, as a private citizen living in PR, an
    opportunity to express my opinion about our political future and our
    future relationship with the USA. The Puerto Rican self determination
    process is a common responsibility, and we will fight for it as united
    people in a democratic and peaceful way, different from the Ukrainian
    people that have been forced to fight fearfully for their self
    political determination process.
    Manuel Angel Rugama Amparo
        In Puerto Rico and Spain there are civic-citizen movements that
    promote the reunification of Puerto Rico and Spain. We demand that the
    option of reunification be included among the options in a future
    plebiscite. Puerto Rico was a Spanish province in 1898, whose
    inhabitants had accepted democratically and by a large majority, the
    political autonomy that the approval of the Autonomous Charter of 1897
    meant. The US militarily invaded and seized by force of arms the
    Spanish province of Puerto Rico to subject it to a colonial regime. The
    Puerto Rican people have the right to become an integral part of their
    founding nation, Spain.
    Nancy Ferrer
        Anadir al borrador el Movimiento de Reunificacion de Puerto Rico
    con Espana como cuarta opcion. Esta opcion es viable y permite a muchas
    personas poder escoger lo que mejor convenga a la Isla de Puerto Rico.
    Elaine Montgomery
        Looking forward to the Puerto Rico Status Act resolves once and for
    all the political status.
        To prevent further delays, the options need to be clearly
    explained.
        I propose those that have voted in previous PR elections (are
    listed in the State Election Commission) that have moved from the
    island to another state are allowed to vote as absentee. What would not
    be fair would be to all Puerto Ricans living in the states to vote
    because the majority of them have never lived in the island. That is
    why the key point would be, those that have previously voted.
        Thank you.
    Juan Mendez Rosa
        I support the PR Status Act consensus bill. It is an opportunity to
    enfranchised the American
    Raul Velez
        I support Puerto Rico status act, is time respect the Right of
    United State citizen's of Puerto Rico, Failure to resolve the colony
    problem would be a violation of our fundamental rights as a United
    States citizen of PR
    Iris Arroyo
        Yo apoyo la Estadidad para Puerto Rico I support Puerto Rico status
    act, is time respect the Right of United State citizen's of Puerto
    Rico, Failure to resolve the colony problem would be a violation of our
    fundamental rights as a United States citizen of PR.
    Walter Caraballo
        Please, no more dilation and unsuccessful demagoguery. No more
    doing what is done, just to give artificial life to the colonial system
    and second class citizenship. With this, there is no excuse to leave
    the project without seeing it in the Natural Resources Committee, and
    that it can be evaluated later in the plenary session of Congress. I
    support the status law for Puerto Rico.
    Jose Arroyo
        How this PR status act will defend and protect the people,
    puertorricans and other states residents in the island, who has put
    their efforts in living in this island, buy properties and invest in
    businesses all because the previous status ELA and the outlook of a
    future union `statehood' which now is in a threat of a possible
    independence or status that do not value our US citizenship? How they
    will be protected against people who has nothing or not been interested
    in invest, buy properties and has dedicated all their life's to just be
    against a better future all the people of Puerto Rico? How it will
    value the fact that the statehood has won all the referendum and
    plebiscite done in past years against any other real status options?
    This status act should not fail to the people of PR who has sacrificed
    thier life's in this island because of the territorial status that now
    threatens to become `something else' that they has not even imagine
    before. Thanks! God Bless America!!
    Jose Daniel Rodriguez-Allende
        The Puerto Rico Status Act draft is more than obvious that has been
    made to help statehood political status. Is like to ``dejar entrar la
    estadidad por la cocina,'' (to allow statehood to enter through the
    kitchen). Besides, is more than clear that next November the U.S.
    Congress will be involved in elections and with this not-well-done
    draft, some Congress representatives are just looking for the Puerto
    Rican and Latino votes. No one asked the U.S. to invade an already
    autonomous country in 1898. This your mess and you have to fix it with
    honesty! At least the most honorable thing that your country United
    States should do is to be honest with our nation Puerto Rico and to
    tell our people what to expect from each political status, including an
    enhanced Commonwealth that wasn't included for some reason, before
    presenting any unreasonable and political motivated draft. Do not
    forget that the majority in the island doesn't want statehood.
        NO QUEREMOS LA ESTADIDAD!/WE DON'T WANT STATEHOOD!
    Rosa Velez
        It's long overdue! We deserve equality! Our soldiers have died for
    the Nation yet we don't even have the right to vote! We have been
    discriminated for 500 years. We are the oldest colony in history. The
    time has come for Puerto Rico to become a state! Statehood Now!
    Maria Rivadulla
        Honorables Raul Grijalva, presidente del Comite de Recursos
    Naturales de la Camara de Representantes de los Estados Unidos de
    America; Nydia Velazquez y Alexandria Ocasio Cortes, representantes a
    la Camara de los Estados Unidos de America, Honorable Jennifer
    Gonzalez, Comisionada Residente de Puerto Rico ante el Congreso de
    Estados Unidos.
        Respetuosamente me dirijo a ustedes como ciudadana norteamericana
    residente en Puerto Rico para expresarles que he visto con profunda
    satisfaccion como la representante Nydia Velazquez y nuestra
    Comisionada Residente Jennifer Gonzalez se sentaron a trabajar en
    conjunto para crear un borrador de Consenso que recoja lo mas genuino
    de los dos proyectos que fueron presentados el pasado ano buscando
    opciones para resolver el problema colonial de Puerto Rico,
    entendiendose por esto que no estamos de acuerdo en seguir viviendo
    bajo una condicion territorial que minimiza nuestra ciudadania, nos
    impide votar por el presidente de nuestra nacion, y no permite que
    recibamos un trato igual que nuestros conciudadanos en los estados.
        Tenemos la esperanza de que, gracias al interes y esfuerzo de ese
    Comite nuestro caso pueda ser visto en su justa medida, y que podamos
    tener finalmente una consulta democratica con voto directo de todo el
    pueblo para escoger entre las opciones descolonizadas reconocidas
    internacionalmente, siendo vinculante el resultado de esa consulta.
        En el plano personal estoy de acuerdo con las tres opciones que se
    reflejan en el borrador:
        Estadidad (el estatus que yo apoyo) Independencia Libre Asociacion
    (modalidad de independencia con acuerdos bilaterales que pueden ser
    terminados por cualquiera de las partes en cualquier momento).
        No estoy de acuerdo con insertar la condicion colonial actual de
    Estado Libre Asociado (ELA), como parte de la consulta porque no es
    posible que incluyamos la misma cuando es precisamente la condicion en
    la que estamos viviendo y con la que no estamos de acuerdo.
        Me llena de alegria que estemos tan cerca de lograr el objetivo al
    que aspira la mayoria del pueblo de Puerto Rico, demostrado en varias
    oportunidades en diferentes consultas electorales: LA ESTADIDAD PARA
    PUERTO RICO como consecuencia natural de progreso economico, politico y
    social siendo uno mas del conjunto de estados que se rigen tanto por
    las leyes estatales como por las Federales. Son muchas las generaciones
    nacidas atesorando la bandera, la ciudadania y la forma de vida
    americanas. Mas de cinco millones de personas de origen puertorriqueno
    viven en los estados de la Union disfrutando de todos los derechos que
    ampara nuestra Constitucion Americana, al mismo tiempo que cumpliendo
    con los deberes que vienen dados por el ejercicio de nuestra
    ciudadania.
        Agradezco el interes de este Comite y de nuestra Comisionada
    Residente. Todos han estado dando lo mejor de si en este Borrador de
    Consenso.
        Ayudennos a impulsarlo. Ayudennos en la aprobacion del documento
    tanto en Camara como en Senado.
        Y una vez aprobado, ayudennos a poder educar a nuestro pueblo de
    manera seria y responsable en las opciones que se presentan a escoger,
    durante los once meses que medien antes de celebrarse la consulta para
    que la votacion sea educada, madura, democratica, sin posibilidad de
    interpretaciones diversas. Que sobre el resultado no haya ninguna duda
    y sea vinculante. Es una decision de futuro que tendra repercusiones en
    todas las generaciones venideras.
        Gracias por su compromiso. Con el mayor respeto y consideracion.
    Ralph DeStefano
        They do not want statehood from what I have read their country is
    bankrupt like ours but hey let's make sure we force their country into
    statehood. Another ploy for the DS to stay in power with more votes and
    throw more debt on the backs of the middleclass worker but don't worry
    you all will destroy that too just like your destroying our country
    with your communist policies.
    Salvador Ruiz
        PR Status Act Draft. . . . Must Eliminate The Statehood Option ..
    On Its Menu . . . Statehood Is Genocide . . .  . . . The Only 2 Option
    In The PR Status Act That Support Liberty And Is Consistent With United
    Nation Pasts Resolutions Are Complete Independence Or Libre Asociacion
    . . . Genocide Isnt Self Determination . . .The PNP Clowns That Have
    Gather In WDC .. Starting With Mrs. Piggy . . . And 4 Other Clowns That
    Include The Impeach X Governor Of Puerto Rico. Ricky Rossello . . .
    Want To Talk About Equality . . . Yes. Equality. Puerto Rico Must Be
    Able To Elect Its Own 1st President.. . . . Establish Its Own National
    Army . . . Produce Its Own Currency . . . . Ect. Yes. Puerto Rico Wants
    Equality . . . The. Puertorican People. Must. The. Only Power To. Rule.
    Our. Country. No. Other . . . Yes. We. Want. Equality.. USA Congress
    ..Senate And USA President Biden. . . . Freedom Is Very Precios . . . .
    Puerto Rico Has Been Bonded Into Slavery For 124 Years . . . And. We.
    Lived The Pain And Sorrow Of Great Injustice Just The Black American
    And The American Indians . . . PR Status Act Draft. Must Immediately
    Remove The Genocide Opition Of Statehood . . . Now. And Allow The Birth
    Of New Republic Of Puerto Rico ..To Rise . . . In The Light Of
    Democracy And Winds Of Freedom . . . The USA Has This Supreme Absolute
    Obligation To Assure That The New Republic Of Puerto Rico .. Rise
    Rise. Rise.
    Evelyn Ashbrook
        The US Citizens of Puerto Rico have had 3 plebiscites in the last
    10 years. All have favored Statehood. From those it is evident that (1)
    Puerto Ricans reject the current unequal territorial status and (2)
    supports statehood. It is time for Congress to give the people of
    Puerto Rico a path to statehood.
        This is a CIVIL RIGHTS issue, as the US citizens in Puerto Rico
    DON'T have equal rights to those that reside on the mainland. It is a
    VOTING SUPRESSION issue, as the current territorial arrangement
    disenfranchises all 3.2 million US citizens living in the island.
    Puerto Rico provides one of the highest per-capita military
    participation rates in the Nation. Yet, they do not have the right to
    vote for their Commander in Chief. Over 100,000 veterans that reside in
    the Island have less rights than their fellow brothers/sisters in arms
    in the States.
    Hector Del Valle
        I am a citizen who advocates for the integration of Puerto Rico as
    the 51st state of the Union. Unfortunately, a lot of us citizens do not
    like the idea of Puerto Rico entering the Federation because they think
    that the Island ``will become a paradise for welfare or the next
    Northern Ireland''.
        I will analyze a myth that people believe about Puerto Rico's
    integration as a state, as well as the solution:
        A ``Welfare Paradise'': The problem in Puerto Rico is that 60% of
    the population is below the poverty level, caused in part because the
    unemployment rate, in Puerto Rico has been more than 10 percent. If
    Puerto Rico becomes a state, this problem can be solved applying the
    enterprise zones concept based on Jack Kemp's model. This will attract
    more industries into the island's economy and secure the United States'
    supply chain (a matter of national security), as we need a measure that
    will give industries in Puerto Rico a wage credit, for example, as an
    incentive to stay in the island and create more employment
    opportunities.
        I am not for a welfare paradise concept as some people say and
    think about this, but when a state enters the Union, it recieves what
    it needs, and gives to the USA Treasury what it can give--the economic
    parity concept. it is obvious, however, that Puerto Rico will get more
    federal funds than nowadays, as part of a taxation redefinition
    process, but it will go to people that nowadays really need it: the
    elderly and handicapped (by means of the Supplemental Social Security
    Income), the veterans, and more Medicaid funds to the poor who needs
    it. The legislation that was approved in the past on welfare reform has
    had the objective of stopping welfare dependency as a destructive
    lifestyle and it is requiring able people to look for a decent work,
    while giving appropiate daycare for single mothers.
        Puerto Ricans are American citizens since 1917, but second class
    citizens. we do not vote for the selection of the selection of the
    President, and we do not have voting Congressmen. We only have our
    Resident Comissioner, Jennifer Gonzalez-Colon who does not have a vote
    in Congress.
        Mr. Congressman, I think time has come for Puerto Ricans to choose
    their final destination, not to stay in the political limbo any longer.
    I think this bill has to definitely solve the status problem once and
    for all. I support his initiative to solve this problem. House Speaker
    Nancy Pelosi should support this initiative too. I hope that after
    reading this statement you will also continue to support it, as well as
    the choice of statehood for the Island. May God bless you.
        I also hope you reply to this statement with your comments or
    questions. I also request that this statement be admitted for the
    record.

        Addendum:
        The Federal Enterprise Zones and the economic future of Puerto Rico
    in a domestic environment:
        By: Hector L. Del Valle Beauchamp
        Puerto Rico, economically speaking, has hit bottom. That is why
    this writing analyzes an opportunity that could, if applied to our
    island, provide us with great relief, who knows if more, in the
    precarious environment we have today: the Federal Enterprise Zones.
        Since 1993, the Federal Government of the United States has
    established this type of program in different jurisdictions where the
    level of poverty is very high. At that time, President William J.
    Clinton promoted this concept in areas such as the Appalachia, the
    Mississippi River Delta, Indigenous reservations, and pockets of
    poverty in cities such as Miami and Los Angeles.
        The concept originates in the United Kingdom under Margaret
    Thatcher, adopted in the 1980s by Jack Kemp, then a Congressman, and
    finally implemented by the administration of William J. Clinton. The
    versions since then have been several, depending on the ideology,
    Democrat (Zones of Economic Growth under Barack Obama), and Republican
    (proposal of Senator Rand Paul (S. 1551 in 2017)).
        Benefits that are proposed are the following, among others:
        (1) Incentives for hired employees residing within the designated
    Zone.
        (2) Flexibility and preferences to be able to coordinate and
    participate expeditiously in Federal assistance programs and to access
    Federal government resources (streamlining).
        (3) Deduction of 100% in expenses in investment works in qualifying
    capital works (expensing).
        (4) Allow higher deductions for charitable contributions.
        (5) Allow foreign investors (who have the resources) to enter the
    United States to invest.
        (6) Funds to allow a great improvement in the quality of education
    in the Area.
        We have to rejuvenate the depressed communities in Puerto Rico. In
    these designation analysis, more than 90% of the island would qualify.
    The message to Washington is clear: help us to help ourselves to escape
    the imminent abyss that beset us, and this already has a great sense of
    urgency. This initiative, working hand to hand with the already
    existing ``Federal Opportunity Zones Program'' can have great results
    to even become extremely synergistic!
        I hope that every square inch of Roosevelt Roads Can be developed
    with this legislation. Furthermore, combined with the designation of
    the former petrochemical complex in the Penuelas-Guayanilla area . . .
    With EPA Superfund monies to decontaminate such premises . . .
    Nehemias Rodriguez
        Hello Congress, The blood of Puerto Rican soldiers are claiming for
    justice. 123 years of colony are enough. Past November 3, 2020 655,505
    puertoricans, 52.52% of the electoral votes, said no to colony and yes
    to Statehood. Congress must hear the people of Puerto Rico. Congress
    must act now. No more colony. say yes to PR Status Act. No more
    excuses.
    Bethzaida Falcon
        Saludos, Sr. Raul Grijalva nosotros los residentes de Puerto Rico
    tenemos el derecho que se nos escuchen. Y siempre hemos vivido bajo el
    Estado Libre Asociado de Puerto Rico. Que es la formula bajo el Partido
    Popular Democratico PPD. Entiendo que se debe de incluir la formula del
    ELA. No La Libre Asociacion y bajo el ELA hemos disfrutado. Todo los
    beneficios que tenemos que bueno ha sido el ELA y los mucho que el
    partido Nuevo Progresista PNP. Y el partido Independentista
    Puertorriqueno PIP han disfrutado. De los beneficios bajo el estatus
    actual nadie que no viva aqui. Debe de imponernos una formula que este
    pais, que no conocemos, no hemos vivido. Y no queremos como residentes
    Puerto Rico. Con respeto le exijo que se incluya al el ELa muchas
    gracias por su atencion.
    Roberto Rivera
        Honorable Members of Congress: It is with great respect and
    humility that I submit this proposal for a completely different
    paradigm to achieve statehood for Puerto Rico: to become part of an
    existing US state, Florida, via annexation.
        Historically the sole focus of our local statehood leadership,
    especially from the Partido Nuevo Progresista or PNP, has been to
    become the 51st state of the Union, with it's own governor,
    Congressional and Senate representatives, it's own state legislature,
    and most importantly all the immense political power and budget that
    comes with that. But the pro-statehood citizens of Puerto Rico do not
    care about local leadership achieving all that power--they just want to
    become a state. Most of US Congress and Senate members, as well as
    state governments, do not want a new state as many of them would lose
    Congressional and Senate representation to a new state.
        Becoming a County (or a few counties) of a greater state like
    Florida removes these objections, and allows for an expedient and
    simpler process for Puerto Rico to become a County within a much larger
    and powerful state such as Florida. Just by this union the PR economy
    would flourish--tourism, manufacturing, energy, services, remote
    workers, healthcare, etc would flock to PR given the special tax zoning
    (coded in federal laws that include states), lower salaries, high
    performing bilingual professional pool. We would gain all the benefits
    of Florida residents, particularly access to public institutions of
    higher education in mainland Florida, and the reverse is also true for
    mainland Floridians to have access to resident status and fees at our
    local public universities. The state of Florida will get all the
    benefits of an immediate addition of 3.5 million citizens: sales taxes
    in the billions each year, federal appropriations that are based on
    number of citizens, an area where businesses from other states and
    countries would flock to and add to Florida's tax revenue, a really big
    island to attract additional out of state tourism, and the voting
    loyalty to those who support and implement this option. And the list of
    benefits go on, including Florida state level supervision of Puerto
    Rico County level officials, Florida laws and regulations, court
    system, etc.
        It is my humble opinion that this option be presented to the people
    of Puerto Rico, either as a separate 4th option to becoming the 51st
    state and alongside free associated state and independence, or as an
    sub-option within the statehood alternative alongside but separate from
    becoming the 51st state.
        Please let the people decide, not the statehood politicians who
    primarily are seeking 51st state level power. I also firmly believe
    this annexation option is an alternative that has a much better chance
    of approval by Congress as well as the citizens of Florida, where
    million of their citizens are from Puerto Rican ascendence, and many
    others sympathetic to the immediate boost to Florida's economy such an
    annexation would represent.
    Amanda Rivera Lebron
        Self-determination is a human right, and a critical principle of
    international law, the supreme law of the land in the US. Statehood for
    Puerto Rico means equal rights for all US citizens, in line with the
    central tenets of the US Constitution. The law is on our side.
        Be on the right side of history. Give the US citizen residents of
    PR the right to vote out of the colonial status quo and let democracy
    decide.
        Whoever rejects a binding referendum, fears the true will of the
    people. Let democracy thrive and decide. Statehood now.
    Jessu Perez
        There is a very flagrant flaw in this bill in the naming of the
    free association option. ``Sovereignty in Free Association with the
    United States'' is confusing, misleading, biased, and asynchronous with
    the other two options.
        In international law, each of the non-territorial options
    constitute a FULL measure of sovereignty, including independence and
    statehood. To single out one of the options as ``sovereignty'' would be
    misleading and problematic. It would cause serious validity concerns in
    the plebiscite as it would infer, to the common eye, that the other two
    options do not constitute a full measure of sovereignty.
        If you single out free association option as ``Sovereignty in Free
    Association,'' then you'd be obligated to also adjust the other two
    options as well in order to mitigate bias and ensure an educated
    electorate base.
        One might suggest:
        Sovereignty with Integration with the United States (Statehood)
        Sovereignty with Free Association with the United States (Free
    Association)
        Sovereignty with National Independence (Independence)
        To avoid these superflous names, the free association option should
    simply be named ``Independence with a Treaty of Free Association,'' or
    ``Independence with Free Association'' in order to satisfy common
    international law principles when it comes to choosing this status
    option.
        Please fix the bill in the markup to resolve this key issue in the
    draft.
        Thanks for your attention!
    Raul L. Cotto-Serrano
        Honorable Members of Congress, my name is Raul L. Cotto-Serrano. I
    am a professor of political science at the University of Puerto Rico/
    Rio Piedras. I earned a PhD in political science/ philosophy from the
    University of Massachusetts/Amherst.
        My general position is that the draft concerning the relation
    between Puerto Rico and the United States fails to address the reality
    of the situation.
        The situation is that in the present and for the foreseeable
    future, none of the three proposed alternatives is viable. I am
    identifying ``viability'' with a reasonable degree of economic self
    sustainability. In other words: the ability to create and sustain
    moderate economic growth in a reasonably autonomous way. I believe that
    this level of self sufficiency is a necessary condition for any of the
    formulas proposed and I also believe that none of them meet this
    essential requirement.
        Never in its history has the United States admitted a territory as
    a state with the purpose of completely sustaining it economically thus
    creating a situation of total dependency. This would have been
    unreasonable and counterproductive.
        Regarding the statehood alternative, the level of economic
    dependency existing now and for almost a century in relation to the
    United States is extremely high. This extreme dependency is the result
    of policies established by the United States and by the Puertorrican
    government. The pro-statehood movement has been most emphatic in
    deepening this dependence as an attempt to diminish the cultural-
    nationalistic identity already existing in the Island for centuries and
    prevent it from generating a powerful political nationalism. This
    policy has been counterproductive because extreme dependency is an
    obstacle to statehood.
        Independence is also a non-viable proposition under the present
    circumstances. Making independence viable would require a serious
    program of import-substitution and the elimination of legal
    arrangements presently in place. This, in turn, would require a
    vigorous economic program financed by the United States during at least
    40 or 50 years. A program such as this would require the full
    commitment of two generations of Puertorricans devoted to the
    development of their country as a self-sustaining entity. It would
    receive, at least initially, fierce opposition from the local ruling
    class which profits from being intermediaries between United States
    capital and local consumption. The present levels of corruption, which
    imply putting self-interest above the common good, is very pervasive
    not only in the corporate and public sectors but also in the civil
    society. This is a source of pessimism concerning the project of
    independence which is the one I favor.
        As for the ``Free Association'', it is an attempt to perpetuate the
    existing situation of extreme dependency with some degree of
    international legitimacy. Apart from other internal inconsistencies, it
    is also a non-sustaining proposition with an illusionary sovereignty: a
    neo-colony.
        It is my understanding that you are trying to respond to the wrong
    question by thinking that the main issue here is to know what are the
    preferences or wishes of the voting population of Puerto Rico. The
    question you need to ask yourselves is rather: what is the economic
    project the United States is willing to support and finance in order to
    facilitate Puerto Rico becoming a self-sustaining entity both
    politically and economically. If you fail to address the problem from
    this perspective the territory will remain a source of continuous
    discontent and confrontation both in the Island, overseas, and in the
    Continental United States.
    Jose Rivera
        There are essentially only 3 political status options for Puerto
    Rico. The current ``Estado Libre Asociado (a non incorporated territory
    called a colony by its opposers), a fully incorporated State of the
    Union and and a totally independent state. The current debate on Puerto
    Rico Status in this house committee is an achievement of those that
    oppose the current political status. History will show that under its
    current status, Puerto Rico underwent a massive economic recovery and
    was favored by the island residents in three major plebiscite over the
    other two options. The ELA opposition or ``Pro Statehooders'' and pro
    independence, soon realized that that their losses in plebiscites were
    attributable to certain benefits such as the 936 excise tax clause
    which favored manufacturing operations in Puerto Rico, was an essential
    component of PR's economic success and was only available with an ELA
    status. The third political party are the pro independence of Puerto
    Rico which is historically favored by less than 4% except in the last
    elections in which the achieved approximately 6%. In 1996, pro
    statehooder Governor Pedro Rosello sent a letter to US Congress,
    expressing that Puerto Rico does not support the ``936 excise tax
    clause any longer''. US Congress fazed out that program in 5 years and
    in 1990 Puerto Rico economy started turning for the worst. A
    substantial amount of manufacturing operations left the island along
    with over a 100,000 employees. this caused a chain reaction of negative
    indicators in construction, bank financing, government bonds value,
    etc. The course irreversibly led to PR's bankruptcy. All the ELA
    opposers were quick to blame the ELA status as the cause of the
    bankruptcy. They even adopted the term ``Colony'' as the cause of all
    evil to describe ELA to gain more support to counter it.
        The truth is that the islanders have not had a chance to fairly
    express their wish for a political status because all subsecuent
    plebiscites have been designed and loaded against ELA by its political
    oponents. ELA supporters believe that under the current status, a
    return to reasonable manufacturing levels is not only posible but vital
    to a sustained economic recovery. No other political option can do
    that.
        Congress should, above all protect democracy and to achieve that,
    should not delete any option in any future plebiscite. Congress should
    also call for a second vote, in which the first two winners in the
    first vote, are then voted on. Above all Congress must be the only
    source of what each option entails and not leave that up to local
    politicians to interpret.
        Keep in mind that a ``Free Associated State'' is the same as an
    independence status. Also keep in mind that as a Pro statehooder,
    Jennifer Gonzalez, wishes to compete with any definition of an
    independence status for an easy victory and in so doing pursues
    eliminating ELA as an option. She is knowledgeable of local politics
    and exploits the use of terms like ``non-territorial or ``colony'' to
    convince Congress to eliminate the only option that leads to the loss
    of the pro statehooders party. It is also predictable that in the
    eventuallity that this ill fated bill is ever approved, The ELA party
    in Puerto Rico will not participate in that event.
    Bernard Gonzalez
        Honorable Members of Congress, I thank you for dedicating your
    valuable time to help resolve the colonial status of Puerto Rico.
    Puerto Rico represents an unsolved problem for the United States. It is
    important to resolve Puerto Rico status to one that is aligned with
    international right: Statehood, Independence or Free Association with
    the United States. We shall not lose the momentum to address among all
    Honorable Members of Congress the current colonial status of Puerto
    Rico which harms all American citizens living in Puerto Rico.
    Gilberto Flores
        I used to believe in Statehood until I learned in 2012 that Puerto
    Rico's past as a Province of Spain, its Senators (1871-1898) and
    Congressmen (Diputados 1809-1898) in the Spanish Parliament had been
    erased by the US sanctioned colonial education system, of course this
    only for the benefit of US colonial rule and disempowerment of Puerto
    Ricans against it. Alas the colony administrators obeyed, today knowing
    these facts and doing everything in their power through well-known
    corrupt use of public funds they have colluded to stop the people of
    Puerto Rico from knowing these undeniable truths and keeping them from
    learning about the reunification movement (Integration U.N. Charter
    1541, 1960) thinking we may disappear, they offer nothing but empty
    124-year-old lies/words and are destined to wither accordingly through
    weariness. Educating about our political future means these truths need
    to come to light, be taught and learned, people from diverse
    backgrounds support reunification, ex statehood supporters like me, ex
    commonwealth supporters and ex independence supporters I've met and
    together we can reach a consensus NO other status formula can offer, as
    annexation is unrealistic and not only next to impossible but a threat
    to Puerto Rican Hispanic culture, language and heritage in an ever more
    radical and racially problematic US, with no real economic forecast or
    model than more US federal government expenditures and dependence;
    while Free Association and Independence (both Neocolonialism) will not
    only promote but are counting on a mass exodus of Puerto Ricans (a
    burden shifted to the US) and include political/economic uncertainty.
    In the opposite Reunification not only provides for the protection and
    renewal of Puerto Rico's Hispanic heritage, but also provides the
    means, stability and tools to promote the return of Puerto Ricans to
    the Island, and not be scattered around a foreign country of a foreign
    culture and language with a long history of systemic discrimination
    against Puerto Ricans, 124 years of political limbo with no democratic
    representation are witness to that. Reunification is the ONLY consensus
    gathering option, return what was stolen and restore the Autonomous
    Province of Puerto Rico, Spain's First Historic Autonomous Community.
    Autonomy, REAL Autonomy, like the privilege the Province of Puerto Rico
    fought for through most of the 19th century and gloriously achieved
    from its country Spain, is a U.N. charter recognized form of
    decolonization in the 21st century. Any other formula of
    ``decolonization'' that have appeared since the unilaterally imposed US
    invasion of 1898 are yet more forms of impositions on the will of the
    people of Puerto Rico, denied of our real past and history in order to
    disarm us against undemocratic US colonialism throughout more than a
    century. Decades of seeking autonomy from the US by a majority of
    Puerto Ricans are proof that Puerto Rico and its people were stuck in
    requesting, wanting, demanding from the US, and autonomy impossible
    under the US constitution, what was conquered and lost from Spain in
    1898 due to the US's unwanted and unilateral invasion. I am ex
    statehooder am a Puerto Rican of Spaniard descent, therefore a
    Spaniard, NOT an American, and the reason why we are still a colony,
    forced to exile in a foreign country (US) because of colonial
    economical failure by design, as colonies (territories) cannot be
    allowed to prosper more than the poorest US federated state to justify
    statehood ``superiority'' despite Puerto Rico's obvious advantages,
    wanting vehemently to return through reunification.
    Jose Lara
        Founded in 2017, Adelante Reunificacionistas is a non-partisan
    Puerto Rican/Spanish advocacy group with the goal of restoring the
    Autonomous Province of Puerto Rico lost through violence by the
    unwanted and unsolicited invasion of the Province of Puerto Rico, Spain
    by the US in 1898. Reunification is Integration: U.N. Resolution 1541,
    1960. We Reunificacionistas are Puerto Ricans that come from all the
    other century old main ideologies on the island, a colony of the US
    since 1898, and together we fight to release Puerto Rico from the
    burden of colonialism by removing the main problem factor, the colonial
    rule the US imposes over the Province of Puerto Rico since 1898 by
    searching for a future of well being within our motherland Spain. We
    believe Puerto Rico is Spain and know it was a province military
    invaded and separated from its country by force. We focus on fomenting
    the political option of Integration by reunifying Puerto Rico, Spain's
    First Historical Autonomous Province and its de facto first Autonomous
    Community and restore it by making Puerto Rico the 18th Autonomous
    Community of Spain, a stable and political option full of opportunities
    and possibilities that allows for the return of the Puerto Rican
    diaspora, the safe keeping of Puerto Rico's inherent Hispanic culture,
    language, idiosyncrasy and heritage, political and economical
    stability, security; respect for the US's own right to protect its self
    cultural identity, all this within Spain and the European Union, long-
    standing US economical and political allies and partners. Restoring the
    Autonomous Province of Puerto Rico means the reacquisition of the 3
    Senators and 16 Congressmen (Diputados) Puerto Rico lost due to the
    1898 US invasion only to get a Resident Commissioner with no vote.
    Puerto Rico had Senators since 1871 in the Spanish Parliament,
    Diputados in the Spanish Congress since 1809, this history has been
    hidden from Puerto Ricans as Inconvenient Truths that endangered the US
    past interest of keeping colonial grasp over Puerto Rico, that is not
    the case anymore, as such, a free determination and democratic process
    that allegedly seeks to educate the people of the island on their
    future cannot be cemented on the hiding of truths inconvenient to US
    colonialism, and the efforts of the colonial elite to stop the
    knowledge of these, as well of the existence of the reunification
    movement should be stopped, the world is watching and from Mexico to
    Patagonia and as well as Europe they know about our existence and hard
    efforts in frontal confrontation with a colonial corrupt elite that
    despises ideological competition. We will remain active, ready and
    vigilant for our moment under the sun as all these other so called
    ``options'' are increasingly worn out, this ``Puerto Rico Status Act
    Discussion Draft'' bound to be yet again an empty effort, yet we are
    vigilant, as annexation endangers the future of Puerto Ricans in an
    ever more radicalized and divided US, and thus, for or sakes, cannot be
    allowed to happen. Bound to the Jones Act, no economic model but that
    of ever increasingly dependency of more US Federal Government transfers
    and subsidies, while endangering Puerto Rican culture. We remain
    vigilant as Free Association and ``Independence'' from the US will be
    in practice forms of neocolonialism, add their instability, uncertainty
    prospects, and the accounted for possibility by their proponents of a
    major exodus of Puerto Ricans to the US, accounted for due to their
    projections for lacking economical prospects and outcomes. These so
    called ``options', more likely impositions whose existence (except
    independence) are linked to the US invasion of the Province of Puerto
    Rico, do not all provide for the return of a major chunk of the Puerto
    Rican diaspora, the political/economical stability and security in the
    islands, and the protection and restoration of Puerto Rico's inherent
    Hispanic heritage. it is only Fair and an exercise of Justice to allow
    Puerto Ricans to Return to the Path Drawn and Chosen by our Ancestors/
    Forefathers (which are NOT the US's forefathers, as Puerto Rico has
    existed way well before the idea of the US was ever conceived) before
    the Undemocratic Burden of Colonialism was imposed in 1898 by the
    United States of America over the residents of the Autonomous Province
    of Puerto Rico, Spain's First De Facto and Founding Autonomous
    Community. A list of Historical Senators, Diputados (Congressmen) a
    Treaty between the US and Spain recognizing the US knowledge of Puerto
    Rico's status as a Province of Spain, REAL Autonomy and more, are
    available on our platform for all US lawmakers and people of interest
    to access. Regards. Adelante (Go Forward).
    Wilfredo Valentin
        IngenieriA Politica Publica
        1--Introduccion
        ! Ea Rayos, que tremendo susto pase anoche! Hoy me desperte luego
    de un sueno de consternacion, tan y tan real que desperte asustado.
    Llame de inmediato a mi hermano Rudy a Tampa USA porque es un amante de
    la doctrina de la gran nacion y le conte mi sueno y me dijo ``es que te
    acuestas pensando con pajaritos prenados'', Luego llame a mi otro
    hermano, Roberto; que reside en Guaynabo y al contarselo me dijo:
    ``Estas Loco, eso nunca pasara, esto se quedara como esta y punto.''
    Finalmente, llame a un amigo Abogado en Boca de Raton USA, que silba de
    alegria por volver a vivir sus entornos infantiles en Puerto Rico y al
    contraeselo grito de alegria y me solicito que le contara como se
    soluciono lo ocurrido. Asi lo hice, pero confieso que todavia me he
    quedado medio turbado y la otra mitad aturdido y asi tambien quedo el
    abogado al que se lo conte.
        Espero que al lector no le suceda lo mismo al compartir lo que me
    sucedido en el sueno.
        Aclaro que la solucion final que recibi en el sueno creo que puede
    ser real pero existen circunstancias que no recuerdo claramente porque
    el espacio del contorno del sueno fue en futuro!, oyeme bien, creo que
    era entre los anos 2050 y 2060?
        El drama de suspenso de mi sueno comenzo 25 anos antes del periodo
    de tiempo que se materializo el final o sea pasando 2025. Recuerdo que
    fue cuando se retiro la Junta de Control Fiscal que gobierna
    actualmente PR porque saldaron todas las deudas a los accionistas de
    los Estados Unidos de America (USA) dejando a Puerto Rico en quiebra
    total y se marcharon. Simultaneamente el Presidente de la Gran Nacion
    en un mensaje de ``tuitero'' de medianoche desde su despacho en
    Washington indico lo siguiente: Yo Presidente de la Nacion
    Norteamericana declaro a la Isla de Puerto Rico (preparate para oir
    esto) descolonizada y queda completamente libre para que los
    puertorriquenos hagan lo que realmente le salga en gana con ese
    territorio y no me pidan mas chavos porque me tienen bien molesto con
    sus peleas internas politicas y corrupcion constante y por eso . . .
    Adios Amigos, . . . hasta nunca.
        Que harias tu si al despertarte un dia te enteras de un mansaje
    parecido sin previo aviso? Sin ningun plan de gobernanza previamente
    preparado y Puerto Rico quebrado economicamente? Crees que estariamos
    en un CAOS nacional pensando que todas las plataformas de partidos
    politicas comiencen halando por su lado si ninguna planificacion y
    reclamando que esta isla es de ellos? Como dice el jibaro ``Ay
    ..Bendito'' Pues ahorra debes tener una idea de mi sueno aterrador que
    te pienso detallar y el cual todavia me tiene aturdido pero luego me
    dio el deseo de explicar el sentido del sueno y logre escribir 48
    modulos (capitulos para otras personas) y te lo voy a exponer en forma
    de resumen compactado la cuales indica una solucion cientifica de
    ingenio para vivir finalmente feliz y en armonia en esta Isla luego de
    la noticia de la descolonizacion Aclaro, que aunque es dificil
    confrontarnos con esta idea nunca antes concebida, la misma continuara
    de locos hasta que algun dia se haga realidad. Verdaderamente pienso
    que mi despertar me alejo de mi congoja. Pero confieso que antes de
    despertar convivi en una sacudida de una gobernanza que arropo
    felizmente la politiqueria y finalmente.
        2
        luego de dos a tres decadas, pude ver como los partidos se
    reinventaron en sus organizaciones creando una nueva forma de
    gobernanza hibrida/cientifica. Creeme que fue algo bello y agradable
    vivir en ese periodo de ese sueno y fue por eso que desperte asustado
    al volver a la realidad actual.
        Lee el contexto de mi sueno el cual esta revelando en el Resumen
    Sumario, Modulo 46, para conocer que paso luego de la descolonizacion.
    Constantemente se habla mucho descolonizar a Puerto Rico pero no se
    dice que pasara y que haremos luego. No hay nada instruido,
    posiblemente sera improvisado. Por esa razon, mi sueno me asusto porque
    vi la isla finalmente en hermandad y en convivencia entre los partidos
    politicos con un plan bien determinado y me parecio tan y tan real,
    pero al despertar, me acorde de que los suenos . . . suenos son.
        3
        Procedo a explicar un tema que es una Utopia Politica la cual en
    este momento historico que estamos viviendo es parte de una dosis
    amortiguadora para nuestro diario vivir de gobernanza en Puerto Rico.
    No obstante, como todas las ``Fantasias Politicas ``su aplicacion sera
    util en un futuro que posiblemente requiera tres decadas partiendo
    desde el 2018 para entenderlo y comenzar a apreciar e interpretar sus
    frutos sociales. Posiblemente y sin duda alguna, los que estamos
    leyendo el contenido de este escrito nunca lo podremos vivir.
        Es de desconocimiento que mucha de la tecnologia actual fue
    preconcebida hace decadas pasadas y es ahora que disfrutamos sus
    aplicaciones y ventajas, pues asi posiblemente sera esta propuesta que
    ahora es utopica, pero no sabemos si dentro de 30 anos sea una
    realidad.
        En esta introduccion se pretende establecer que todo el contenido
    que aqui se exprese es de caracter hipotetico y de vision no
    preconcebida anteriormente de un concepto de gobernanza politica.
        Como lo que se va a expresar es un concepto controversial y de
    ideas no perceptibles es prudente comenzar en el espacio al tiempo
    actual para el desarrollo de su contenido.
        Como en todo nuevo punto de vista se desarrollan nuevas ideas,
    nuevas visiones politicas, nuevos matices operacionales de hacer cosas
    diferentes y nuevas idea y variaciones de gobernanzas politicas para
    Puerto Rico e indiscutiblemente, una resistencia a cambios y esta no es
    la excepcion. Es importante comenzar con identificar el concepto con un
    nombre que defina este proceso de aplicacion cientifica. El nombre que
    seleccionado no existente en la actualidad en los contornos de las
    Ciencias y menos en la Ciencias Politicas y de la Ingenieria. Es de tal
    manera que hasta el nombre elegido es algo extrano e inexistente. El
    nombre escogido es: Ingenieria Aplicada en Politica Publica. Verdad que
    suena raro? En este preambulo no es recomendable explicar el concepto
    de esta ingenieria, pero si se explica posteriormente en uno de los
    modulos descriptivos del proceso.
        Ahora, todos conocemos o hemos oido el significado y/o definiciones
    de la palabra Ingenieria y la de Politica. Lo que desconocemos como se
    pueden integrar ambas en una fundicion cientifica.. Algo tienen en
    comun, porque ambas son ciencias contundentes a otorgar grados
    academicos de bachilleratos, maestrias y doctorados Es por lo antes
    descrito que existen aplicaciones comunes a justificar sus
    interacciones cientificas con la Ingenieria.
        Luego de ofrecer una breve explicacion de la amplitud de los
    estudios conducentes en aspectos de las Ciencias Politicas, la cual mas
    o menos en una forma o en otros todos hemos tenidas vivencias en sus
    vaivenes, nos dedicaremos a definir la palabra Ingenieria.
        4
        Antes de abundar mas en el concepto de la Ingenieria creo que es
    prudente y sensato establecer que mi primer diploma Universitario fue
    otorgado por la Universidad de Puerto Rico, Recinto de Mayaguez, antes
    Colegio de Agricultura y Artes Mecanicas de Mayaguez (CAAM). Este
    pergamino indica, entre otras cosas: Bachiller en Ciencias de
    Ingenieria.
        No obstante, podriamos practicamente unir las Ciencias Politicas
    con las Ciencias de Ingenieria como dos ciencias fusionadas adquiriendo
    el nombre de ciencias en Ingenieria de Politicas. A este Nombre se le
    debe anadir un adjetivo usando la palabra Publica: Ingenieria de
    Ciencias Politicas Publicas o simplemente Ingenieria en Ciencia de
    Politicas Publica La gran diferencia que expresa esta utopia es que por
    primera vez se estudia este fenomeno cientifico usando la creacion de
    una ciencia aplicada de ingenieria para politica publica donde no es
    que la politica publica adquiere los conceptos de la ingenieria ni que
    la ingenieria adquiere la ciencias politicas es que se unen para hacer
    una nueva ingenieria aplicada en politica publica. Aunque no es facil
    de entender, la nueva fusion de conceptos cientificos, la ingenieria de
    Politica Publica dejando al lado los conceptos de estudios legales y
    aplicado leyes humanitarias de convivencias. No absorbe conceptos de
    las leyes creadas por el ser humano sino de conceptos cientificas de
    ingenieria aplicada de leyes naturales y cientificas en su aplicacion
    en conceptos organizaciones y funciones de asuntos tecnicos y
    cientificos de la politica.
        Actualmente, cuando se estudian Ciencias Politicas toda esta
    creado, estudiada, realizada y lo que se ejecuta son aplicaciones de
    nuevas leyes y diferentes conceptos y formas de realizar politica hasta
    crear un sistema que satisfaga a parte de la ciudadania
        pero no en su totalidad mediante sistemas democraticos de
    elecciones. Lo preponderante es que son conceptos creados por seres
    humanos y asi como los crean asi mismo los cambian o eliminan a
    necesidades particulares y/o a beneficios partidistas.
        Por otro extremo la Ingenieria Politica Publica pretende crear,
    desarrollar, inventar y aprobar diferentes formas cientificas de
    gobernanzas y que sean los conceptos de estas leyes de ciencias
    politicas las que apliquen como herramientas para desarrollar nuevos
    conceptos de aplicaciones politicas y por consiguiente un sistema de
    gobernanza nuevo eliminando los paradigmas e ideales particulares.
        Estoy bien convencido que todavia no he explicado nada del concepto
    de la nueva forma de gobernanza aplicando la Ingenieria Politica Pubica
    y ya comenzamos atraer controversias de criterios apartados de que es
    eso de Ingenieria Politica Publica? Ya habia expresado al principio que
    NO EXISTE la ingenieria politica. Como todo lo nuevo y mas si no es
    convencional crea inquietudes, diferencias de opiniones y comentarios,
    unos a favor y otros a destruir en concepto porque no lo entienden o
    por razones personales y punto. Este comportamiento humano es conocido
    como ``resistencia a los cambios.'' Recordemos que todo cambio trae
    resistencia. Lo interesante de este concepto es como no existe, ni ha
    existido nunca, no se pueden hacer conjeturas de
        5
        que no sirve por lo tanto, ni hay experiencias previas para ser
    comparados de lo bueno ni lo malo. Existe una realidad y es que lo
    existente no satisface al pueblo. Lo que si podemos estar en acuerdo es
    que la manera de gobernanza actual de todos los partidos politicos en
    Puerto Rico y los que aparezcan posteriormente no ofrecen nada nuevo en
    politica sino asuntos reciclados. Unos mas aqui y otros menos haya, esa
    es la ecuacion costumbrista actual. Contrario a la Ingenieria Publica
    Publica porque existen formulas de ecuaciones cientificas para lograr
    una gobernanza para un cambio uniforme de gobernanza la cual no altera
    los ordenamientos internos de los partidos politicos existentes o
    futuros. No interviene con los ideales de los diferentes partidos
    politicos sino en la manera de gobernanza.
        Los conceptos de Ingenieria y los de Politica existen desde que el
    mundo es mundo y hemos vivido como estas dos ciencias desconocian como
    sus funciones y aplicaciones podian funcionarse para lograr una
    gobernanza publica con nuevas expectativas funcionales dejando atras
    aplicaciones legales para satisfacer a un partido o peor para destruir
    reputaciones y corporaciones con ideales contrarios a las que no sean
    afiliadas al partido que esta en el poder. En la Ingenieria Politica
    Publica esa practica no tiene espacio porque al incluir en su formula
    de gobernanza publica esa funcion como constante, la formula no la
    puede procesar y la descarta como una funcion introducida es su ``In
    Box'' reconociendola como funcion matematica de tipo basura ``Garbege''
    Hemos sido testigos que proyectos de Ciencias de Ingenieria que
    actualmente han prevalecido por muchas decadas y los disfrutamos
    historicamente y algunos antes de Cristo. No asi en conceptos de
    gobernanzas Politicas que han desaparecidos porque han sido funestas
    por sus gobernantes que ni siguiera deseamos mencionarlos. Lo que si
    conocemos es que actualmente son conceptos reciclados,
        Bueno mi querido lector, dejemos a un lado lo que te preocupa del
    titulo de Ingenieria Politica Publica porque deseo recordar que es un
    nombre ficticio y la ingenieria politica una forma utopica de nueva
    gobernanza cuando se une a la ciencias politicas. No deseo con este
    escrito traer polemicas porque no se ha dicho nada que no sea expresar
    conceptos nuevos para gobernanzas utopicas.
        Deseo aclarar que el que escribe este ensayo NO ES POLITICO, NO
    CONOCE NADA DE CIENCIAS POLITICAS, TAMPOCO ES ABOGADO NI NO PERTENECE A
    NINGUN PARTIDO POLITICO ni concurre con sus ideales. Solamente es un
    Ingeniero de Ciencias Aplicadas que practica su profesion como
    Ingeniero Consultor en Ingenieria de Peritaje Forense
        Lo ocurrente de este caso y nos debemos hacer la misma pregunta,
    Como es que con el perdigare de politica antes expresado yo pueda
    expresar ideas de gobernanzas politicas e idear una ciencias de
    Ingenieria en Ciencias de Politica Publica aplicada sin integrar y usar
    conceptos de Leyes constitucionales? Yo tambien me he hecho esas mismas
    preguntas y a veces me pregunto tambien como considerando que soy un
    neofito de la historia politica de Puerto Rico y reconociendo que lo
    que se de la historia es
        6
        solamente lo aprendido en las escuelas publicas de Puerto Rico y en
    la universidad en los cursos basicos me atrevo a desarrollar esta
    utopia de una nueva gobernanza para para Puerto Rico. Bueno, lo que se
    es que esas condiciones me han favorecido grandemente porque me
    considero que no estoy ``contaminado'' de los asuntos politicos de
    Puerto Rico y por tal razon veo razonamientos de nuevas y diferentes
    gobernanzas pero como no existe aplico mi preparacion academica que es
    la de ingeniar. En resumen en el proximo capitulo comenzare a describir
    el concepto que he desarrollado para Puerto Rico haciendo la salvedad
    que como es un tema de fantasia utopica espero que nadie opine que no
    funciona porque esto esta escrito para de aqui a tres o cuatro decadas
    y posiblemente el lector no este desacuerdo pero debera tener en cuenda
    que quizas no tenga la oportunidad de vivir en este Puerto Rico. por lo
    antes expresado el tema discutido lo usara solamente para conocimiento
    alterno de una nueva idea de gobernanza .Recordar que existiran otros
    puertorriquenos con formas diferentes de pensar como gobernar a Puerto
    Rico como lo que estoy pero los invito a que presentes sus ideas
        Concepto Analitico--La Caja Negra
        Nota Importante:
        Lo que a continuacion se expresa son conceptos puramente
    analiticos, matematicos y cientificos que se desarrollan para sostener
    la viabilidad para este proyecto. Lo escribi de esa manera para que los
    ciudadanos dedicados a la Politica Bananera de PR le sean facil de
    entender de donde sale este concepto de Ingenieria Politica que NO
    EXISTE EN NINGUNA PARTE DEL MUNDO, hasta este momento. Basicamente si
    no conocen la Ingenieria Social, no le sera facil entenderlo. Les
    recomiendo que la lean.
        El uso de los: IN--Box, Black Box y Out Box son conceptos de
    ingenieria, no de leyes.
        Cientificamente tuve la suerte y el entendimiento de poder probar
    que funcionaria sin las intervenciones aquellos ciudadanos que viven
    como sanguijuelas de la Politica Publica de PR los cuales son los
    menos, pero si existen. Lamentablemente estos pocos trabajan con el
    unico proposito de servirse propiamente o a su partido y no a un
    pueblo. Por sus acciones los conocemos. Sin ofender a nadie, pero en
    este tipo de gobernanza no hay lugar para incredulos ni corruptos
    porque el pueblo gobernado tendra su forma de evaluarles
    cientificamente. Si, como exprese, el pueblo gobernado, no la
    gobernanza. Este ensayo esta muy comprometido con los conceptos de las
    Ciencias Politicas y no con la politiqueria costumbrista en PR. A mi
    mejor entendimiento las bases de todos los Partidos existentes en PR
    son conceptos muy comprometidos, Lo que no son muy formales y serios
    son como lo realizan cuando han llegado a la etapa de sus gobernanzas,
    exceptuando aquellos partidos que nunca han gobernados pero sus
    conceptos son presentados con respeto y buenos ideales pero como nunca
    han gobernados se quedan en propuestas galacticas.
        7
        Lector creeme, que en donde existe una practica de Ciencias, la
    ingenieria aplica sus conocimientos para mejorar sus postulados. Como
    ejemplo facil de entender, en las Ciencias Medicas los Ingenieros han
    invadido la ciencia medica inventando nuevas tecnicas de operaciones y
    diagnosticos. Ya en PR se esta estudiando la Ingenieria Bio Medica con
    gran existo. Y porque no en la politica? Leete la Ingenieria Social y
    entenderas como aplica en la politica.
        MODULO #46-Resumen Sumario
        PARTE I--Condiciones favorables y requeridas para implantacion de
    este Proyecto Utopico
        a-Que la Junta de Control Fiscal de PR se disuelva o sea retirada
    de sus funciones de fiscalizar a PR.
        b-Que los Estados Unidos de America declare a la Isla de PR
    descolonizada y Libre.
        Nota de Redaccion
        (Es de conocimiento general que se desearia que estas I dos
    condiciones antes descritas se realicen en cualquier oportunidad en
    esta decada. Lo que no se ha indicado es que luego de cumplirse ambas
    condiciones que pasara en Puerto Rico y como nos gobernaremos. En este
    Sumario se describe lo establecido por la Ingenieria Politica Publica
    como una utopia politica, que podria ser realidad con alteraciones
    cosmeticas. Estos postulados deben ser presentados como alternativas.
    El ir a solicitar condiciones de estado sin tener nada para ofrecer y/o
    negociar para que todos salgan contentos, seria un resultado
    descomunal. Debemos indicarle al Congreso que si nos tan lo solicitado
    haremos lo presentado porque bajo la Ingenieria Politica Publica
    ganamos todos y la Nacion Americana quedaria completamente satisfecha.
    Ver Parte III.)
        Antes de haberse cumplido la condicion establecida anteriormente,
    es necesario crear con antelacion a estas dos condiciones una
    Constituyente de Ciudadanos Puertorriquenos compuesta por
    representantes del pueblo y diferentes partidos politicos existentes y
    reconocidos por la Comision de Elecciones para visitar el Congreso de
    los EU con el proposito de solicitar que el Gobierno Americano declare
    a Puerto Rico Descolonizada y Libre.
        Luego de haberse aceptado en consenso por unanimidad los terminos y
    condiciones que se iran a presentar mediante un proyecto de Ingenieria
    Politica Publica completamente detallado y que en su aplicacion
    contemple que todos los partidos representados y el pueblo de PR tengan
    el convencimiento y compromiso de que el mismo es para beneficio de
    nuestros ciudadanos. (Primer paso definido en la Ingenieria Politica
    Publica como (``IN-BOX'') segun Modulo # 3
        8
        PARTE II--A continuacion, un compendio del desarrollo de temas a
    ser analizados y como llegar a consenso preciso y analiticamente sin
    entrar en aspectos de ideales.
        Expondre el escenario favorable para cada representante de partido
    que basicamente se componen de tres partidos principales y aquellos que
    cada ano de elecciones comparecen pero el resultado de cantidad de
    votos obtenidos se mantienen relativamente bajos comparados con
    aquellos partidos que llevan anos en contiendas politicas. Tenemos que
    comenzar con analizar las estadisticas reales de los resultados en
    terminos de porcientos de los votos obtenidos en cada eleccion.
        Se requiere trabajar con variantes y constantes de resultados de
    elecciones tales como, por mencionar algunos, numeros de participantes
    en votaciones por anos a saber, votantes por partido y agrupar
    tendencias geograficas. Esto es con el proposito de procesarlos
    analiticamente en la formula matematica que nos proveera valores
    matematicos que representan numericamente el promedio de participacion
    de cada partido comparandolos con el area geografica presentadas en
    unidades de metros cuadrados reales del limite territorial de la Isla
    de Puerto Rico y segun se expresa en el Modulo #7.
        Esa informacion nos provee la certeza inequivoca que si podemos
    dividir la Isla de Puerto Rico en tres partes, pero no seria en partes
    iguales sino segun el% geografico y analitico que la formula provea.
    Estos resultados son representativos del historial de los que
    continuamente son seguidores fieles a cada partido ``conocidos como los
    del corazon del rollo'' identificados en la formula como valores
    constantes. Por otro lado, los que se afilian constantemente a
    diferentes partidos de eleccion a eleccion .Estos son ``conocidos como
    los indecisos'' e identificados en la formula como valores variables.
    (Segundo paso definido en la Ingenieria Politica Publica como ``BLACK-
    BOX'')
        En resumen, tendriamos un proyecto en donde cada partido politico
    tendria una porcion repartida de la totalidad del territorio de la isla
    de PR en propiedad absoluta y bajo el mismo criterio, una reparticion
    del dinero presupuestado. Estas reparticiones son proporcionales a su
    historial de seguidores y los resultados de constantes y variables
    obtenidos de las formulas usadas.
        Para lograr una estabilidad de gobernanza confiable, antes de que
    se otorgue la solicitud de descolonizacion y para dar continuidad a
    este proyecto NACIONAL es imprescindible crear un Organismo
    Constituyente de Ciudadanos de Puerto Rico (OCCPR) en paralelo a la
    Constituyente de Representantes Ciudadanos (CTC) para llevar a cabo las
    funciones relativas al proceso de distribucion parcelarias. En esta
    ocasion la composicion del OCCPR debe componerse de representantes que
    sean experto reconocido en asuntos como, y por mencionar algunos,
    Economia, Ingenieria, Psicologo, Sociologo, Ambientalista, Abogado,
    Seguridad Nacional, Arquitectos, Expertos en Salud, Educacion, Artes,
    Deportes y Desarrolladores en temas de Urbanismo, entre otros. Se hace
    la salvedad de no incluir ni Abogados, Doctores ni Ingenieros que se
    hayan
        9
        identificados politicamente afiliados en algun partido politico
    directo o indirectamente, solo un abogado experto en asuntos legales de
    temas internacionales y constitucionales. En esta composicion no se
    acepta mas de un experto para cada materia o conocimiento para evitar
    el control del organismo por una clase profesional en la composicion
    del OCCPR. En paralelo a la OCCPR se funciona otra organizacion de
    puertorriquenos que serviran de consultores y es en esta Junta que se
    uniran los ciudadanos que no cualifiquen como miembro de la OCCPR. Esta
    Junta no tendra ni voz no voto ante la OCCPR, Todo sera mediante
    procesos de asesoria y segun el Modulo # 16.
        La Isla se divide en tres (3) Naciones. Dos (2) en naciones
    Independientes; una para los seguidores del Partido Independentista y
    la otra para los creyentes del Partido Popular Democratico. La tercera
    prevalece como territorio anexado a los Estados Unidos de Norte America
    (USA) por sus siglas en ingles (Tercer y ultimo paso conocido como el
    ``OUT-BOX'')
        PARTE III--Distribucion de ``parcela ``-Nacion Estadista de PR
    (NEPR) Indiscutiblemente el territorio americano del Norte seria
    localizado territorialmente entre las dos Naciones Independientes para
    proposito de seguridad y controles internos Ademas, el proposito
    primordial es que Estados Unidos se mantenga en Puerto Rico pero con la
    seguridad que en su territorio solo viviran ciudadanos americanos
    leales a la Nacion Americana unicamente. El limite litoral dentro del
    territorio entregado para esta nacion esta delineado en el dibujo
    correspondiente de los limites de las tres naciones segun Modulo #4
        Este territorio sera una extension de propiedad absoluta de USA,
    donde el idioma gubernamental sera el Ingles, la Constitucion que
    reinara es la Americana, la ensenanza escolar seran en ingles, la
    seguridad policiaca, marina ejercito y aerea sera la misma que en los
    estados americanos No obstante, los puertorriquenos que deseen
    continuar siendo ciudadanos americanos continuaran con su pasaporte y
    ciudadania pero solamente tendran que pasar por controles de la
    diplomacia americana para que juramenten fidelidad a la nacion
    americana, constitucion y bandera nacional americana. Aquellos que no
    deseen jurar fidelidad a la constitucion americana y sus postulados
    detraen un plazo de 5 anos para su decision final, luego de terminado
    dicho plazo y si deseen prevalecer en la Nacion Americana tendran que
    entregar su pasaporte y regirse con todas las disposiciones que le
    aplican a cualquier extranjero. No obstante el Gobierno Americano sera
    reconocido mundialmente por haber terminado con la Colonia que tiene
    actualmente y no sabe como trabajar ese asunto. Saldria incolume de su
    actual senalamiento.
        Es de conocimiento general que conseguir la Estadidad para PR nos
    llevaria bastantes anos .Con este proyecto estariamos adelantando la
    estadidad porque el gobierno americano reducira en grande la ayuda que
    tendria que generar para sostener un territorio americano que comprenda
    toda la isla de Puerto Rico. En este caso se reduciria a los ciudadanos
    que verdaderamente desean ser gobernados por esta nacion.
        10
        Otra ventaja, y la que hay que presentar en este concepto, es que
    en el territorio donde se ubicaria la Nacion Americana, los
    administradores del gobierno serian puertorriquenos que reconocen que
    existen leyes mas rigurosas .De esta forma, el Gobierno Americano
    ganaria la confianza del Puertorriqueno y veria con buenos ojos evaluar
    con beneplacito una solicitud de los puertorriquenos para ser
    incorporados a la Nacion Americana como Estado porque reconocera que
    los que la piden son ``americanos del rollo''
        Para afincar el compromiso con la Nacion de los Estados Unidos de
    America (USA) este proyecto debe solicitar que el territorio
    perteneciente a nacion de USA inicialmente sea incorporado como una
    ciudad asociada al Estado de Florida por un periodo predeterminado
    hasta que se reconozca que ya esta lista para su estadidad. De la
    Nacion Americana interpretar que no le es favorable conservar ese
    territorio el mismo seria devuelto a la OCCPR para disponer del mismo
    distribuyendolo entre las dos naciones vecinas.
        Contrario a las otras dos naciones anejas a los EUA, en este
    territorio se usaria la economia moneda y pasaporte americano pero no
    asi en las otras naciones que tendrian que crear una constitucion nueva
    y sistema de pasaporte, exceptuando la Nacion Independiente que tiene
    su pasaporte formalizado y creado
        PARTE IV--Distribucion de ``parcela ``-Nacion Independentista de PR
    (NIPR)
        La localizacion donde se ubicara la Nacion Independiente de PR esta
    establecida al litoral Este de la Isla de Puerto Rico. Esta Nacion
    colinda por la region geografica ESTE del territorio los USA y sus
    limites maritimos se extienden desde parte del NORTE comenzando con la
    colindancia con territorio Norteamericano hasta el NORESTE del Oceano
    Atlantico. Continua por todo la costa del ESTE, incluyendo las Islas de
    Vieques y Culebra, y parte del Mar Caribe por el SUR hasta la
    colindancia con territorio Norteamericano e incluyendo cualquier de las
    islas colindantes de dicho litoral. Esta, adicional a la aportacion
    porcentual que les responderia en la distribucion de parcela, incluira
    las islas de Vieques y Culebra. Su proporcion en la distribucion de
    presupuesto auditado del Gobierno de PR tiene que ser equivalente al
    porcentaje de territorio cedido a su Nacion. El limite litoral dentro
    del territorio entregado para esta nacion esta delineado en el dibujo
    correspondiente de los limites de las tres naciones y segun Modulo # 4
        Esta Nacion Independiente tiene que presentar un plan economico,
    politica y de gobernanza ante la OCCPR. con el proposito de ayudarlos a
    obtener resultados favorables ya que no existe un historial de
    funciones previas de gobernanzas .La OCCPR es creada con esta finalidad
    de asesorar a las dos restantes Naciones que se componen de
    puertorriquenos para su exito y lograr sus metas. Relacionado con la
    Nacion de los Estado Unidos de America (USA) la aportacion que
    brindaria la OCCPR para su desarrollo nacional esta limitada por su
    constitucion. No obstante, estaria velando y cooperando por los mejores
    intereses de la Isla de PR.
        11
        La OCCPR tiene caracter de permanencia en la Isla de PR con los
    cambios requeridos en su composicion. Su funcion es equivalente las de
    las Naciones Unidas pero con limitacion y vision aguda a las tres
    naciones de Puerto Rico unicamente Tiene que ser reconocida por la
    Nacion Americana y asistir con el compromiso de lealtad y cooperacion
    mutua en la mejor convivencia con sus dos naciones adyacentes y en
    otros asuntos pertinentes que requiera nuestra isla nacional.
        Aunque la Nacion Independiente de PR (NIPR) tiene que ser autonoma
    legalmente, en su gobernanza y fisco y en su reconocimiento
    internacional, no cabe duda que requerira ayuda en sus comienzos de su
    gobernanza. Tendran que organizar su seguridad nacional de aire, tierra
    y costas marinas y para eso se organizara una union de seguridad
    integrada por las tres naciones para una proteccion conjunta una vez la
    OCCPR y el comando de seguridad de los USA asi lo entienda por
    solicitud de cualquiera de las dos naciones que componen la Isla
    Nacional de Puerto Rico.
        No se requerira la preparacion de su pasaporte porque este existe
    legalmente pero requiere redactar una constitucion segun lo dicte su
    gobierno. Aquellos ciudadanos americanos que actualmente sus creencias
    politicas no engranen con lo establecido en la Constitucion Americana y
    la que le otorgo su pasaporte y nunca le han jurado lealtad ni lo haran
    a los USA, deberan entregar su pasaporte para declararle lealtad
    incondicionada a la Nacion Independiente y ser reconocido como
    ciudadano fiel de esa Nacion y solicitar su pasaporte de dicha nacion.
    En el caso que deseen no entregar su pasaporte, la Nacion Independiente
    los afiliara con caracter nacionalista transitorio hasta un maximo de 1
    anos sin derecho a elegir Presidente ni derecho al voto. Luego seran
    traidos a la atencion del Parlamento de las leyes reglamentarias para
    considerar su solicitud de cambiar su estatus Transitorio a Ciudadano
    de la Nacion Independiente de lo contrario, consideralos con un
    ciudadano con estatus de emigrante extranjero independiente de la
    nacion que provenga .. Aquellos que no deseen jurar fidelidad a la
    constitucion de la Nacion Independentista y sus postulados y deseen
    prevalecer en la conviviendo en esa nacion tendran que regirse con
    todas las disposiciones que le aplican a cualquier extranjero. Las
    propiedades, negocios, oficinas. Centros Comerciales, Instituciones
    Comerciales, Universidades etc . . . quedaran propiedad del ciudadano
    que resida en cualquiera de estas naciones pero tendra que pagar
    contribuciones, IVU y Patentes a la Nacion donde resida y cualquier
    otra disposicion establecida por la constitucion desea nacion y/o
    leyes.
        El resultado esperado por estas condiciones es para evitar que se
    continue con la practica de estar cambiando de partido a partido
    buscando sus beneficios personales. Esta disposicion es aplicables
    tambien para los ciudadanos de la Nacion Estado Librita de Puerto Rico
    (NELPR).
        Nota de Redaccion: Si deseamos obtener una gobernanza diferente a
    la existente, pues se debe acabar con la practica de cambiar de partido
    pero sin ser leal a sus verdaderos sentidos patrioticos sino leales a
    sus beneficios personales y/o partidistas. Finalmente cada ciudadano
    tiene que decidir su estatus legal.
        12
        Relacionado con la seguridad interna del territorio .de la Nacion
    Independiente de Puerto Rico tiene que presentar un plan de seguridad
    nacional el cual tiene que ser evaluado y aprobado por la OCCPR que
    velara por la seguridad nacional de fronteras, limites territoriales y
    seguridad al ciudadano. Adicional la Nacion Independentista se regira
    por su propia seguridad interna que su nacion declare constitucional
    sin intervencion directa de la OCCPR siempre y cuando no se vea ningun
    atropello en lo que se refiera a conceptos humanitarios dentro de su
    nacion. En ese caso en particular se convocaria a la OCCPR para traer a
    colacion ante la junta nacional querellas al respecto.
        PARTE V--Distribucion de ``parcela ``-Nacion Estado Liberalitas
    (NELPR)
        La localizacion donde se legalizara la Nacion del Estado
    Liberalitas, conocido como Partido Popular, esta ubicado en el litoral
    Oeste de la Isla de Puerto Rico. Sus limites maritimos se extienden
    desde parte del NORTE comenzando con la colindancia OESTE con
    territorio Norteamericano hasta el NOROESTE del Oceano Atlantico.
    Continua por todo el Paseo de la Mona hasta el Mar Caribe incluyendo
    las Islas de Desecho y La Mona y parte del Mar Caribe por el SUR hasta
    la colindancia con territorio Norteamericano e incluyendo cualquier de
    las islas colindantes de dicho litoral Estos limites son adicional a la
    portacion porcentual que le responderia en la distribucion de parcela
    territorial. Su proporcion en la distribucion de presupuesto auditado
    del Gobierno de PR tiene que ser equivalente al porcentaje de
    territorio cedido a su Nacion. El limite litoral dentro del territorio
    entregado para esta nacion esta delineado en el dibujo correspondiente
    de los limites de las tres naciones y segun Modulo #4
        Esta Nacion tendra que emitir su pasaporte, reorganizar su
    constitucion y estructura de su gobernanza ya que esta compuesta
    solamente por los ciudadanos nacionalizados y residentes de su
    territorio.
        No obstante, es necesario una definicion mas clara del tipo de
    gobernanza que esta Nacion pretende establecer. Este Partido Politico
    tiene suficiente experiencia en como gobernar un territorio porque ha
    estado gobernando a PR anteriormente por bastantes anos. Ahora, lo que
    se pretende en este proyecto de urbanistica total para Puerto Rico es
    cambiar los procesos de gobernanza actuales asi que esta nueva Nacion
    tiene que dirigirse a ser autonoma en su gobernanza y considerar que
    sus vinculos economicos de los USA seran muy diferentes y posiblemente
    reducidos que cuando gobernaban todo el territorio isleno. Tienen que
    crear su propia constitucion de gobernanza ciudadana posiblemente muy
    similar a la actual constitucion existente pero con los cambios que
    crean pertinentes por su Junta Constituyente donde posteriormente
    elegira el presidente de la nueva nacion, segun Modulo #19
        Sus condiciones como nacion virgen son muy parecida a la de la
    Nacion independiente que ubica al otro extremo de su localizacion
    geografica.
        Por lo tanto, esta gobernanza es mucho mas limitada de la cual han
    tenido en experiencias previas y muy particular porque a los que va a
    gobernar seran las del ``rollo''
        13
        que tanto han abogado. Conocen muy bien a sus pasados adversarios
    los Estadistas pero desconocen cuales son los que votan por sus ideales
    por conveniencias personales .Asi que le aplica lo mismo discutido en
    la Nacion Independiente relacionado a su nueva gobernanza. La ventaja
    principal es que sus elecciones son unicamente para nombrar su
    Presidente Nacional y una Legislatura y Senado muy reducido en su
    composicion asi como un Departamento de Justicia afines de su partido.
    Libre para un comercio internacional, un Ministerio Educativo poderoso
    por la reduccion de su territorio y control absoluto de la seguridad
    nacional terrestre y costera, entre otros para bienestar de sus
    ciudadanos leales a su compromiso de gobernanza nacional estableciendo
    y, recordando las medidas que deben tomar para los que no juren lealtad
    a nacion en retener la disponibilidad de entregarles un pasaporte
    correspondiente a esa nacion. Se considerarian como extranjeros pero
    ofreciendoles la hospitalidad que los cobije la proteccion
    constitucional de compartir su convivencia de hermandad establecida en
    la Nacion. Esa sera la diferencia en la gobernanza nueva porque antes
    gobernaron para ciudadanos no afines incluyendo ciudadanos extranjeros,
    Estadistas, Independentistas y ciudadanos no leales a su partido.
        Relacionado con la seguridad interna del territorio .de la NELPR
    tiene que presentar un plan de seguridad nacional el cual tiene que ser
    evaluado y aprobado por la OCCPR que velara por la seguridad nacional
    de fronteras, limites territoriales y seguridad al ciudadano. Adicional
    la NELPR se regira por su propia seguridad interna que su nacion
    declare constitucional sin intervencion directa de la OCCPR siempre y
    cuando no se vea ningun atropello en lo que se refiera a conceptos
    humanitarios dentro de su nacion. En ese caso en particular se
    convocaria a la OCCPR para traer a colacion ante la junta nacional
    querellas al respecto.
        PARTE VI--Condiciones Generales
        El establecer los limites fronterizos entre las naciones adyacentes
    es una funcion de asuntos de Ingenieria de Ciencias Geograficas y
    asuntos de levantar un plano de Agrimensura digitalizada geoespacial y
    ser aceptada por ambos extremos. Tambien el construir el muro o maya
    divisoria de limites territoriales debe ser pagado por ambas naciones
    en proporcion a la extension territorial que le pertenezca asi como los
    puntos de controles de pasos de fronteras nacionales. Esta condicion es
    para acordarse entre las naciones adyacentes segun Modulo #6
        Es bueno senalar, que tanto para las naciones de la Independencia y
    la Liberalista no sera necesario tener distribuidos los territoriales
    en tantos municipios. Estos pueden ser reducidos drasticamente y mas
    eficientes. Como en cada nacion se reduce los servicios gubernamentales
    de una manera drastica, tanto los servicios de salud, educacion,
    permisos, transportacion, servicios comunales, mantenimiento de
    carretera, servicios energeticos y fluviales, el dinero recuperado por
    las contribuciones y el IVU brindaran mayores beneficios.
        14
        Basicamente las dos naciones adyacentes a la Nacion Americana
    operarian bajo los mismos criterios de gobernanza pero cada uno con
    diferentes propositos nacionales. Lo antes expresado es un compendio de
    los temas que a continuacion detallan las particularidades de este
    proyecto tales como el plan energetico y servicio de agua potable
    integrado entre las tres naciones, cooperacion integrada de la
    seguridad de las tres naciones de la Isla Nacional de PR, acuerdos de
    comercio interestatal, transportacion y la construccion de una
    carretera Internacional que cruza las tres fronteras nacionales,
    seguridad en cada punto de control de entrada y salida, limites
    maritimos y pesca, interconexiones de las redes energeticas y
    comunicaciones para situaciones de emergencia asi como disponibilidad
    de los centros medicos nacionales, disponibilidad de los diferentes
    aeropuertos nacionales, intercambios educativos, tecnologicos e
    intercambio en educacion universitarias, Intercambios culturales y
    artisticos, intercambios comerciales y seguridad nacional, entre otros
    asuntos.
        NOTA IMPORTANTE
        La informacion contenida en los Modulos del 1 al 45 y del 47 al 48
    no esta incluidos en este Ensayo. Solo se incluyo el Modulo # 46. Los
    restantes estan disponibles a solicitud del lector.
    Anibal Acevedo Vila
        Testimony of Governor Anibal Acevedo-Vila at the Public Forum on
    the draft bill ``Puerto Rico Status Act'' House Committee on Natural
    Resources on June 4, 2022

        I'm here in my personal capacity as former Governor and Resident
    Commissioner. Although I take full responsibility for my statement, the
    ideas I will present, to a great extent are also supported by the
    steering committee of the Frente Puertorriquenista, a non-partisan,
    political organization created last year to advance the decolonization
    of Puerto Rico, defend our distinct identity and nationhood, and
    support the Status Convention as the best self-determination process.
        This draft bill, while not perfect, is a step forward in the right
    direction.
        I will make some general comments on the definitions put forward on
    the draft but will use most of my limited time to make comments on the
    definition and transition for Free Association.
        Statehood
        After more than 120 years of been under US sovereignty and various
    attempts during the last century to assimilate and diminish Puerto
    Rican culture and identity, we're still sociologically and historically
    a nation, with our own language, culture, and identity. Any offer of
    statehood must address that reality.
         Therefore, there is a need to clarify that under statehood
    the official language of daily business in the state government,
    especially the courts, will be in Spanish, as well as that it will
    continue to be the official language in public schools. That has been
    the representation made by the statehood party to the people of Puerto
    Rico. But Congress has demanded in the past that states wishing to be
    admitted to the Union with different prevailing linguistic groups, such
    as Oklahoma, New Mexico, Arizona, and Louisiana, adhere to certain
    English-speaking guidelines. The bill must clarify this.
         When the first three of these states were going to be
    admitted Congress established that public schools . . .; ``shall always
    be conducted in English.'' Likewise, Louisiana's Enabling Act states
    that: ``. . . after the admission of the said territory of Orleans as a
    state into the Union, the laws which such state may pass shall be
    promulgated and its records of every description shall be preserved,
    and its judicial and legislative written proceedings conducted in the
    language in which the laws and the judicial and legislative written
    proceedings of the United States are now published and conducted . .

         Also, there is a need to have clearer transition plan
    toward statehood, especially regarding the negative economic
    consequences of Federal income taxation.
        Independence
         Regarding independence, there is no moral or political
    reason to impose upon those who decide to keep their US citizenship a
    different set of rules to transmit that citizenship to their children,
    than those living in other foreign countries. Moreover, to establish a
    different set of rules will be clearly unconstitutional. The language
    on the bill is not clear about that.
        Free Association
        One of the most important elements of this draft is the inclusion
    of Free Association as a different status alternative from the other
    two. But, because this will be the first time in US history that Free
    Association will be available to a territory that has been
    unincorporated for more that 120 years and whose citizens have been US
    citizens by birth for more that 100 years, there needs to be more
    details on the definition and the transition plan.
        Starting point: if the United States is willing to offer Free
    Association it is because Congress has made the decision that this kind
    of relationship could benefit both parts. Therefore, any bill offering
    Free Association must include, at least, the elements that Congress is
    willing to consider as part of the negotiation of a compact of
    association. Without those clear elements, Congress will be making an
    offer without any real context.
         The main issue regarding the definition of Free
    Association is citizenship. Free Association means that the US has some
    strong interests in Puerto Rico, obviously more than under
    independence. And that Puerto Ricans want to keep a close, but
    dignifying relationship with the US. The fact that the day after we
    become a Free-Associated State, more than 3 million people living on
    the Island will probably keep their US citizenship, should open the
    door to making that citizenship one of the bases of the compact.
         On this important issue, the current language on the bill
    is confusing. The final proposal should include language stating that
    the US is willing to recognize the right to claim US citizenship to
    those born in Puerto Rico from a US citizen.
         The language on the draft bill saying that transmission of
    citizenship will be ``for the duration of the first agreement'' is a
    political poison pill with no legal or constitutional effect. It is
    well known that one Congress cannot obliged another one. If after 25 or
    35 years of a compact of Free Association, a future Congress is willing
    to extent the automatic transmission of US citizenship, nothing in this
    bill could limit them in the future. Therefore, that language must be
    deleted.
         The bill includes the same period of economic transition
    for Independence and Free Association. Again, if you offer Free
    Association, it is because you are making an intelligent decision that
    having a special, close relationship with Puerto Rico is good for both
    parties. Therefore, the economic transition must be different and more
    beneficial than the one offered for independence.
         It is in the interest of the US to guarantee to its
    farmers, retail, and industrial sector free access to the Puerto Rican
    market. Under Independence, that's something that the government of the
    new republic will have to decide. But under Free Association, it should
    be included in the bill that the permanence of a free and open market
    will be a part of the new compact.
         Many independent countries use the US Dollar as its
    currency. There should be language clarifying that the US would have no
    objection that the compact may include the US dollar as currency in
    Puerto Rico.
         It is also in the interest of the US, under Free
    Association, to maintain its current mutual defense understanding with
    Puerto Rico.
        If the US is willing to offer Free Association, all these elements
    must be part of the offer, not only because they will benefit Puerto
    Rico, but, because they are of interest to the US as well.
        Two final general comment.
        To move this process forward significantly it must really become a
    bipartisan bill. And after more than a week since this draft has been
    made public, so far, we haven't perceived much enthusiasm on the
    republican side.
        From the meetings you had yesterday and the testimonies you will
    hear today, I'm sure you will get that this is a complicated process,
    and that there are many details of the different options that need
    negotiation and fine tuning. That's why many people, myself and those
    who are part of the Frente Puertorriquenista, still believe that the
    Status Convention, as described in H.R. 2070 is the best procedural
    option. What you are trying to do in three days, is what the Status
    Convention and the Negotiating Committee created by H.R. 2070 will have
    to do with adequate time.
        Thanks.
    Alfred Gonzalez
        Honorable Members of the Congress of the United States of America:
    Prior to 1776, there were various intents to free the Colonies from
    England, and the Colonies sent good faith letters that were rejected by
    the Sovereign country. Today the Colony is Puerto Rico. Today you are
    England. However, the good faith solution has come from the Sovereign.
    Kindly consider three points that may improve this project and the good
    faith that resides within:
        I. Dates of plebiscite should NOT equal the Election Day
        The evidence is found in our history. The last fruitless plebiscite
    done on the Election Day has served only for the government party to be
    re-elected. We should maintain independence of dates, for events that
    serve different purposes. We cannot use the plebiscite as a hook to
    bring more people, and disgruntled voters to the polls. I know the
    dates have been set, just do not permit the local politics move them to
    any election day.
        II. Benefits and Costs of Each Formula Must Be Clearly Stated and
    Understood During the last plebiscite the ``Statehood Benefits'' won.
    Not Statehood. The actual Statehood obligations were never informed;
    therefore, people do not know what Statehood means. I consider a
    criminal act to impose and promote only the benefits of one formula and
    hiding the integral costs of it, as mentioned in the GAO report of
    2012. The same happens to all formulas. We The People should have the
    fair opportunity to know what we are deciding for. The information of
    the costs of each formula cannot be relegated to publicity by the
    parties in which their biased promotion will contaminate the process
    and deviate the good faith and intention of this democratic exercise.
        III. Neutral Publicity and Education
        The Puertorrican parties are good in damaging everything that is
    put in their hands. Just look at the ELA. Just look at our country
    today, for the best example. Please do not let them damage the purpose
    of this great opportunity by giving them free hand to spend in
    publicity for this Federal exercise. The publicity for all three
    formulas must come from a neutral institution or be controlled by the
    US Government and not the political parties. A fair and equal
    distribution of funds for promoting each formula will bring parity in
    the bombardment of publicity. NO PAC COMMITTEES SHOULD BE ALLOWED, nor
    the political parties either, to inform of the benefits (they will not
    inform costs) of all three formulas. Fairness should be promoted by the
    US Government.
        We the People must be well informed and educated before voting. The
    future of our Country cannot be influenced by deceiving political
    parties.
        The Founding Fathers tried to do the best, but war was necessary
    due to the uncompromising attitude of England. You are the ``Founding
    Fathers'' today. You are also England. Deal with justice and good faith
    knowing that wrong decisions lead to wrong actions. Help us get rid of
    the Colony status for once and for all by doing a fair job. Please
    consider my three points above, and God bless Puerto Rico, God bless
    the United States of America.
    Pablo Millan-Sepulveda
        Honorable Members of Congress: In 1897 Puerto Rico achieved
    autonomy from Spain and at that time it was a sovereign country and the
    first autonomous province of Spain. We are genetically speaking
    Europeans for the most part. In terms of international rights USA is
    occupying a territory that for 405 years belonged to Spain and its
    citizens were Spaniards. This project is not about self determination,
    it will be as saying that a kid that has been served hamburgers and
    pizza all of his life can decide his diet will be all by himself.
    Please include in the project the alternative ``Provincia Autonoma de
    Espana'' in the selection ballot. Thanks for respecting this appeal.
    Jose Lara
        May 28, 2022
        Greetings from Puerto Rico. My name is Jose Lara, President of
    Adelante Reunificacionistas de Puerto Rico y Espana''. I speak on
    behalf of the members of our civic and political association, legally
    registered in the Department of State, San Juan, Puerto Rico.
        We are requesting for you to consider the inclusion of the
    Reintegration of Puerto Rico to Spain as one of the valid options
    available for the Island in the next and future hearings regarding the
    Puerto Rico Status projects. Our movement is growing as people are more
    aware of the advantages of becoming an Autonomous Community of the
    Kingdom of Spain. United Nations allows for the reintegration of
    territories separated by war, as a decolonization solution, if the
    People of such territories vote for it on a referendum. See U.N. 1541
    (XV)
        We have begun an educational campaign to reverse the damage done by
    common beliefs regarding our Hispanic heritage. We are correcting such
    beliefs with real history. First, Puerto Rico was not a Colony of the
    Kingdom of Spain in 1898. It was an Autonomous Province with its own
    elected government. Second, Puerto Rico had already gone through a
    process of self determination on November 25, 1897. The Royal Decree
    was confirmed in free elections by Puertorricans on March 27, 1898. In
    these elections, the Autonomist Party obtained 80% of the votes out of
    121,573 legal voters. Third, we did not invite the United States to
    invade the island, as many believe. Only a few separatist men did that
    on their own and without consent of the people. They were traitors to
    our country, not patriots.
        Having Spain accepted by the force of arms the only terms offered
    by President McKinley to end the 1898 Hispanic American War, The Treaty
    of Paris was signed and Puerto Rico was occupied by United States
    forces. Spain was unwilling to give up the Province of Puerto Rico, but
    did not have a choice in the matter. Like the late President Reagan
    once said, ``Puerto Rico did not come to the United States. The United
    States came to Puerto Rico.''
        Spain and The United States of America have a common history of
    friendship and cooperation that dates back to the War of Independence
    against England, war in which Spain contributed in not a small part.
    This friendship was only tainted by the 1898 incident, which has been
    sadly forgotten. Having said that, we consider that it is in the best
    interest of the United States of America to Reinforce those friendship
    ties with The Kingdom of Spain, by returning the Province of Puerto
    Rico to their own kinship. Spaniards can live better amongst Spaniards.
        Puertorricans are ethnically Spaniards. 125 years ago the United
    States of America came to an Island with close to one million of
    Spaniards that were Spanish citizens. Now, 125 years later, they have
    an Island with 3.2 million of Spaniards with United States citizenship.
    We speak and sing in Spanish. We communicate in Spanish at work and at
    home. We even pray in Spanish at Church. We will never give up our
    Spanish culture, with or without United States citizenship.
        The only change achieved by the United States in Puerto Rico has
    been political. Reintegration of Puerto Rico with The Kingdom of Spain
    means not only reinforcing our friendship ties, but could also become
    the legal backdoor to access the European Union markets, where United
    States goods and services could be sold. Spain and The United States
    could arrange a variety of commercial treaties that could benefit the
    flow of merchandise both ways.
        Instead of having the market in Puerto Rico only, the United States
    could have access to the whole European markets through Puerto Rico and
    Spain. The United States of America would also benefit from having a
    NATO ally living close to its shores, one that can strengthen the
    National Security of both the US Navy and The Spanish Armada. Working
    together toward the common welfare of our peoples, we can achieve a
    better and safe environment for our children. Safety that will come
    from the national security that both allies could achieve together.
        Therefore, I respectfully request that you allow me to explain to
    you and your delegation, on the congressional hearings and on behalf of
    our association, what the project of the Reunification of Puerto Rico
    with Spain means to our association, and to all the People of Puerto
    Rico.
        Thank you for your kind attention.
    Julio Santiago-Rios
        Dear Member of the Congress of the United States of America, here
    are my recommendations for the Puerto Rico Status Act for year 2022:
        Natural Right for Self Determination and Independence--According to
    the United Nation 1514 Resolution there is a Natural Right for Self
    Determination and Independence. An appropriate approach for the ``Act''
    should be: If Statehood or Free Association is not accepted by the US
    Congress in one or two years, then, Puerto Rico must declare its
    Independence. The format must be Constituent Assembly instead of a
    Plebiscito. Then after the status be chosen, we must have a
    Constitutional Assembly.
        Odious Debt--Puerto Rican Odious Debt must be transferred under
    Free Association or Independence to the Federal Government, who own the
    sovereignty of Puerto Rico, given that Puerto Rico is an invaded Nation
    who earned its sovereignty right before the invasion in 1898. The
    Odious Debt Doctrine was applied between United States and Spain, when
    Puerto Rico was transferred to the United States in 1898, as well as in
    other cases.
        3. History of Puerto Rican Independence Movement: Its fundamental
    to understand that Puerto Rico has been in the Struggle for its
    Independence since more than 500 years. The struggle has been applied
    in many ways, including Armed Struggle, which has been detrimental for
    our Nation as well as your Nation. We, the Puerto Ricans want our
    Independence for the same reasons that the Thirteen Colonies fought for
    its Independence against England. It's important to note that many
    Puerto Ricans fought in that struggle to free the Thirteen Colonies.
    Despite persecution, discrimination, defamation and assassination of
    many Independentists, most of that supported by Spain and eventually by
    the United States, we still in the Struggle for our Natural Right for
    Independence. Then, its important to note that the Puerto Ricans are
    not requesting authorization from the United States to start its Self
    Determination process, because it's our Natural Right, that also we
    have earned given our Level of Independence Struggle during centuries.
    Victor Federico Torres
        Otra consulta sobre status en la que el Congreso decide quienes son
    esos ``people of Puerto Rico'' que van a votar? Para que sea una
    consulta genuina hay que impedir que cualquier extranjero decida con su
    voto nuestro futuro politico. Y por extranjero me refiero a personas
    que no hayan nacido en Puerto Rico o de padres puertorriquenos. Si los
    boricuas de la diaspora no pueden votar, por que se les va a permitir a
    extranjeros? Si, ya se que como ciudadanos americanos tienen derecho,
    pero derecho MORAL no tienen ninguno. Eso solo lo entienden personas
    con sentido etico. No quiero a ningun cubano, dominicano, chino o de
    donde sea decidir el destino final de nuestro pueblo. Ya sucedio con
    Alaska y Hawaii convertidos en estados con el voto de extranjeros, en
    su mayoria norteamericanos. En ambos estados, existe actualmente un
    fuerte movimiento separatista. Hay que buscar un recurso para evitar
    que esto suceda el cualquier proxima consulta. Asi lo exige el derecho
    internacional en consultas de esta naturaleza.
    Joel Rivera
        Include in the project the alternative ``Autonomous Province of
    Spain'' in the selection form. Thank you for respecting all
    possibilities for the political status of Puerto Rico. We never chose
    to be separated from Spain, a colonial status was imposed on us. A
    state where we are still not going anywhere with any solution. We have
    been in this ``limbo'' for a long time. We want the reunification of
    Puerto Rico with Spain. We would like people to know the truth, to
    educate people about this possibility, being part of Spain and the
    European Union. Thank you for listening to us, we are here, and we are
    Puerto Ricans Spaniards. We cannot be silenced. Thank you for trying to
    bring to Puerto Rico the best setting for your political affairs.
    Ramiro Rodriguez
        Please also consider as an option a pathway for PR to rejoin Spain
    as the autonomous province it used to be before the Spanish American
    War. Please do not dismiss this option as PR has a lot in common with
    Spain. Thank you.
    Francisco Gonzalez
        Dear Chairman Grijalva and distinguished members of the Natural
    Resources Committee: Firstly, I would like to thank this Honorable
    Committee for the opportunity to express our position regarding the
    Puerto Rico Status Act, the first binding and comprehensive bill to
    address Puerto Rico's political status.
        I appear before this Committee on behalf of the League of United
    Latin American Citizens, Puerto Rico Chapter. As you may be aware,
    LULAC is the oldest and largest Hispanic civil rights membership
    organization in the United States. Since its creation in 1929, LULAC
    has been dedicated to protecting and promoting the civil rights of
    Hispanics across our country. As a Puerto Rican, I am a United States
    citizen of Hispanic heritage and one of the more than 135,000 members
    of LULAC in 41 states, the District of Columbia and here in Puerto
    Rico.
        Carrying on this tradition, on April 30, 2022, the Puerto Rico
    Chapter of LULAC approved a Resolution concerning Puerto Rico's status.
    The Resolution found ``. . .that the current colonial status of Puerto
    Rico places plenary power in Congress, limits self-government, deprives
    its people of the tools it needs to improve the standard of living of
    U.S. citizens in Puerto Rico, and that it is the will of the people of
    Puerto Rico to redress this situation and attain true equality . . .''
    Moreover, the Resolution expressed LULAC Puerto Rico's opposition to
    ``the continuation of Puerto Rico's political status under the
    Territory Clause'' and called upon the President of the United States
    and Congress to take the necessary steps ``to redress the continuing
    violations of civil rights of the American citizens residing in Puerto
    Rico.'' Also, most recently on July 21, 2018, LULAC's National Assembly
    has on multiple occasions approved resolutions advocating for admission
    of Puerto Rico as the Fifty First State of the Nation.
        It is a widely held conclusion in academic and political circles
    that colonialism is inherently wrong and destructive, as well as
    anathema to democracy, injurious to civil rights, destructive to local
    economic development, and ultimately demeaning and demoralizing to both
    the metropolis and the colony. In the case of Puerto Rico,
    specifically, our status as a territory hinders any significant efforts
    at economic growth since uncertainty as to our future is hardly
    conducive to investment. Congress has plenary powers over Puerto Rico,
    but we have no voting representation. Puerto Ricans have proudly served
    in the American armed forces and continue to do so, but we cannot vote
    for our Commander in Chief. Consider that according to the U.S. Census
    Bureau, between 2010 and 2020, the population of Puerto Rico fell by
    11.8%. This is the impact colonialism is having on Puerto Rico.
        Furthermore, colonialism is contrary to what the Framers of the
    Constitution had in mind. In 1787, merely 6 years had passed since
    Yorktown. The memory of colonialism was very much in the minds of these
    men, as was the effort to avoid its recurrence. That is why the
    Constitution of the United States does not contain any provisions for
    the administration of colonies. Rather, Section 3 of Article IV of the
    Constitution, also known as the Territory Clause, states in part that
    ``[t]he Congress shall have power to dispose of and make all needful
    rules and regulations respecting the territory or other property
    belonging to the United States. . .'' It is revealing that this Section
    3 of Article IV of the Constitution is also where the process for
    admission as a State of the Union is established. Territories were not
    meant to be retained indefinitely; they were meant to become a state.
        By 1898, however, the memory of British colonialism had expired and
    a new race for imperialist possessions had begun. The United States won
    the Spanish-American War and as a result a number of territories raised
    the Star-Spangled Banner for the first time, including, and most
    importantly for our purposes, Puerto Rico. It would not be long before
    multiple legal questions and controversies required a determination as
    to how these territories would be governed and these questions
    ultimately reached the U.S. Supreme Court. Although there are a number
    of what came to be known as the Insular Cases, particular attention
    should be paid to Downes v. Bidwell, 182 U.S. 244 (1901), where a
    distinction between incorporated and unincorporated territories was
    first made, and Balzac v. Porto Rico, 258 U.S. 298 (1922), which held
    that although the Jones Act had granted U.S. Citizenship to residents
    of Puerto Rico, it did not incorporate the territory and Congress could
    therefore decide which parts of the Constitution would apply. It is
    because of this judicial distinction that Puerto Rico's current
    colonial status has been upheld and has endured for 124 years,
    including 70 years as the Commonwealth.
        In 1950, Congress passed, and President Harry Truman signed, Public
    Law 600 which provided for the organization of a local government in
    Puerto Rico under its own constitution, much like the States. In 1952,
    the Constitution of the Estado Libre Asociado de Puerto Rico, or the
    ``Commonwealth'' as it is known in English, was ratified. This created
    the illusion of autonomy and a false narrative that a bilateral
    agreement existed between the United States and Puerto Rico. In turn,
    this allowed for the claim that the Commonwealth was not a colony and
    that it somehow existed outside of the Territory Clause. This fallacy
    persisted for more than 50 years.
        However, this carefully created fiction of the Commonwealth as
    anything other than a colony began to unravel in this century. In 2005,
    the President's Task Force on Puerto Rico's Status issued a report
    reiterating, in pertinent part:
        The commonwealth system does not, however, describe a legal status
    different from Puerto Rico's constitutional status as a ``territory''
    subject to Congress's plenary authority under the Territory Clause ``to
    dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the
    Territory . . . belonging to the United States.'' Congress may continue
    the current Commonwealth system indefinitely, but it necessarily
    retains the constitutional authority to revise or revoke the powers of
    self-government currently exercised by the government of Puerto Rico.
    Thus, while the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico enjoys significant
    political autonomy, it is important to recognize that, as long as
    Puerto Rico remains a territory, its system is subject to revision by
    Congress.
        Additional chips in the Commonwealth's armor appeared in the
    following years. In a 2012 local referendum, the first question asked
    citizens whether they wished Puerto Rico to remain subject to the
    Territory Clause of the Constitution. A clear majority of 53.97% of
    constituents voted ``NO''.
        In 2016, by virtue of the Territory Clause, Congress passed Public
    Law 114-187, also known as the ``Puerto Rico Oversight, Management and
    Economic Stability Act'' (PROMESA). 48 USC Sec. 2101, et seq. One can
    argue the merits and flaws of PROMESA extensively. However, its
    authority over any local law, including Puerto Rico's Constitution, is
    unquestionable. PROMESA is the practical manifestation of Congress'
    plenary powers over Puerto Rico.
        Also in 2016, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its opinion in Puerto
    Rico v. Sanchez-Valle, 579 U.S. 59 (2016). In short, the Court reasoned
    that Federal sovereignty was granted by the States, whereas Puerto
    Rico's sovereignty was granted by the Federal Government. The Supreme
    Court concluded that Puerto Rico's self-government was subordinate to
    the Federal Government in general and to Congress specifically through
    the Territory Clause. This holding was reiterated as recently as two
    months ago in United States v. Vaello-Madero, 142 S.Ct. 1539 (2022),
    where the Court found that pursuant to the Territory Clause, Congress
    could give U.S. citizens in Puerto Rico different treatment from U.S.
    Citizens in any of the 50 States.
        In the last 2 decades, all 3 branches of the Federal Government
    have declared that Puerto Rico's current political framework is
    completely at the mercy of Congress' authority, without voting and
    proportional representation. In other words, that we are a colony.
    However, although we cite Vaello-Madero, supra, as an example of this,
    we must also note that it revealed the precarious footing that the
    Insular Cases currently have. In both Justice Gorsuch's concurring and
    Justice Sotomayor's dissenting opinions, the Insular Cases were heavily
    criticized. Justice Gorsuch went as far as stating that ``. . .the time
    has come to recognize that the Insular Cases rest on a rotten
    foundation. And I hope the day comes soon when the Court squarely
    overrules them.''
        Two conclusions can be drawn from the factual background discussed.
    The first is that Puerto Rico's current political status is colonial in
    definition, nature and effect. The second is that Puerto Rico's
    colonial status is unsustainable. As we have seen, colonialism is
    ultimately detrimental to both the metropolis and the territory. This
    is particularly true when considering that the United States was born
    out of war against colonialism and has served as a beacon of democracy
    to the world ever since. The Constitution does not allow for colonial
    possessions, and it is only due to the mistakes of history that are the
    Insular Cases that is has been allowed to continue for this long.
    Moreover, the people of Puerto Rico have rejected the territorial
    status. Final resolution of Puerto Rico's status is proper and
    necessary, and it cannot happen under the current Estado Libre
    Asociado. The Estado Libre Asociado is the problem, it cannot also be
    the solution.
        Resolution of Puerto Rico's status is beneficial to the United
    States as well. The advantages of a prosperous Puerto Rico, serving as
    a bridge between the United States and the Caribbean and South America,
    are evident. And an answer to the question of Puerto Rican status will
    serve to reassert America's place in the world as an example of
    democracy.
        The Puerto Rico Status Bill is a democratic and viable mechanism
    for the final resolution of Puerto Rico's political status. But it can
    only be so as long as it calls for a direct vote, the options given are
    noncolonial/territorial, and the result is binding. Given that these
    elements are present in the consensus bill being discussed, we believe
    it is compatible with the Resolution approved unanimously by the Puerto
    Rico Chapter of LULAC. Therefore, LULAC Puerto Rico, acting by virtue
    of the Resolution of April 30, 2022, endorses and supports the Puerto
    Rico Status Bill.
        Once again, we appreciate this opportunity to express our position
    on such an important subject.
    Nestor Duprey
        I am grateful for this Committee's invitation to share with you
    some brief reflections on the draft bill regarding the future of
    relations between Puerto Rico and the United States that is before you.
        First of all, I want to make it crystal clear that my opinions and
    comments reflect the dictates of my conscience and my mind, and only
    represent me, as a Puerto Rican historian and political scientist. I
    believe in the recognition of Puerto Rican sovereignty through a
    compact, treaty, or agreement of Free Association between the peoples
    of Puerto Rico and the United States of America, linked by a common
    history of more than a hundred years and human, geographical and
    economic ties that require mutual understanding to solve the colonial
    conundrum that the current relationship exemplifies. Free Association
    is not an option that is without support, quite the opposite, it has
    the support of Puerto Ricans who, beyond partisan differences,
    recognize it as the best path forward for the people of Puerto Rico in
    their relationship with the United States. I have defended and defend
    Free Association, not out of convenience, but out of conviction. That's
    why I'm here.
        Secondly, I think it is fair to thank both Chairman Grijalva and
    Majority Leader Hoyer for their interest in reaching a consensus
    document between the measures presented by Resident Commissioner
    Gonzalez and Congresswomen Velazquez and Ocasio Cortes. From now on,
    this document, which we hope will be translated into legislation in the
    coming days, is the starting point in the unavoidable negotiation that
    will culminate in a process of mutual determination on the future of
    the relationship between Puerto Rico and the United States of America.
    I speak of mutual determination and not of self-determination because
    the public policy decisions that will be reflected in the legislation
    to be discussed and approved, will eventually state public policy
    determinations of the Federal Government, as well as the will of the
    people of Puerto Rico.
        There are three core issues that require public policy decisions by
    the Federal Government and that will affect the final content of this
    draft legislation. How these issues are addressed will predetermine the
    response of the people of Puerto Rico to this offer of constitutionally
    viable options.
         First, the bill under consideration compels the United
    States to decide that the policy toward the territory of Puerto Rico,
    to require a different treatment from the other territories in terms of
    the possibility of maintaining the territorial option, due to Puerto
    Rico's population extension and the particularities of the
    relationship. What is desirable and even convenient for other
    territories, due to their particularities and interests, for Puerto
    Ricans is undesirable and no longer viable; and I suspect that's the
    case for the United States as well. The territorial option under any
    name is contrary to the best interests of the people of Puerto Rico and
    delays the solution of its problem for the United States: how to
    dispose of the territory by offering a decolonizing option in the face
    of the political and economic unsustainability of the colony or
    territory, as well as the inconvenience or unviability of statehood
    from the point of view of the United States' interests. In the cases of
    the Philippines in 1934, Alaska and Hawaii in 1959, and the trust-
    administered territories in the Pacific in 1983, Congress legislated,
    as required, to address specific territorial issues, without applying
    those solutions to the other territories. Now Congress can do it too.
         Secondly, the United States as a government, through its
    political branches (executive and legislative) has to decide whether to
    offer the option of statehood to Puerto Rico with a commitment to grant
    it, and under which terms and conditions. The self-enforceability
    provision contained in this draft explicitly entails the acceptance of
    a petition for admission of the territory of Puerto Rico as a state of
    the Union without knowing beforehand what are the terms and conditions
    of that admission, which we imagine will be the same as the other
    territories in the political, economic, and cultural aspects. We all
    know that clause has been the graveyard where past efforts to promote
    congressional legislation on the issue of Puerto Rico's status have
    been buried. It is time for the U.S. Government to answer that question
    itself, and for the people of Puerto Rico to know that answer.
         Thirdly, the choice of sovereignty for Puerto Rico, under
    Independence or Free Association, implies a public policy decision by
    the Federal Government regarding the future of U.S. citizenship of
    Puerto Ricans born in Puerto Rico and their descendants. The U.S.
    Congress legislated in 1916 to extend that citizenship to Puerto
    Ricans, which has been ratified in subsequent laws. The particularity
    of a nationality composed of citizens of another country was not the
    product of a decision by Puerto Ricans, it was a unilateral act of the
    U.S. Congress. As in 1916, the issue of the U.S. citizenship of Puerto
    Ricans requires political will and pragmatic recognition of the
    particular reality of the relationship between the United States and
    Puerto Rico. Anything is possible if there is the political will to do
    so. Due to the close relationship between Puerto Rico and the United
    States in the economic and national security scope, including the
    vulnerabilities of the Puerto Rican border, both peoples are required
    to design a transition process to Independence or a Free Association
    Compact that recognizes these particularities. Issues such as
    citizenship, the continuation of economic assistance programs, the
    future of the integration of the Puerto Rican economy to the U.S.
    economy in monetary, market, investment and mortgage market aspects, as
    well as other fields of that free trade area, that in practice is
    currently limited by the colonial relationship, compel the United
    States and Puerto Rico to design a pathway toward sovereignty that
    recognizes that community of interests and takes into account the
    particularities and mutual convenience of that relationship.
        Once the U.S. Government determines its position on these matters,
    the people of Puerto Rico will be in a position to responsibly exercise
    their right to self-determination. I am sure that, in the case of
    Sovereignty, these considerations, and addressing them in a practical
    and realistic way, will make it possible for the United States to count
    on a worthy partner in the Caribbean. Puerto Rico aspires to a social
    market economy integrated into the world, that maintains the close ties
    of historical, geopolitical, and economic reality with the United
    States, with a fully democratic system of internal government, of
    recognition of freedoms, including leaving behind the stain that more
    than a hundred years of colonialism represents for both peoples. The
    peoples of Puerto Rico and the United States need to decide the future
    of our relationship in a way that recognizes our mutual interests and
    designs a path to solving the colonial conundrum. This bill, now as
    draft, is a step in the right direction. The proponents of Free
    Association will be submitting amendments to the bill to further
    clarify the provisions relating to such sovereignty option. The
    conversation has begun. We must go on. Thank you.
    Luis Herrero
        My name is Luis S. Herrero Acevedo, I am a lawyer, political
    consultant and commentator.
        I would like to to start by commending the draft proposed bill and
    the process led by Majority Leader Hoyer and Chairman Grijalva. Getting
    proponents of statehood and sovereignty to discard old tropes and bring
    forth new ideas and processes to resolve Puerto Rico's centenary
    political conundrum is no small feat. ``Gracias Nydia y gracias
    Jenniffer por sentarse y hablar.''
        In theory, this is how the democratic process should work. Thank
    you once again for getting it done. If approved by Congress, this draft
    bill will send a clear signal of what a democratic majority in the
    House of Representatives is willing to offer Puerto Ricans. The draft
    is a starting point for future discussions and a solution to the status
    issue.
        But, as we all learned in elementary school, a bill does not become
    a law until approved by the Senate and signed by the President. And,
    therein lies the problem. . .
        As a political consultant, I understand very well how politicians
    talk on the record, especially on the congressional record, vis a vis
    how they talk behind closed doors. Everyone on the dais, and every
    politician who has served in the Natural Resources Committee since the
    United States took Puerto Rico by military force, has had multiple off
    the record conversations about Puerto Rico. And everyone on the dais
    must agree, off the record of course, there are no votes in the Senate
    to make Puerto Rico a state.
        Not today, not yesterday, not tomorrow.
        Since 1898, Puerto Rican statehood has been a mirage, lip service
    to score cheap political points or raise a few dollars for a campaign.
    I compare it to a mythical animal, much talked about but never seen. A
    unicorn.
    Josue Rivera
        In favor of H.R. 1522--``Puerto Rico Statehood Admission Act'' and
    in favor of the new compromise draft bill, the ``Puerto Rico Status
    Act.''
        Good afternoon, Chairman Grijalva, members of the Natural Resources
    Committee of the U.S. House of Representatives, current and former
    officials of the Government of Puerto Rico, and my fellow Americans.
        I am Josue Emanuel Rivera Castro, resident of Guaynabo, Puerto
    Rico. I'm a public servant, former State Director for Puerto Rico at
    the U.S. Department of Agriculture-Rural Development, former Policy
    Advisor at the Office of the Governor of Puerto Rico in Washington, DC,
    Former National President of the Puerto Rico Statehood Students
    Association, and current Ideas Fellow of the Aspen Institute.
        For the record, I am not here in any official capacity, nor to
    represent the Aspen Institute or any areas of the Federal Executive
    Branch, but rather as a private citizen concerned about Puerto Rico's
    political and economic future. I assume full responsibility for the
    ideas I will present in this statement covered by my first amendment
    right.
        There is a saying that goes as follows: ``it is better late than
    never.'' Therefore, please accept my sincere appreciation to all
    parties for reaching this historic agreement.
        Your leadership and detachment in finding common ground is, without
    a doubt, key to resolving the long-overdue colonial relationship
    between the United States and Puerto Rico. A special acknowledgment to
    The House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, New York 7th congressional
    District Congresswoman Nydia Velazquez, and our own Resident
    Commissioner Jenniffer Gonzalez Colon for this valiant effort.
        Nevertheless, we all know that the common ground here in Puerto
    Rico is that WE ``Puertorriquenos'' treasure our American Citizenship,
    the Constitution, our love for freedom, the pursuit of happiness, our
    belief that all men are created equal, and we cherish our
    multicultural-multilingual link between mainstream America and our
    Puerto Rican culture. Therefore, ``Yo soy Boricua (and American) Pa'
    que tu lo sepas''.
        Statehood does not change that, but the two other options of
    independence will. As mentioned before, I come here in support of H.R.
    1522, ``Puerto Rico Statehood Admission Act,'' and the Draft bill, the
    ``Puerto Rico Status Act,'' which provides the American citizens
    residing in Puerto Rico a process to exercise our right of self-
    determination--this time through a binding self-executing process
    initiated by federal sponsored legislation.
        The American Flag has flown over Puerto Rico since 1898. In 1900,
    Congress established a civilian government on the island through the
    Foraker Act. Nevertheless, in 1901 the Supreme Court stroke this Act
    with the Downes v. Bidwell decision, and its progeny held that for the
    Constitution's Uniformity Clause, Puerto Rico was not part of the
    United States and was subject to the plenary powers of Congress, which
    turned it into a colonial relationship ever since.
        Congress needs to act with a sense of urgency. In 1950, Congress
    passed Public Law 81-600, the ``Puerto Rico Federal Relations Act,''
    but with the passage of ``Puerto Rico Oversight, Management, and
    Economic Stability Act of 2016'' (PROMESA) and recent Supreme Courts
    determinations like Vaello Madero vs. the United States of America,
    once again, Congress and the Supreme Court reminds us of all that the
    centennial colonial relationship is still present and pending
    resolution.
        Again, as an American, I strongly support the admission of the
    Commonwealth of Puerto Rico as a state of the Union. It is the best
    path forward, given that we have had a relationship for over 120 years.
    A relationship that binds the U.S. and Puerto Rico by sharing and
    benefiting from the economic, cultural, political as well as societal
    aspirations of our people.
        For the draft bill in the discussion, I'm concerned about the
    educational campaign for the two options of independence included. As a
    clear reminder, independence has never been an option favored by most
    people in Puerto Rico, as evidenced by all local plebiscites held up to
    this point. This Congress needs to address many important questions
    about the two forms of independence and instruct the Executive Branch
    of the U.S. Government on how we will effectively transition the over
    10,000 federal civilian employees and military services members,
    including their families.
        Second, estimate the cost of that transition. Are we going to fire
    them?
        Third, there needs to be an estimate of the impact and cost for the
    residents of the Republic of Puerto Rico and the implications of ending
    federal programs that currently benefit our most vulnerable, our low-
    income communities, women, children, elders, veterans, and socially
    disadvantaged small businesses in Puerto Rico?
        Fourth, what is the cost of the new nation's defense? What is the
    cost of admission to the United Nations, the International Monetary
    Fund (IMF), and many other international institutions and regulating
    bodies? What are the processes and implications of establishing
    currency, insurance for natural disasters, taxation, and managing
    current and future debt obligations?
        How many embassies will Puerto Rico have, and what will be the cost
    to the people of Puerto Rico to operate them?
        What happens to the investment certainty and economic-market risk?
        Fifth, what will be the U.S. Citizens' current benefits and
    responsibilities lost with these two independence options.
        I'm also concerned that the two options of independence will
    continue to sponsor citizenship for the residents, that's against the
    United States Constitution and our National Interest. Citizens living
    in a nation under COFA are regarded as Nationals. Therefore, I'm
    proposing an immediate transition to U.S. Nationals status for all
    residents of Puerto Rico in one of the two types of independence: the
    electoral winners. Regarding the legislative process in Congress, I
    urge you to advance this proposal--the Puerto Rico Status Act. In my
    opinion, the best path forward for the people of Puerto Rico is
    statehood. But I invite all other parties to join in supporting this
    draft bill.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee.
    Jose Nieves-Seise
        In 1898 Puerto Rico was a Spanish overseas province with political
    equality. After the US invasion we lost that equality and became an
    unincorporated territory of the United States of America without
    political equality and that is being a colony. We Puerto Ricans are
    Spanish and were separated against our will in 1898. I hereby ask you
    to include the Reunification of Puerto Rico with Spain in the binding
    plebiscite that will take place in 2023. Reunification is Integration
    and is recognized as a decolonizing formula.
    Bert Marchand
        Puerto Rico is a Nation--culturally, sociologically and
    anthropologically. Sovereignty it's an inherent inalienable right of
    any nation. Saying that, after almost 125 years as a US colony and 400
    years as colony of Spain--I believe that the best path for Puerto Rico
    to transition to a Sovereign Nation is Libre Asociacion (Free
    Association). I congratulate the Committee for taking the morally
    righteous decision to include this Path(option) as a logical step to
    decolonize Puerto Rico. The Transition mechanisms/agreements toward
    National Sovereignty via FA or full independence is a recognition that
    the colonial oppression to US (Puerto Ricans)--in the island, mainland
    o anywhere deserves a responsible and restorative process by the
    Colonial Power. The most recent example of this responsible
    Transitional process is England and Barbados. Please take time to study
    this example as a way to improve the bill.
        US Citizenship in this Transition process is the most significant
    component from the perspective of this restorative moral obligation.
    It's great step by the Committee to put US Citizenship as a central
    aspect of this Transition. Our Colonial history has deep rooted myths
    and disinformation with regards to US citizenship. Therefore the bill
    needs as most detailed clarification in this matter to eliminate
    ambiguity and misinterpretation. From my view, the 21st century, common
    citizenship agreements ( doble/triple citizenship) is the norm and the
    bill should reflect that.
        Now to this Statehood option. Hawaii is the only Island Archipelago
    State. This brings me to our closest neighbors fellow US Citizens of
    the US Non-incoporared Territory of the Virgin Islands. Together, the
    3.2 million in PR and 500k in USVI--we have more US Citizens living in
    these 2 Caribbean colonies than about 30 States! If Statehood is to be
    seriously considered by US Congress--the moral path is to have these
    two Caribbeans colonies joined as the 2nd Archipelago State. It is the
    right and moral path to Statehood for the almost 4 million US Citizens
    that call the Caribbean their homeland. Together they would have 2 US
    Senators and about 5/6 congressional districts. Now, this would be a
    serious and consequential commitment to finally end US Colonialism in
    the Caribbean.
        Thanks to the Committee for moving forward in a serious and
    courageous effort to end our current Colonial condition. At last, I
    want to Highlight the fact that we have 3 Puerto Rican women are part
    of this Commitment and have taken up a leading role in this process and
    have shown to us the capacity to sit down and dialogue to achieve
    compromise. This is a great example to it people but as parent of a
    daughter as great role models to our Daughters.
        Un Abrazo Solidario.
    Paola Gonzalez
        For far too long Puerto Rico has been condemned to the shackles of
    imperialism and colonialism. I am beginning to feel like the richer
    individuals and politicians who stand up and advocate for statehood
    against sovereignty are merely too lazy to put in true work into our
    country. That they would rather not have to worry about how to enhance
    our agricultural practices, better our education system, or invest in
    the Puerto Rican people.
        I suppose they do not notice how many have fled our land because
    the government chose to sell Puerto Rico as a paradise to Americans
    rather than take care of the paraiso we already had.
        At the end of the day it feels like the most proponents of
    statehood share their concern for is US citizenship--something that I
    am aware could be lost should the other options win. But what we could
    end up losing should P.R. become a state, include our culture, our
    language, our individuality, our people.
        It feels like not one of them has looked toward our Pacific
    Islander neighbors of Hawai'i, who continue to lose native populations
    to an increase of American travel, gentrification has driven up prices,
    and the travel industry has cost them vital environmental resources.
        It is not too late for us to invest in ourselves. I guarantee if
    there were incentives for native Puerto Ricans to move back instead of
    Americans they would do it in a heartbeat because they carry their
    patria wherever they go. I guarantee there is a diaspora of Puerto
    Ricans longing for the home they left behind.
        With that being said, countless diaspora Puerto Ricans have left
    due to many issues that can be traced back to the imperialism and
    colonial status imposed by the U.S. Due to this, I wonder if there
    might be a way to include their voices in this discussion as well, and
    even in the final vote. . .?
    Karina Claudio Betancourt
        Saludos estimades Congresistas y al personal del comite de Recursos
    Naturales de la Camara de Representantes los Estados Unidos. Muchas
    gracias por darme la oportunidad de dirigirme a ustedes en el dia de
    hoy.
        Mi nombre es Karina Claudio Betancourt. Soy residente de San Juan,
    Puerto Rico. Y como mucha gente joven y queer en Puerto Rico, vivo los
    estragos del colonialismo a diario. En esta colonia no vivimos,
    sobrevivimos. Es un constante negociar entre la mediocridad de la
    austeridad y los recortes de servicios impuestos por la Junta de
    Control Fiscal; y el deseo de realmente ser feliz y vivir plenamente en
    este pais. Y creo que esto es realmente una de las cosas que mas duelen
    de ser una persona joven en esta colonia--la amamos, la atesoramos,
    defendemos ferreamente sus playas y su tierra, nuestro derecho a ser y
    amar a quien queramos amar. . .Pero el gobierno de turno nos niega
    nuestro derecho a vivir con plena equidad, mientras van a Washington y
    les piden a ustedes igualdad de derechos como ciudadanos de los Estados
    Unidos.
        Producto de la situacion colonial puertorriquena, los partidos que
    han controlado la politica en Puerto Rico--el Partido Nuevo Progresista
    y el Partido Popular Democratico--ambos han apoyado legislacion en
    contra del derecho al aborto, el derecho de las comunidades LGBTQI y
    han criminalizado la pobreza mientras se llenan los bolsillos de fondos
    Federales corruptamente. Por otra parte, una Junta de Control Fiscal
    impuesta por el Gobierno de los Estados Unidos sin consulta alguna a
    los puertorriquenos, ha recortado el presupuesto de la Universidad de
    la que con tanto orgullo me gradue--a mas de la mitad. Tambien ha hecho
    recortes a servicios esenciales como el transporte publico, los
    servicios medicos y el arte y la cultura--elementos que mantienen
    felices y saludables a nuestra poblacion, y aportan a nuestro
    crecimiento economico como pais. Ademas, La Junta ha cerrado cientos de
    escuelas, dejado a miles de Puertorriquenos sin pension digna y
    negociado nuestros servicios publicos--todo para pagarle a los buitres
    de Wall Street a quienes todes elles sirven. La privatizacion de
    nuestro sistema electrico impuesta por la Junta es algo que nos afecta
    a diario. Semanalmente hay recortes de electricidad y perdemos cientos
    de dolares en compras que se danan por esta ineficiente compania que
    ningune de nosotres eligio. Ningun Puertorriqueno que conozco apoya la
    junta de Control Fiscal, pero por nuestra situacion colonial no tenemos
    forma de librarnos de ella, a menos que ustedes legislen desde
    Washington. De igual manera los dos Presidentes que nombraron personas
    a dicha Junta--Obama y Trump, ni yo ni ningun otro puertorriquene
    viviendo en el archipielago pudimos votar por ellos.
        Entonces estamos de acuerdo que el problema de la colonia es
    insostenible. Y es por esto que me uno a la conversacion acerca del
    Puerto Rico Status Act, porque entiendo que ya es hora de resolver el
    problema y la situacion colonial de Puerto Rico, pero tambien les
    exhorto a que este proceso no sea uno acelerado; y que por el contrario
    no se repitan los mismos errores que con PROMESA, cuando de manera no
    democratica se nos impuso una Junta que nos ha hecho miserables.
        Aunque agradezco--personalmente y en nombre de la organizacion que
    represento--La Fundacion Open Society--los esfuerzos del comite,
    entiendo que hay muchas maneras de mejorar el borrador de la propuesta
    de ley y la manera en el cual estan llevando este dialogo--
    particularmente para involucrar y escuchar a les boricuas mas
    impactados por la tenacidad de la colonia. Los problemas que desde
    nuestra organizacion y nuestres aliades locales hemos identificado en
    este borrador de proyecto de ley incluyen: la falta de detalles y
    claridad en ciertas opciones de estatus, un lenguaje que intenta
    inclinar a los puertorriquenos hacia una opcion de estatus particular
    (la Anexion) y que el Congreso quiera dictar que tipo de Republica
    estableceria Puerto Rico bajo la independencia. Tambien hay problemas
    con la definicion de la ciudadania Estadounidense bajo el estatus de
    Libre Asociacion, y varias cosas que el borrador no menciona, como que
    pasara con la deuda de Puerto Rico bajo las diferentes opciones de
    estatus?, y que pasara por ejemplo con el idioma de control para las
    leyes, escuelas y tribunales, los impuestos Federales, y el comite
    olimpico en Puerto Rico bajo el estatus de la Estadidad?
        Otros aspectos del borrador que nos parecen problematicos:
         Los votos en blanco no se contaran (pag. 5)
        --Esto es problematico porque impide y margina a los votantes que
    no estan de acuerdo con las opciones o el proceso de expresar sus
    voces.
         Como mencione anteriormente, en la definicion de estado,
    no hay referencia al idioma, impuestos, representacion olimpica (P. 8)
         El Congreso no puede instruir a un Puerto Rico
    independiente para que realice una asamblea constituyente ni instruir
    sus procesos internos de ninguna manera (p.15-16)
         El Congreso no puede imponer que tipo de constitucion o
    forma de gobierno puede tener un Puerto Rico independiente (p.16-17)
         El lenguaje en el borrador del proyecto de ley parece
    implicar que la ciudadania estadounidense no se puede transmitir,
    aunque un ciudadano estadounidense que tenga un hijo en otro pais pueda
    hacerlo. (pag. 23)
         El proyecto impone la forma en que el nuevo estado libre
    asociado ratificara articulos en lugar de dejarlo al proceso
    constitucional establecido por Puerto Rico (p. 38)
         Esta propuesta legislativa establece una transicion de 1
    ano en el caso de la estadidad. (pag. 42) y procesos mas largos para
    las otras opciones de estatus
        --Es imposible salir de 124 anos de dominio colonial, imponer
    impuestos Federales, trazar lineas legislativas e introducir
    gradualmente normas y reglamentos Federales que actualmente no existen
    en la isla en un ano. Esto es enganoso para el pueblo puertorriqueno ya
    que presenta esta opcion de estatus como una solucion rapida.
         Puerto Rico permanecera no incorporado hasta la admision
    (P. 42)
        --Esto tambien pretende inclinar la balanza hacia la anexion porque
    cada territorio se ha incorporado a la union antes de ser admitido.
    Texas no lo fue porque primero fue independiente. Todos los demas
    fueron incorporados, lo que significa que pagaron impuestos Federales
    sobre la renta sin representacion durante un periodo de tiempo hasta
    que el Congreso decidio admitirlos como estados.
        Y nuevamente, menciono las cosas que no se mencionan en el
    borrador:
         Cero mencion de la participacion de la diaspora
    puertorriquena en esta votacion.
         No se menciona la aplicabilidad de la Ley Jones o la falta
    de ella en las opciones de estatus.
         No se menciona como se tratara la deuda de Puerto Rico.
        Y finalmente, reiteramos nuestro deseo de que se lleven vistas del
    Congreso en Puerto Rico en espanol, y vistas en Washington DC de manera
    bilingue, para tener un record oficial de las diversas opiniones del
    pueblo Puertorriqueno acerca de este proyecto.
        Como persona joven, tambien quiero reiterar que la juventud en
    Puerto Rico ya no confia en los partidos politicos tradicionales (no se
    si han visto ayer como en la graduacion de la Universidad de Puerto
    Rico abuchearon al gobernador Pierluisi, por ejemploe) y que cualquier
    proceso que se lleve en Puerto Rico debe tener un elemento de alcance
    que llegue a les jovenes, y que tambien fiscalice el rol de los
    partidos coloniales (PNP y PPD) en este proceso. . .ya que muches hemos
    visto como los partidos tradicionales han utilizado referendums pasados
    para favorecer su opcion de estatus y mover sus agendas partidistas.
        Muchas gracias nuevamente por su tiempo y quedo atente a los
    proximos pasos y a que se mejoren estos elementos en el lenguaje del
    borrador antes de ser presentado el proyecto de ley en el comite.
    Tony Rivas
        Is there a way the United States can support Puerto Rico's
    independence and also form an American Union alliance similar to the
    European Union except with Puerto Rico? This way after it becomes
    independent we can still use USA currency, apply for an American Union
    passport which will allow citizens of both nations to live, travel,
    work and get educated in either country freely. I think this option
    could make all sides happy.
    Jesann Gonzalez Cruz
        Dear Chairman and Honorable Members of Congress, I applaud you for
    taking critical steps forward in drafting a bill that includes binding
    legislation to end the colonial status Puerto Rico is currently under.
    I am happy to see a vibrant conversation being generated as to what the
    future of Puerto Rico should consider and hope to see many of the
    panelists' remarks tended to in future drafts. That said, I foresee two
    topics that have yet to be addressed in the current discussion: 1)
    voter turnout and 2) the statistical breakdown of the vote when
    considering a ``majority''.
        Throughout the recent past, Puerto Rico has faced declining and/or
    low voter turnout. Considering the draft is binding, will there be a
    benchmark percentage of voter turnout required to ensure the vote is
    representative and just? Second, if the free association with the
    United States option is considered a form of independent sovereignty as
    depicted in the bill--this splits the sovereign vote, creating an
    unjust advantage for statehood voters. For example, if 40% vote
    statehood, but 30% vote independence and the other 30% FA than the
    majority appears to align with statehood but actually 60% of the
    populace voted for some type of sovereignty. This should be taken under
    consideration and perhaps necessitates an initial vote for statehood vs
    sovereignty and a secondary vote for the type of sovereignty. Thank you
    for your time and attention.
    Elisa Munoz
        My name is Elisa Munoz, and I am the President of the Young
    Democrats of Puerto Rico (YDPR).
        First and foremost, I would like to thank you, Chairman Grijalva,
    for allowing me to address the members of the Committee.
        I also wish to commend Congresswomen Jenniffer Gonzalez and Nydia
    Velazquez for putting aside their ideological differences and working
    on a consensus bill to establish a federally binding process that will
    finally allow the Americans who live on these Islands of Puerto Rico to
    have our voices heard in Congress about the type of political
    relationship we aspire to achieve with the United States, which I
    firmly believe will be Statehood.
        I would also like to recognize Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio's
    presence today and her steadfast support for young people, and for this
    process.
        A large majority of us--the 3.2 million Americans who live in the
    oldest colony in the world--believe in decolonizing Puerto Rico and
    that we must continue ``causing good trouble'' to achieve our full
    civil rights.
        The National Platform of the Young Democrats of America recognizes
    our desire for political equality and states as follows:
        ``We believe Congress must act on the will of the people of Puerto
    Rico and approve an enabling act with terms for Puerto Rico's admission
    as a state of the Union. The people of Puerto Rico have exercised their
    right to self-determination, resulting in overwhelming support for
    Statehood. Thus, we support granting the full admission of Puerto Rico
    as a state of our Union.''
        YDPR believes that our rights as American citizens should be fully
    secured, and that no American in this great country of ours should have
    to choose between remaining in the land of their birth or the
    opportunity for a better life in some far away land. As has been well
    documented, Puerto Rico has been suffering from a major brain drain
    since our recession began in 2006, which has only worsened after
    Hurricane Maria. According to the 2020 Census, over 300,000 people
    between the ages 25-65 have left our shores. My peers continue to seek
    a better quality of life and struggle with job, health, and food
    security after the COVID crisis, and we believe that if Puerto Rico
    were a State we would not feel the need to seek better opportunities
    away from our families. We are tired of being treated worse than any
    other American in the nation.
        If Puerto Rico were to become a State, we would have the political
    power to have our voices truly heard in our Nation's capital when
    legislation is being considered and approved in Congress. For example,
    our current colonial disenfranchisement silences the voices of the
    women of our Islands on the matter of reproductive rights. It silences
    everyone in our Islands on the matter of climate change, which has
    severely impacted our coasts during the past five years. There may very
    well be parts of these islands that will be underwater by the time I am
    eligible to receive our second-class Medicare benefits.
        As the daughter of a Bronx-raised, U.S. Army, Purple Heart
    recipient, Vietnam veteran (may he rest in peace), and as a Type 1
    diabetes patient since I was six years old, I can give testimony of the
    immense suffering that our family has had to endured because of the
    discrimination that the Congress and the federal government have
    imposed upon us by limiting our access to federal healthcare and other
    social programs. This discriminatory treatment and the burden that it
    has placed on the very people that these programs are meant to assist
    have had a cascading effect on the availability of quality healthcare
    for and of the social well-being of all the Americans in Puerto Rico.
        Puerto Rico has been a colony of the United States for 124 years;
    this is the longest any territory has gone without being admitted into
    the Union. This is not just morally wrong, its plainly un-American, and
    our country, through its leaders like yourselves, needs to rid itself
    of this stain in its moral fabric.
        In the words of President Kennedy, I beseech you to: ``not seek the
    Republican answer or the Democratic answer but the right answer.''
        That right answer is equality through Statehood for the 3.2 million
    Americans that call these beautiful islands their home. The consensus
    reached between the Puerto Rican Members of this Congress contained in
    the federally binding status legislation being considered by this
    Committee is a step in the right direction.
        I thank you for your time.
    Francisco Proskauer Valerio
        Good afternoon, my name is Mario Jesus Toro, `General Coordinator'
    for the `Autonomous Statehood Network' of the `Movimiento Victoria
    Ciudadana', a recently created, progressive, people-powered and
    community-centered political party in Puerto Rico. The Autonomous
    Statehood Network proudly represents the statehooders that have found a
    political home in the most progressive political party in Puerto Rico.
        I am 20 years old. In that short life span, my life experience has
    been one of farewell after farewell to close family members and
    friends, who have sorrowfully opted to emigrate in search of the
    opportunities they can't find in their own islands. It's not hard to
    find the main culprit: our current woes are in large part due to the
    collapse of the colonial Commonwealth model.
        In the 50 states there are Puerto Ricans settling down roots and
    developing within the challenges and successes that the opportunity to
    access their open borders and their labor markets entails. The
    sovereignty of the states allows for the adoption of multiple official
    languages and the design of a government that is accessible and
    responsive to all of its citizens, regardless of the language they
    speak. State sovereignty also makes it possible to promote each culture
    and exalt the identity and traditions of each People. There has been a
    development of Puerto Rican identity within the United States longer
    than there has been a Puerto Rican identity outside of the United
    States. The United States, for its part, increasingly celebrates its
    diversity and multiculturalism. Today this is represented in its
    Federal system with the participation of a Puerto Rican woman in the
    highest judicial forum, the `Supreme Court of the United States', and
    with several Puerto Rican Congresspeople who today are a triumphant
    example of the tireless march toward freedom and equality that Native
    Americans, African Americans and immigrants hailing from all corners of
    the Earth have made an essential and inseparable part of the American
    Federation.
        In the past decade, two (2) self-determination exercises have been
    clear in their decolonization mandates. In 2012, a 54% majority decided
    to end the colonial status quo. Then in 2020, a 53% `majority' decided
    to join the United States by choosing ``Statehood'' again. This
    referendum reflected a democratic majority for statehood in Puerto
    Rico. It is clear that the People of Puerto Rico want to exit the
    territorial clause. This anti-colonial consensus bill acknowledges
    this. For the 'Autonomous Statehood Network', this consensus bill also
    respects and adequately addresses both democratic mandates on the table
    by providing a binding and self-executing opportunity to end the
    colonial 'Commonwealth' status and to finally decolonize Puerto Rico
    with ``Statehood''.
        We recognize that the most important development about the
    consensus bill, consistent with the proposals made by 'Victoria
    Ciudadana', is summarized in the following: that Congress offers a
    binding and self-executing process to decolonize; that it only includes
    the three (3) plausibly ``non-colonial, non-territorial'' options under
    the United States Constitution and international law; that it provides
    for an informed process where the People will know what each option
    entails; and that it be the 'majority' of the People freely choosing a
    winning option, an objective that is guaranteed with the run-off
    mechanism.
        In the `Autonomous Statehood Network' we are satisfied with this
    consensus bill and wish to respond to some of the criticisms that have
    been raised.
        The consensus bill resolves the two (2) main objectives of a
    'Constitutional Status Assembly': first, to commit Congress to act on
    the self-determination mandates emanating from Puerto Rican democracy
    by providing a binding and self-executing process that includes a
    formal offer of the options outside the territorial clause; and second,
    to bring together the anti-colonial forces in a procedural consensus
    with only non-colonial, non-territorial options on the ballot, with
    their corresponding transitions, in a federally endorsed process.
        The consensus bill contemplates a thorough, publicly-financed
    educational campaign that is sufficient to combat any disinformation on
    the process and the status alternatives. We need there to be open,
    ample and public deliberation with accurate information about the
    process, so everyone can make a fully informed decision in the most
    trascendental election for Puerto Rico to date. But that is not to say
    that Puerto Ricans are not `educated' enough to make an informed
    decision, as some argue in bad faith. We have been discussing the
    future political status of Puerto Rico since the United States first
    acquired the islands, and before even, as a colony of Spain. The time
    for talk should be concluding soon. The time for action is now.
        Some have argued that the definition of ``Statehood'' should
    include information regarding the Federal tax burden and the
    corresponding changes that would require to our state tax system. We
    understand that this is not necessary because the tax laws affect
    citizens differentially. Most people in Puerto Rico would not have a
    tax liability due to their income levels, and the reconfiguration of
    our state taxes is a public policy decision to be made by the State of
    Puerto Rico. But if Congress decides to include information relevant to
    that topic, by way of equal justice and procedural consistency, then
    Congress would also have to do it for each decolonization option with
    equal space and content. Much has been said about the Puerto Rican
    desire to retain the American citizenship in the other two (2) options.
    With this we want to underline that under ``Independence'' Puerto
    Ricans who retain their American citizenship and live in Puerto Rico
    will have to file Federal taxes. That issue remains a question that
    depends on the negotiation of the pact in the case of ``Sovereignty in
    Free Association''. American citizenship for those who already have it
    or future generations under those options will be determined by this
    process. But if we are going to talk about Federal taxes, the truth is
    that all American citizens would be subject to them under both options,
    same as it would be for any American citizen residing abroad.
        We congratulate Puerto Rican Congresswomen Nydia Velazquez and
    Jennifer Gonzalez for joining efforts for the decolonization of Puerto
    Rico. Also to leader Steny Hoyer and Raul Grijalva for what has been
    achieved so far. We acknowledge the titanic work of Puerto Rican and
    American constitutional law professors Rafael Cox Alomar and Christina
    Ponsa-Kraus in pushing for and consulting on this consensus bill. And
    lastly, we want to emphasize that as pro-statehood progressives, we see
    ourselves represented by like-minded leaders like Mia Bonta, Ritchie
    Torres, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, and Darren Soto who are raising our
    flag with a new generation of progressive Puerto Ricans in America. We
    look forward to being able to collaborate, from within and from outside
    the island, for a Puerto Rico in full equality within the American
    Federation. We trust that this anti-colonial consensus bill represents
    a big step in that direction and has our support.
    John DeMicoli
        This bill is a farce that is being coopted by the corrupt pro
    statehood PNP. Statehood is the death of Puerto Rico and our culture. A
    person in an abusive relationship may make a strategic safety decision
    to marry their abuser hoping to lessen the abuse, but that doesn't make
    it the right--or safer--thing to do. Independence with debt
    cancellation and reparations (which would set a precedent for
    reparations for Black people) is the only thing we should be talking
    about.
    WIlberto Santiago
        Any bill should ask Puertoricans to choose between statehood and
    independence. The third option will only add to the confusion and
    prolong the conflict over the status. It's time to end this 124 years
    issue. Puertoricans deserve equal treatment and a peaceful transition
    to statehood or when joining the international community of states.
    Alejandro Lopez
        I have witness/lived the Puerto Rico status conversation over 42
    years now. For 22 yrs in the island and the last 20 yrs at the states.
        It's an understatement to say it is complicated. Moreover, there
    are three strong political views in the island, which regrettably deny
    a general consensus. It goes without saying there is a fundamental
    disconnect.
        It is my believe the last puertorriqueno that had a successful
    Congress status conversation with a socioeconomic strategy was Governor
    Luis Munoz Marin with his `Operation Bootstrap'. It wasn't perfect,
    however it was a starting point, an initial conversation with Congress
    as a strategy to develop and modernize Puerto Rico's economy.
        That conversation then had numerous professionals and scholars from
    the island. The people that understood and care about the island
    immediate and projected future, furthermore how the island would
    introduce itself into a competitive shifting economic market.
        There are numerous topics that branched out of this economic
    initiative and legislation. Perfectly imperfect, but regardless
    necessary to move forward.
        The reason to run commentary on this specific isolated topic, is
    the fact Puerto Rico should be allowed to make its own decisions, hence
    developing strategies to push onwards and plan the next decades of
    sustainability for the island socioeconomic infrastructure.
        Recently it has been evident that a selective few benefit from the
    status discourse, in lieu of being an all inclusive community/island
    conversation.
        The puertorriqueno scholars, doctors, architects, engineers, young
    entrepreneurs, historians and educators . . . ``The Puerto Rican
    People'' (from all sectors) should be leading this conversation.
    Separately, it would be beneficial for Congress to provide the
    opportunity to enforce transparency in the island. Something the last
    cycle of local governments have failed to deliver to the people.
        A viable solution and direction cannot be reached until these
    individuals/sectors further advance this strategy and/or negotiation
    with Congress.
    Milton Maury
        Dear Members of Congress, Nidia Velazques, Alexandria Ocasio
    Cortes, Raul Grijalva, Jennifer Gonzalez-Colon, Governor Pedro
    Pierluisi, and everyone alike.
        My name is Milton Maury Martinez. I speak as an individual and not
    on behalf of any entity, although I participate in many organizations,
    for example, League of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC) Concilium
    14267, which unequivocally supports Statehood for Puerto Rico. I have
    lived in the states as well as in Puerto Rico. I have seen what
    inequality looks like.
        We the people/citizens of the United States of America, living at
    the islands of Puerto Rico, Possession of and Land of our Nation, have
    been a willing part of the United States of America for well over a
    CENTURY. But you already know this.
        This is who we are, part of our Nation.
        We have consistently and democratically expressed our will to
    become a full-fledged state of the union, thus ending COLONIALISM.
        We ask for equal rights AND responsibilities like any other state
    of the union.
        Isn't it ironic that if YOU decide to stay here at Puerto Rico, you
    lose the right to equality? This is plainly wrong, unjust, and
    shameful, to this date.
        Support the will of the people of Puerto Rico, through a fully
    democratic process with the direct vote of every able citizen. I am
    sure that people will choose their NON-Colonial future WISELY.
        Fortify democracy in our nation, listen to our request, and the
    request of our families and friends in all states. We need to do what's
    right, A state of the union. It's time to ACT, no further obstructions
    should be permitted. Finalize this draft and submit it for voting.
        This will make our nation be even bigger, and have one more shining
    STAR, whilst enhancing the respect of all nations toward the U.S., as
    leaders of democracy. Puerto Rico is diverse like all states And
    treasures our nation's way of life.
        Thank you for hearing me, have an excellent evening, ``here, as
    this is also your LAND''.
    Roberto Santiago
        Puerto Rico was an integral piece of Spain's sovereignty for more
    than 500 years and to further add to that Spain's first autonomous
    community. The option for reunification with Spain should definitely be
    included in the possible coming referendum!
    Juan Garcia
        In the S. 244 project led by J Bennett Johnston these 2 items were
    conceded for Commonwealth
        Allows the Governor of Puerto Rico to certify that the Puerto Rico
    legislature has adopted a resolution that states that a Federal law
    should no longer apply to Puerto Rico because there is no overriding
    national interest in having such law apply to Puerto Rico. Provides
    that a Federal law so certified shall no longer apply to Puerto Rico if
    a joint resolution approving the recommendation of the Puerto Rican
    Government is enacted. Sets forth procedures for consideration of such
    joint resolution.
        Authorizes the Governor of Puerto Rico to enter into international
    agreements to promote the international interests of Puerto Rico as
    authorized by the President
        So PR could say that a law does not appply to Puerto Rico not
    related to security Example The Cock fights prohibition
        And Puerto Rico could enter into commercial treaties with other
    nations
        With these 2 items no one can say that Commonwealth is a colony
    Frank Rivera III
        Please support an independent Puerto Rico. The US has taken all
    that it's wanted from the island for too long and our people deserve to
    do as they choose and not be governed by PROMESA or suffer inflationary
    burdens due to the Jones Act. Soberano Puerto Rico. You even told us we
    could fly our flag because it represented the independence we have
    sought since the colonization of the island. Free Puerto Rico from the
    shackles set in it by the United States. Support a free Puerto Rico by
    supporting its right to self governance and determination.
    Claudia Alayon
        The only options that should be presented to our people should be
    statehood or independence. Having three (3) options to include
    sovereignty via free association would only serve to split the vote for
    the people who oppose statehood. Additionally, this would increase the
    pro-statehood discourse through unfair and innacurate results. This has
    happened in the past and is a big reason why our people have not taken
    our previous referendums seriously.
    Victor Perez
        Distinguish congressional guests: Thanks for the opportunity to
    provide us, the US citizens living in Puerto Rico, with the opportunity
    to actively participate and be responsible for determining our
    collective future status in relation to our nation. Last Monday, May
    31, 2022, we gather to solemnly remember our heroes during the Memorial
    Day activities. Looking around the thousands of people (around the
    world) presenting their respects to our heroes and their families, it
    became evident that we're considered first class citizens to SERVE and
    DIE. However, while we ratified our citizenship with our military
    service the respect and dignity of our DEMOCRACY the one, we have sworn
    to protect and defend is not fully applied to us.
        We need to embrace our duties and responsibilities along with our
    rights and benefits as every other PROUD Patriot and citizen of our
    great nation. A long time ago I swore to defend our Nation from
    enemies, Foreign and Domestic. Statehood will HONOR that statement
    embracing all individual differences in the melting pot that DEMOCRACY
    provides. Who believes in equality and fair treatment of those who will
    honor the opportunity to actively participate in this exciting process
    will always be remembered. Let's move forward and see how much we can
    accomplish together as an equal partner. Always ready to serve!
    Esdras Juarbe
        We, Puerto Rico, deserve our independence. Nos merecemos nuestra
    independencia, es cuestion de moral, dignidad, respeto y prosperidad.
        If the United States call themselves the land of the free and under
    the name of democracy they fight wars, why haven't they given us our
    independence? Isn't independence a human right? A right that, we, as
    individuals, deserve? Isn't the United States an advocate for defending
    the sovereignty, liberty and democracy of foreign nations? Hypocrisy.
        Members of Congress, please listen our people and not corrupt
    politicians. I'm a 17 years old and I do care about my island and
    people's future, and I will not recognize my self a full American and
    either I want to see my island, Puerto Rico, becoming a state. Our
    hearts belong here, shall you honor that.
        A Nation that's incompatible with mine shall not rule us. We should
    rule ourselves.
        I completely support a fully independent and sovereign Puerto Rico;
    Republic of Puerto Rico, and I do believe in joining the world, not the
    United States.
        If we are not granted our independence in which we have been
    fighting for more than a century, then, your government and laws should
    be ruled by hypocrisy and impunity.
        Que viva Puerto Rico Libre!
    Tiffany Lazo-Cedre
        Another plebiscite is a waste of money and resources that will
    again be manipulated by corrupt government officials or result in zero
    action. Instead, the government should direct their resources and
    investments to fostering local businesses, infrastructure development
    (the roads of Puerto Rico are shameful), and education.
    Merari Fernandez Castro
        After reading the Puerto Rico Status bill, I understand the
    statehood definition is vague and doesn't explain the economical
    implications if Puerto Rico becoming a state. For example, are Puerto
    Ricans going to pay federal taxes? What economic analysis has been made
    to determine wether the people of Puerto Rico can afford to pay federal
    taxes? How statehood will make living in Puerto Rico more expensive? In
    addition, there is no explanation on language imposition and
    international sport representation if becoming a state. Also, how is
    statehood going to prevent the influx of Americans moving to the island
    to take advantage of tax benefits regular local Puerto Ricans have no
    access to.
        In terms of the independence for Puerto Rico explanation, there was
    an explanation of how federal funds will decrease slowly but it doesn't
    mention a plan to substitute those federal funds. For example, some
    authors like Javier Hernandez mentions in his books how that process
    could take place by 1) the elimination of ``leyes de cabotaje'', 2)
    control of tourism, 3) allowing Puerto Rico to control the fees paid to
    the federal aviation administration to Puerto Rico, 4) protecting local
    businesses products from unfair foreign businesses competition via
    legislation so local businesses can have tax and other incentive
    advantages.
        Thank you very much.
    Bianca Serrano
        If god forbid Puerto Rico were to become a state Puerto Rican
    culture would slowly cease to exist. Pride, nationality, and moral
    would be lost to another imperialist country. Puerto Rico must be
    free!!!
    Carmen Kortright
        A good friend of mine was raped, sodomized and abused for many
    years by her boyfriend who, on top of everything, has also been
    unfaithful and has put her in jeopardy many, many times and given her
    several diseases from those encounters. Sure, he pays some of the bills
    but what she doesn't realize is that this has been a win-win situation
    for him because he makes money off of her (I won't go into details
    because it's just too horrible and humiliating).
        Because this is an abusive relationship that has gone on for so
    long, she has no self esteem whatsoever and she believes she can't
    survive without him. She also believes she'll turn into a bad, abusive
    person without his ``guidance''. She believes she has the solution:
    demand that he marry her so he can do her ``justice''.
        This is Puerto Rico asking for statehood, in a nutshell.
        I believe in the good will of the congresspeople spearheading this
    project but I don't trust a plebiscite managed and conducted by the
    bipartisan machine that has held Puerto Rico hostage for decades. And
    the U.S. Government KNOWS them, KNOWS what they are all about and
    collaborates with them actively because even though colonialism is
    unlawful, illegal, degrading, wrong . . . it is the best status for the
    U.S. to have Puerto Rico under. Talk about hypocrisy from the Land of
    Democracy!
        Also, what's with the people who spoke yesterday before the
    committee? How did the organizers hand out the spaces for the people
    who spoke? The panels were INUNDATED with people from pro-statehood
    organizations. These people have money, have connections, have power,
    do not represent the typical middle class (what's left of them; I
    consider myself part of the working, educated, not on welfare yet,
    poor) Puerto Ricans. They support laws enacted by the local, corrupt
    political establishment to flood Puerto Rico with people from the
    Mainland that use the island to evade paying taxes while the rest of us
    DROWN under low salaries, high cost of living, laws that protect
    employers and leave employees at their mercy, with no protection. These
    people don't live in the same Puerto Rico where I live. And THOSE
    PEOPLE, are the ones YOU chose to listen.
        The current governor, from the New Progressive Party . . . he won
    with a 33% of the votes. Is that a majority, truly? Right now that
    party is being ``investigated'' by the feds. Those investigations are
    the crumbs the Federal government give us to pacify us but I'm sure
    they KNOW about everything that has been going on with these people,
    and they've known for ages.
        The governor's sister and campaign manager works with him at La
    Fortaleza and because she doesn't earn a salary for her efforts . . .
    that's honky dory. Doesn't this remind you of Trump and his kids? How
    is this not illegal? We know that a salary is the least important thing
    you get out of working in La Fortaleza. Connections, influence,
    information . . . that is worth so much more.
        That same governor appointed a board of lobbyists, paid by ALL
    PUERTO RICANS to represent statehood in the Federal Capital. Shouldn't
    that be paid by his party? Because those people DO NOT REPRESENT MY
    VIEWS.
        And that is the governor, that is the government you wish to put in
    charge of the plebiscite. You are part of the problem then.
        After 124 years of lies, abuse, half-truths, so much wrongdoing,
    despair, propaganda, gaslighting . . . the People of Puerto Rico are so
    damaged that the majority is not capable of making a rational decision
    on this subject. We don't trust our abilities, we don't trust our
    capabilities, we don't understand the concept of freedom, liberty and
    justice for all and that those things ARE OURS from the moment we are
    born, without the need for a plebiscite or Congress or the United
    States.
        Please tell me HOW YOU are going to deal with that before we vote
    on a rigged and bipartisan (PNP/PPD)-controlled plebiscite. Not even
    your hearing yesterday was fair! There was no ``equal representation''
    at all of all the views on this issue.
    Eric Ortiz Baez
        Puerto Rico need thier independence from USA but keep their
    relationships with United States. because the Puerto Rico economy
    Puerto Rican not by American government. If Puerto Rico obtain the
    independence obtain the reason for make the solution for what is better
    for the island and their citizens. the inner issue of Puerto Rico are
    the Puerto Rican citizens issue not American people
    Ramon Crespo
        Gracias a los congresistas Raul Grijalva, Nydia Velazquez, Darren
    Soto, Alexandria Ocasio y Jennifer Gonzalez por estar de acuerdo en
    presentar este borrador. si ustedes energicamente lo respaldan, no
    importando los detractores, los Estados Unidos de America se
    convertiria en una nacion mas poderosa al anadir 3.3 millones de
    personas para defenderla. Ademas nos sacaria de ser ciudadanos de
    segunda clase ante el mundo. Soy un americano (a orgullo) nacido en un
    territorio llamado Puerto Rico. Mi bandera USA, segunda bandera PR.
    L. Rivera
        The option of Reunification with Spain should be available to all
    Puerto Ricans. Puerto Rico, an autonomous province of Spain, never
    decided to separate from Spain, it was separated without the consent of
    the people in 1898. The Reunification option is the most natural status
    option for Puerto Rico.
    Allison Raffel
        AOC is antisemitic and refuses to meet with Jews in her
    neighborhood. She should be ashamed of herself and her blatant
    disregard for Jews in her district. Her stance on ending funding for
    Israel, while continuing to support sending foreign aid to every other
    country that the US sends aid to, is antisemitic and a double standard.
    Her stance against Russian sanctions while wanting to sanction Israel
    is also an antisemitic double standard. I'm glad she's willing to help
    you guys, but she's a bigot and should be held accountable for that.
        You should also consider working with politicians who aren't
    bigots. But unfortunately, politicians are largely selfish, and selfish
    people are usually bigoted, whether toward Jews or other groups.
        Good luck to you. AOC sucks.
    Luis Santos Santiago
        Estimado Comite de Recursos Naturales y Distinguidos Congresistas:
    Mi nombre es Luis Santos Santiago soy un joven residente del pueblo de
    Gurabo, Puerto Rico soy parte de la Juventud del Movimiento Victoria
    Ciudadano actualmente los jovenes de Puerto Rico nacimos en una crisis
    y sobrevivimos en una crisis continua en donde no tenemos educacion
    accesible, Pocos Servicios de Salud y Pocos Desarrollo Socioeconomico
    en Puerto Rico.
        Propuestas para el Puerto Rico Estatus Act:
        1. Establecer el tiempo necesario para que cada ciudadano de Puerto
    Rico sea educada de manera Inclusiva y Vinculante.
        2. Eliminacion de la Junta de Control Fiscal y toda deuda ilegal en
    el Gobierno de Puerto Rico.
        3. Antes de la aprobacion de Puerto Rico Estatus Act todos los
    congresistas visitaran el teritorio de los Estados Unidos Puerto Rico
    para que puedan conoser de serca la crisis que se vive en este pais.
        4. Establecer que el presidente de que Estados Unidos visitara el
    territorio de los Estados Unidos, Puerto Rico para la firma final de
    este Proyecto para demostrar el compromiso de su gobierno ante Puerto
    Rico.
        5. Para establecer en el Proyecto que si el compromiso de los
    Estadis Unidos es genuino en no tener un territorio uncluiran en el
    Proyecto que las Islas Virgenes de Estados Unidos y otras Islas del
    Caribe que son territorio seran parte del estado de Puerto Rico.
        6. Para establecer en el proyecto de Estatus de Puerto Rico que
    antes de aprobar este proyecto todos los problemas ambientales,
    gentrificacion y Socio Economico.
        7. Establecer en el proyecto qie Puerto Rico no sera un Paraiso
    Fiscal para los Inversionistas.
        8. Para establecer que para aprobar el Proyecto de Puerto Rico
    Estatus Act y sea uno vinculante el Sistema Electoral de Puerto Rico
    tendra que ser establecido de una manera Vinculante con todo la
    ciudadania del Pais, Organisaciones y Grupos Politicos esto ya que el
    Partido Nuevo Progresista aprovo un Sistema Electoral en Puerto Rico de
    manera no Vinculante e Inclusiva.
        El Pais de Puerto Rico tiene que ser el Dueno de la Democracia de
    su Pais.
        9. Para establecer que cada ciudadano de Puerto Rico no se podra
    abstener ante la eleccion del Puerto Rico Estatus.
        10. Para establecer en el Proyecto de Estadidad que en cuando esta
    sea establecida que los inpuestos sean menos qie otros estados ya qe
    seremos en estado mas pobre de los Estados Unidos.
        11. Incluir en la opcion de Estadidad que cada Estado de los
    Estados Unidos incluyendo Puerto Rico tendra una representacion en el
    equipo Olimpico de los Estados Unidos, estos participantes podran
    portar banderas de su preferencia con el objetivo de que puedan llevar
    la bandera de su estado representado.
    Waldemar Rosario Inigo
        Honorable members of the House Committee on Natural Resources, the
    current status in Puerto Rico has been very beneficial to all. Bankers
    have laundered money, politicians have gotten kickbacks, lobbyists have
    bought regulations.
        However, we also obtained college degrees, served in the military,
    achieved goals in sports, science, medicine, businesses, etc.
        We are smart, genius level smart, and also brave and compassionate.
        In my opinion, all we need in PR for now is to include the vote for
    the President, and abolish the Jones Maritime Act. Let the people
    decide if they want to keep the current status plus President and no
    Maritime Act. Note that the party that pushes for statehood will indeed
    claim the ownership of Government if we become a state, as they do now.
        We all know Congress will not accept to change the balance of power
    by admitting PR as a state.
        A sensible transition, or empowerment, starting with voting for the
    President, will increase visibility among all Americans and future
    Presidents will make sure they take care of PR if they want to get a
    big chunk of our votes.
        We have had many corrupt politicians and many are pro statehood.
        For example, in recent years, many jumped to illegally buy and
    sell, invading beach front Real Estate allowing the buyer to believe
    ``their beach'' is private. Beaches are classified as public domain in
    PR, construction is illegal for over 65 feet from where the wave breaks
    during a storm. But they allow false permits, Natural Resources
    destruction, favors to donors, friends, and others. These are some of
    the internal problems currently being addressed by regular citizens.
        This committee, in my opinion, should allow PR to have the current
    status but empowered, as a choice in a plebiscite.
        Also note that defining Independence as PR becoming a ``red head
    step child'', tells a lot about your prejudices.
        On the other hand, if you assume that all the pro statehood
    proponents are decent and truthful like ``scout honor'', tells me you
    are naive.
        Before voting, the voters should be totally informed, straight from
    the source, you, and as it happened with the current status (E.L.A.)
    that was accepted back in 1952, by more than 80% of the available
    voters, this time should have a similar turnout.
        If you do not present viable solutions, many voters may not support
    the process and this will hinder the outcome.
        At least the following choices should be offered:
        1. Statehood
        2. Independence w/partnership
        3. E.L.A. w/ President and no Maritime Act
        I am committed to work for the betterment of my Island regardless
    of what choice the People will make.
        Thank you for this opportunity to express my opinion.
    Eduardo Torrech
        Any offer of statehood for Puerto Rico (ELA) is illegal because the
    island is a territory not incorporated. In other to qualify for the
    offer, US Congress have to legislate first the status of incorporated
    territory.
        That could be the offer. A responsible plebiscite will be ELA >
    incorporated territory > independence.
        But you want also to exclude the status quo legislated by your
    Congress (Law 600) in 1952, and ignore the Supreme Court decisions in
    the Insular Cases.
    Carlos Moya
        Please make it clear that any arrangement other than statehood or
    the current commonwealth status WILL result in the loss of U.S.
    citizenship for both the Island's inhabitants and possibly even island-
    born Puerto Ricans living on the mainland. An education campaign should
    be done to educate Islanders on the power senators and the 3-5 member
    congressional delegation the Island stands to gain.
    Alex Flores
        I support the discussion to solve the Puerto Rico Colonnial Status
    in the next years to come. The Draft needs several amendments.
        Puerto Rico has been a colony of the two powers of the times, Spain
    and United States for more than 400 years. Both have neglected
    puertorricans to be on our own will. Do not judge puertorricans for the
    traitors to the Puertorrican Nation, who have govern to steal the
    wealth of both of us, PR and USA. We are 9 million puertorricans in the
    world, not only we, who lives in the archipelago. Boriken, Vieques and
    Culebra are the archipelago.
        Changes:
        First, tell the truth. USA will never give the Statehood to our
    Latin People. So, the vote will continue with status that both would
    accept.
        Second, take the Statehood out of the discussion. So, the US Senate
    can also vote on the Act.
        Third, only puertorricans nationals can vote, in USA, or in any
    country in the world that they may live. You will be surprised all the
    countries where a puertorrican live.
        Forth, no foreigners living in Puerto Rico may vote. This is only
    our own subject.
        Fifth, the debt will be paid. But the good debt, not the dirty
    debt. Good accounting helps to have fair business.
        The actions of the Congress will tell us what do you want. If this
    Act is for real or another circus. Personally, I do not trust the
    American Goverment for their actions of the past against the Native
    Americans, and against Puertorricans who have live toward independence.
    Eduardo Troche
        I think the resolution of the PR political status is long overdue.
    I hope that this approach is a serious one no matter what the outcome
    may be. The territorial status must not be considered as decolonization
    option because it is the root cause of our problems. The Congress must
    commit to implement without delay whatever the choice is from the
    direct vote of the people of PR.
        I hope this has nothing to do with political strategy. 100+ years
    is more than enough of beign US citizens without vote for those who
    take decisions that have direct impact in our lives. I hope this time
    we put and end to the colonial status and have a fresh start either as
    a new state of the union or as an independent nation with or without
    association with the USA.
    Jose Hernandez
        The bill excludes commonwealth status, which is supported by at
    least 46% of Puerto Rican voters.
        It is worrisome that progressive Democrats are willing to promote
    their personal preferences on this issue by disenfranchising such a
    large portion of the voters.
        Its ok if they dislike the commonwealth alternative, but it is ugly
    to impose their will over the people's will.
    Jose Vazquez
        Any discussion of decolonization must start with the recognition
    that Puerto Rico is a Latin American and Caribbean nation and
    consideration of any status option should start from that premise--
    including US statehood. There is no equivalent of a nation-state in the
    US. The closest example would be Quebec in Canada. That province is
    given special authorities (in immigration and other cultural matters)
    in recognition of its unique character. Would PR be allowed the same?
    For ex, would Puerto Ricans retain their separate national teams and
    cultural international representation under statehood? Would there be a
    recognition that, as a nation (like Quebec, Scotland etc), it would
    have the right to exit the union after admission if it so chose? Let's
    not pretend the admission of PR would not be a novel situation for the
    US wish would be admitting a Latin American nation as a state (among
    its 50 majority anglo speaking states). Ignoring this reality and being
    open about it in order to address the future is a disservice to both PR
    and the US.
    Esteban Bermudez
        My name is Esteban Bermudez, citizen of the city of Caguas in
    Puerto Rico. These expressions and opinions are only my own, although I
    do participate with other organizations in favor of the bill. I will
    attempt to be as succinct as possible. Also, for the record, I favor
    independence, but I will try to look at all options fairly and provide
    recommendations for each. I hope that my comments are seriously
    considered and carefully analyzed.
        In Section 5, paragraph (3), the meaning of majority should be
    defined.
        Section 5, (b)(3): Sovereignty in Free Association with the United
    States is relatively vague about the implications of the Articles of
    Free Association. In general, the option of Sovereignty in Free
    Association will have trouble in being a favorable option in relation
    to the other two because its consequences are unclear. I do not know if
    it is part of the purpose of this bill to define what things can be
    negotiated as part of a Free Association relationship with the United
    States. However, it would be favorable for voters to know what would be
    the result of this type of relationship, so as to inform voters in a
    way that they can decide if the form of Sovereignty in Free Association
    agreed upon is what they desire. Otherwise, the consequences of this
    alternative will be known ex post facto, which might be problematic for
    both those who voted for this option and those who voted for the other
    options, if it were to win. This could potentially give an unfair
    advantage to either statehood or full independence because their
    consequences are defined more clearly, are relatively well known, and
    might represent their interests better in the face of uncertainty about
    Sovereignty in Free Association. In general, this previous concern also
    applies to Sections 209, 210 and maybe a few others related to this
    status option.
        In Section 6, paragraph (a) I have a concern regarding the
    availability of voter education materials specifically at the voting
    locations. This might be used by the local Elections Commission to
    sneak in propaganda skewed in favor of or against certain options.
    Although the Elections Commission should be impartial and fair in all
    directions, past elections (especially in 2020) have shown that this is
    unfortunately not the case. In addition, guaranteeing a transparent and
    fair process specifically within the voting locations is more difficult
    than in the traditional media outlets that are public for everyone to
    see, but in particular locations the options that are underrepresented
    or not favored by the majority might be unfairly disadvantaged.
        In Section 11, paragraph (3) refers to a ``subparagraph (B)'' that
    is not present in the current section (maybe it refers to a
    subparagraph in PROMESA?).
        In Section 105, the composition of the Joint Transition Committee
    is not specified, while in the Bilateral Negotiating Commission of
    Section 209, this composition is stated as 5 appointed by the President
    of the United States and 5 appointed by the presiding officer of the
    Constitutional Convention. In addition, I think these people should be
    elected from among the members of the Constitutional Convention, as
    with the Bilateral Negotiating Commission, and not appointed
    unilaterally by the presiding officer.
        In Section 110, paragraph (b), how will the United States ensure
    that the Government of the nation of Puerto Rico will not use the
    Social Security funds for any other purpose than its intended one if it
    will already be an independent nation with its own self-government and
    decision-making? I am not saying this will happen, and hopefully it
    doesn't. But given the known fact that, even within the current status
    where the United States actually has the power to dictate what Puerto
    Rico can do with its Federal funds, there have been many instances
    where the funds are used for purposes to which they were not intended,
    it's difficult to trust that this will not happen again in
    independence. Even if this was not the case, in theory the Government
    of the nation of Puerto Rico could find reasonable justification to use
    these funds elsewhere in a completely fair and beneficial manner, and
    this law would be interfering with the rights of a sovereign Puerto
    Rico to do as it pleases with its public funds.
        While comparing the processes of independence and sovereignty in
    free association, I noticed that submission and ratification have
    different periods, 1 and 2 years, respectively. Is there a reason for
    this or was this a mistake?
        In general, regarding the option for statehood, I agree with what
    many other groups and individuals have argued. It might be problematic
    to include the option of statehood in a manner that essentially admits
    Puerto Rico as a state in such a short period of time compared to the
    other two options. Although in theory it might seem that Puerto Rico's
    governmental, administrative and financial structures will not change
    significantly when becoming a state, I think there should still be a
    transition period as with independence and sovereignty in free
    association. In fact, as far as I know, all states that have been
    admitted into the Union have become incorporated territories before
    becoming a state. Therefore, stating in this bill that Puerto Rico will
    transition into a state in a year or less will make approval of this
    bill into law very difficult if not impossible. The local Popular
    Democratic Party is already in talks with Republicans to put a stop to
    this bill and if statehood can be implemented so ``easily'', it will
    make it even more difficult.
        About the status options, under NO CIRCUMSTANCE can the current
    territorial and colonial status known as Estado Libre Asociado (ELA),
    and referred to as ``Commonwealth'' wrongly in English, be included as
    an option in this bill. The root cause of many problems in Puerto Rico
    is the colonial status and the solution to the problem cannot be the
    problem itself, no matter how much the proponents of this undignified
    complain.
        Last, but most definitely not least, the issue of Puerto Rico's
    debt must be addressed in this bill, as many others have said. Puerto
    Rico's government has made several decisions recently that will make
    any of the options non-viable in the long term, since its plans for the
    future are unsustainable. Along with the departure of the Fiscal
    Oversight and Management Board, the debt must be reduced even more
    significantly than it already has or even eliminated completely, if not
    assumed completely by the United States as the imperial authority.
    ere eme
        In 1898 two unauthorized citizens of Spain with no legal standing
    met with the government of the United States offering the Spanish
    Province of Puerto Rico to the United States. Taking us from province
    to colony The province of Puerto Rico had by a majority, voted to
    become an autonomous province of Spain better than what Canada was to
    the United Kingdom. This granted far better economic and political
    terms than what even a State of the USA has and still does. I want my
    country to be returned to Spain where we belong. Our culture, blood,
    and history unite us.
    Reinaldo Rdgz
        Mr. Grijalva et al. a fully self-governing political status for our
    Island obviously is not Statehood (that would be the outcome of
    colonization ) nor free sovereignty. Try yourselves as a
    representatives of USA to design a healthy relationship with Puerto
    Rico afterwards Independence. We will be free.
    Jorge Aponte
        The House Committee on Natural Resources: My name is Jorge E
    Aponte, a resident of Guaynabo City, Puerto Rico[1]; born and resident
    of Puerto Rico. The following is my written testimony (not the oral
    transcript) of my position regarding the DISCUSSION DRAFT[2], the
    object of the Public Input Forum on Puerto Rico Status Act Discussion
    Draft[3] on June 4, 2022.
        Someone said for the record that Puerto Rico is Hispanic and that's
    going to bring a lot of trouble. And I just recalled the history of New
    Mexico and Arizona; being part of California, then of Mexico and now
    both are States. Furthermore, a summary of the geographical
    colonization history of the USA is that Spanish territories comprised
    the Atlantic plains, from the Carolinas to St. Augustine, and southern
    Georgia to Mobile. The Pacific side was Spanish from Oregon to Baja
    California and east to Houston. There was also a French colonization,
    from Louisiana to Ohio, and Native lands remained in the Midwest and
    central north until it was colonized, mostly by Europeans. I had to
    bring to the record that being Hispanic is part of the multi
    culturalism and diversity that the United States of America is
    enhancing in all venues; it is a plus!
        Let me say, to start, that I believe in the character and the work
    being done by Alexandria Ocasio Cortes, Nydia Velazquez, and obviously
    Jenifer Gonzalez, and Mr. Raul Grijalva. And you are welcome because
    you have demonstrated that the value of bilingualism. And that is a
    true example of what the Puerto Rico people will deliver in the United
    States, by assembling different people. And some people won't lose
    their pensions earned outside the 50 states.
        I will address some non-legal related specifics, since so many
    people are focusing about legalities of these and that, and so many
    experts confuse.
        I don't represent any group; I tend to look for taxes and things
    like that because I'm a CPA on my own.
        So, on accounting of the votes, Section 5 (a)(3), states that
    ``Approval of a status option must be by a majority of the valid votes
    cast'', but item (b)(1) recognize that some noncompliant votes will not
    be counted. However, since the current Puerto Rico Electoral Code
    (Public Law 58-2020) requires an accounting of blank ballots made
    available to each electoral voting room, blank votes and nullified
    votes somehow must be accounted, to ensure integrity of the votes in
    the ballot (i.e., valid votes cast and blank and null add up to the
    total made available at the beginning of the voting day). Then, this
    might get more complex if ballots are to be counted manually or by
    means a scanning machines. So, I suggest the Committee take a closer
    look at this procedure. Otherwise, people might argue negatively about
    results after the votes are casted.
        The Committee must become aware that the Puerto Rico Electoral
    Commission is in a financial and administrative crisis, and that it
    might collapse the process unless it is overhaul. The Electoral
    Commission has a projected deficit for the past few years; and its
    President has raised some flags at a hearing this week[4]. Again, you
    must devote some time see that they put their act to do their job.
        The Discussion Draft does not mention FEMA and CDBG-DR
    extraordinary funds awarded as consequence of Hurricane Maria. It
    doesn't state what is going to happen to the undisbursed funds on the
    Independence options; nor what going to happen on Statehood. I think
    you should look for that.
        On Statehood there is no adjustment or retroactive benefit of SSI
    for the people who do not receive the benefits but meet the
    requirements, claimed for many years. Same thing happens with the
    pension of the Veterans that were calculated based on a non-continental
    resident, and that has to be taken for.
        There is no phase-in of the federal tax liability. The Draft
    propose some incentives for Independence, including extra funds on a
    huge amount as a block grant, but there is no proposition of incentives
    for the people of Puerto Rico, if we become--as I expect--a State.
    Also, the Draft does not mention the seed money to promote economic
    development using zones or something like that.
        And, in a personal basis becoming a State is important because I
    have a grandson living in the Florida Panhandle. His father is a 6-
    times Afghanistan active-duty veteran and needs some special health
    treatment and health services that the Puerto Rico veteran hospital
    doesn't provides, since only states have such specialized healthcare
    facilities.
    Emil Nieves
        Saludos. Agradecere que ignoren los primeros comentarios que envie.
    Le hice unas correcciones para mejorar la lectura.
        Los vuelvo a incluir:
        Comentarios sobre el anteproyecto de ley ``Puerto Rico Status Act''
        SEC. 4. DEFINITIONS''
        Electores elegibles (pag 3)
        La definicion establece que solo los residentes bona fide de PR que
    cualifiquen para votar en las elecciones generales podran votar para
    elegir una de las alternativas de estatus. Sin embargo, al hacerlo
    incluiria electores residentes no ciudadanos y ciudadanos
    naturalizados. Esto permitiria la participacion de ``no
    puertorriquenos'' en un proceso politico de autodeterminacion que
    deberia estar reservado a los nacidos en PR y a la primera generacion
    de descendientes de estos que residan o no residen en la isla.
        Considero que la definicion de electores elegibles tiene que ser
    discutida y debatida ampliamente antes que se apruebe un proyecto de
    ley que cambie el actual estatus de Puerto Rico. Despues de todo, la
    participacion en este tipo de proceso electoral no es para elegir la
    administracion colonial de turno.
        SEC. 5. PLEBISCITE''
        (3) SOVEREIGNTY IN FREE ASSOCIATION WITH THE UNITED STATES
        (D) ``Birth in Puerto Rico shall cease to be a basis for United
    States  citizens shall be eligible to acquire United States
    citizenship for the duration of the first . . . Association.'' (pag 7)
        No es lo mismo decir ``citizens shall be eligible to acquire United
    States citizenship'' que `` citizens shall acquire United States
    citizenship''. La frase ``be eligible to'' debe ser eliminada de forma
    tal que quede claro que bajo el estatus politico de Libre Asociacion,
    la ciudadania estadounidense de los que nazcan en PR es estrictamente
    ius sanguinis. Esto seria mas facil de explicar a la poblacion en
    general y a los electores en particular, ya que no seria la primera vez
    que la ciudadania estadounidense adviene a los puertorriquenos de esta
    forma. Bajo la Ley Jones de 1917 se impuso la naturalizacion colectiva
    a todos los residentes nacidos en PR, convirtiendolos por primera vez
    en ciudadanos estadounidenses. Sin embargo, la ciudadania de los
    futuros hijos de estos ciudadanos solo se adquiria cuando ambos padres
    eran ciudadanos estadounidenses, ciudadania ius sanguinis. Es la
    Nationality Act of 1940 la que establece que nacer en Puerto Rico
    equivale a nacer en Estados Unidos, estableciendo asi la ciudadania jus
    soli.
        (E) Puerto Rico enters into Articles of Free Association with the
    United States . . . which shall be terminable at will by either the
    United States or Puerto Rico at any time.''
        La frase ``terminable at will by either the United States or Puerto
    Rico at any time'' requiere aclaracion y definicion. La frase tal y
    como esta expresada traera incertidumbre y dudas entre los electores
    que pueden simpatizar por la Libre Asociacion y la igualaran a la
    independencia plena. La misma da margen a que los electores crean que
    cualquier acto caprichoso de ambas partes podria darle final al pacto
    de asociacion. Sugiero que la frase se modifique en una de las
    siguientes formas:
        1. Se puede senalar en el texto de la ley que durante el periodo de
    vigencia del primer pacto de asociacion el mismo ``will not be
    terminable at will at any time by either the United States or Puerto
    Rico''. En su lugar, se debe senalar que sera durante las negociaciones
    del segundo pacto de asociacion cuando se definan las condiciones y
    circunstancias bajo las cuales el pacto dejara de existir.
        2. Tambien se puede en este mismo anteproyecto de ley definir las
    condiciones y circunstancias bajo las cuales el pacto dejaria de
    existir antes de su vencimiento.
        SEC. 6. NONPARTISAN VOTER EDUCATION CAMPAIGN
        (b) VOTER EDUCATION MATERIALS (pag 10)
        Esta seccion no esta clara.
        SEC. 109. CITIZENSHIP; IMMIGRATION
        (2) CHILDREN BORN AFTER INDEPENDENCE (pag 23)
        Esta seccion no esta clara.
        SEC. 110 & 212. INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS TO ECONOMIC BENEFITS AND GRANTS
        (b) SOCIAL SECURITY SYSTEM (pag. 25 & 39)
         upon the proclamation of independence, are residents of the
    nation of Puerto Rico and are not yet eligible for old age, disability,
    or survivors' insurance benefits under the system, shall be transferred
    to the Government of the nation of Puerto Rico . . .''
        Esto debe ser modificado para no afectar los derechos de las
    personas que cotizan actualmente o que estaran cotizando al Sistema de
    Seguro Social de EEUU al momento de declararse la independencia. Estas
    personas deben de tener igual derecho, si asi lo desean, de continuar
    aportando a dicho sistema o de transferir sus aportaciones al sistema
    de seguridad social bajo la republica. De esta forma, las unicas
    personas que no entrarian a cotizar el sistema de EEUU son aquellas que
    entren al mercado laboral por primera vez luego de declararse la
    independencia. Los cambios a la cotizacion del Seguro Social de EEUU
    deben ser prospectivos.
        (c) OTHER FEDERAL TRANSFER PAYMENTS (pag 26)
        (2) ANNUAL AGGREGATE FUNDING
        (3) DECREASE IN AMOUNT
        Estas secciones proveen para que el nivel de transferencias
    federales se mantenga por un espacio de 10 anos (a partir del cual
    decrece) a un nivel equivalente a la totalidad de los fondos
    transferidos al momento de declararse la independencia. Dado el tiempo
    que requerira desarrollar el nivel de comercio exterior y las
    relaciones bilaterales con otros paises, sera necesario un periodo mas
    extenso para alcanzar el flujo de fondos que actualmente provienen del
    Gobierno Federal. Entiendo que el periodo de 10 anos es muy corto. Eete
    periodo debe ser mas extenso o tiempo en que estaran decreciendo las
    transferencias mas prolongado. Cuanto? Sugiero que la Oficina de
    Presupuesto del Congreso modele los posibles escenarios.
        TITLE III--TRANSITION AND IMPLEMENTATION--STATEHOOD
        (1) PRESIDENTIAL PROCLAMATION; DATE OF ADMISSION. (pag 41)
        En esta seccion se establece una transicion de un ano para la
    estadidad. Esto no es realista. Las complejidades en los cambios en las
    leyes de Puerto Rico requeriran mas tiempo. Ademas, crea un desbalance
    a favor de esta opcion de estatus, ya que el tiempo para salir del
    actual estatus colonial es mas corto. El campo de juego para todas las
    opciones debe estar nivelado.
        Entiendo que de ganar esta opcion, se debe establecer un proceso
    con un tiempo fijo el cual en primer lugar ordenaria crear una comision
    conjunta entre el Gobierno de Puerto Rico y el Gobierno Federal donde
    se establezca con claridad cuales son las leyes que requeriran cambios,
    la forma que estas deben cambiar y cuando deben comenzar a regir. En
    segundo lugar, se debe someter a la aprobacion del Congreso y luego de
    los electores de Puerto Rico. Si los electores lo aprueban, entonces se
    comenzaria un proceso de incorporacion completa a EEUU.
        SEC. 306 CONTINUITY OF LAWS, GOVERNMENT, AND OBLIGATIONS (pag 47/
    48)
        (3) CONTINUITY OF OBLIGATIONS
        All contracts, obligations, liabilities, debts, and claims of the
    territory of Puerto Rico and its instrumentalities at the moment of
    admission shall continue in full force . . .'' Excepto por lo que se
    menciona en la Seccion 306, el anteproyecto de ley no trata el nivel de
    deuda publica que tiene la isla. Considero que no importa el cambio de
    estatus que finalmente prevalezca, el nivel de deuda publica existente
    no sera consono con el desarrollo economico futuro de Puerto Rico.
    Debido a que el mismo se adquirio bajo las leyes de EEUU y su pago
    actual es una imposicion de la Junta de Control Fiscal creada por el
    Congreso sin el aval de los puertorriquenos, no le corresponde a Puerto
    Rico pagarlo. EEUU debe asumir dicha deuda para que las posibilidades
    de exito economico sean mayores bajo cualquier estatus.
    Luis Trinidad
        Indeed the independence for Puerto Rico is a superb business for
    the USA.
        Is a simple thing! Math! Pure Math. More than 30 states would have
    less power than Puerto Rico! Is never going to happen.
        ``And here is where the STATEHOOD BACKERS ARE ARROGANT. While they
    rightly insist that Puerto Rico not be give up its unique identity,
    they are demanding that the United States give up its unique identity--
    and become a bilingual and bicultural nation. THE ANSWER MUST BE NO.
    FOR THAT WOULD BE SUICIDAL''. Pat Buchanan
        ``Let Puerto Rico remain Puerto Rico, and let the United States
    remain the United States and not try to absorb, assimilate and
    Americanize a people whose hearts will forever belong to that island''.
    Pat Buchanan
        ``What would statehood mean? Since the island has a per-capita
    income one-half of Mississippi's, its unemployment is three times the
    U.S. level, and half its people qualify for welfare, statehood means a
    mammoth new unfunded liability''. Pat Buchanan
    Ronald Porrata
        It is about time US citizens residing in Puerto Rico are allowed to
    vote for the US President and their own US representatives and US
    senators. Granting PR Statehood with cure this most undemocratic
    status.
    Jorge Mejias
        As a born and raised American from Puerto Rico, it's been difficult
    to understand why to live in the island diminishes rights as american.
    We want equality. Nothing different from what fellow Americans from
    other states.
        Our current territorial status doesn't uphold a democratic
    analysis. Congress is way pass the time to act and provide an
    opportunity for the Americans living in the island to decide from none
    territorial options, what should be our fate. I sincerely thanks the
    Members of Congress for taking the time, but please follow with an
    approval of the bill.
    Christopher Lanski
        Please remove the second option. This will keep it easier for the
    population, their discussions, and decreases similar confusion that may
    have occurred with earlier votes. Make it (1) Independent country of
    Puerto Rico, and (2) U.S. State of Puerto Rico.
        In addition, to make it definitive and demonstrate greater support
    for either option, consider the requirement of a 60% (three-fifths)
    majority for either of the two options in order to take effect.
    Richard Allen
        I live in Puerto Rico full time for past 20 years. There is no
    doubt that people living here do not want statehood.
        Everybody I talk to now does not want the irreversable status of
    statehood.
        The independence movement has grown, though it still remains less
    popular than continuing association with USA.
        Puerto Rican attitudes on the island are much different than
    thinking on mainland USA. Forcing or promoting statehood is not
    accepted well here.
        I recommend you send people to take the pulse of the island. Ask
    people if they want statehood. Few do.
        This is not Hawaii, sp Congressional push to force statehood will
    not work in PR. There is way too much opposition.
        Congress needs to legislate better rights and conditions for Puerto
    Rico, not statehood. Not to do so (like removing the hated Jones Act)
    will result in stronger numbers of people opposing US rule.
    Jose Deliz
        Eliminate references to the language in this ill. It falls under
    the 10th amendment of our Constitution.
        The Route map is clearly defined in the draft project. It does NOT
    require many amendments.
    Albert Garnica
        Election results of any kind are still merited on the mainland
    regardless of low voter turnout. Meanwhile, Puerto Rico has voted on 3
    different instances to gain admission as a state. The most recent
    referendum was held in 2020 with one specific question, rather than
    adding confusion in language via alternate choices. Unfortunately,
    those results were ignored by Congress. As an American Citizen of non-
    Puerto Rican decent, my heart aches for this territory full of
    individuals who are treated as 2nd class citizens. Rather than
    respecting the results since the last 3 times this topic was placed
    before them, I can acknowledge how drafting a new bill with convoluted
    text would further demoralize & disenfranchise these voters yet again.
    An inadvertent side-effect would be further apathy and general thinking
    of ``what's the point?'' Prior to 1959, the majority of the Hawaiian
    people did not want to become a state, yet it did join the union. In
    contrast, Puerto Ricans have consistently voiced their yearning to be
    part of the US through the legal means at their disposal, yet no action
    has been taken. Please remedy this, we support any bill to immediately
    admit the 51st State.
    Timothy Bill
        Dear Committee Members, I am strongly in favor of this legislation
    and this approach for handling the decolonization of Puerto Rico. I
    have been passionate about giving Puerto Ricans the option to choose
    their own path forward and this bill as drafted would do so without the
    unconstitutional options included in some past non-bonding votes held
    on the island. I am also strongly in favor of this legislation creating
    binding outcomes based on the status vote. This issue has been holding
    Puerto Rico back for long enough. It's time to settle this in a just
    and democratic way. I believe this legislation would accomplish that
    goals.
    Katharine Bierce
        I support Puerto Rico becoming a state.
        Puerto Rican people do not want to be a colony, and America should
    not be a colonialist power.
        The benefits are numerous:
        1. The sometimes bizarre legal inequalities between Puerto Rico and
    the states would end, immediately helping Puerto Rico's economy. For
    example, Puerto Rico would be eligible for D-SNAP, the special food
    stamp program for disaster victims. No one can explain why Puerto Rico
    isn't eligible for the program now, but this situation would end if
    Puerto Rico were a state. The same holds true for the inequities in
    Medicaid, family tax credits, and many more Federal programs.
        2. Like every territory which has become a state, Puerto Rico would
    be in a stronger economic position. Jobs for local people will come
    naturally as Puerto Rico rebuilds. Being part of the larger U.S.
    economy will increase tourism, entrepreneurship, and investment in
    business in Puerto Rico. Instead of having to rely on self-destructive
    tax loopholes, Puerto Rico will have the same opportunities for growth
    the other states have.
        3. Puerto Rico will have full representation in the U.S.
    legislature, with the ability to vote on laws that affect Puerto Rico.
        4. Residents of Puerto Rico will be able to vote in Presidential
    elections, as well as in elections for senators and congresspeople.
    Full participation in the democratic process will be available to all
    residents of Puerto Rico.
        5. With increased power and prosperity, Puerto Rico will bring
    greater benefits to the United States as a whole, as every territory
    has done when it has become a state. Thank you!
    Noel Fuentes
        It's incredible! When Congress makes all these decisions because
    it's with Congress who decides, it has decided to let the island take
    a, vote on what a they want how about keeping it's always been but no,
    you let them decide did the British let it's finer colonies decide
    after WW 2 hell they cut them loose why won't Congress return P.R. back
    to spain they took her from her mother you are not their mother but
    that would be admitting you you were wrong in starting a war spain has
    14th best economy in the let them have their identity with spain they
    will grow.
    Conchy Perez
        After 35 plus years living in the states, statehood is not the
    answer to all of our problems. I hear all of you talking but only few
    have ever lived in the states. We will be exposed to losing our
    culture, tourism, island identity and representation around the world
    and much more. My calling to you is to spend all of your energy in
    bringing back companies to PR so our poverty levels will decrease,
    household income will increase and incentivize our future generation of
    professionals to stay. Carlos Romero Barcelo once said `` la estatidad
    es para los pobres'' as he was right. Look at where we are (read the
    2020 Census) today, financially dependent on the US as he always wanted
    and JGonzalez continues his legacy however those moneys hardly makes it
    to the needy. The people have been blindfolded, statehood is not the
    alternative. We are honest people, who deserve the truth of what
    statehood is and how will affect you as an individual and to our ISLA
    DEL ENCANTO.
    Jose Bird
        Statehood for Puerto Rico aligns with our Great Nation's democracy
    postulates The People have spoken and demand statehood. All of the
    recent vote events on the subject have had the same result: a majority
    for statehood.
        Only a meager minority is pulling for independence.
        Statehood is what is right. Colonialism is just wrong and we have
    repeatedly rejected it.
        The People have spoken. Congress must act.
    Jason Ortiz
        This suggests a poll that asks people what they agree with. The
    language can easily be interpreted to be asking people what the current
    status of Puerto Rico is, not what they want to the the future status.
    Many people think that Puerto Rico is a Freely Associated State, as in
    Spanish, the term ``Estado Libre Asociado'' translates to ``Freely
    Associated State''. This tactic was to give Puerto Rico it's current
    status. They were tricked into voting for the current status.
        As a result of a misleading ballot, the ballot shall make clear,
    ``Please choose the future you desire for Puerto Rico, you may only
    choose 1''It should NOT ask ``which do you agree with''. AGAIN, with
    that language, people are being asked to vote on what their reality
    currently is, and NOT the future.
        This is a power grab by the PPD, AOC, Raul Grijalva and Nydia
    Velasquez. This ballot is designed to botch statehood and get a result
    in favor of free association.

                                     ______

      Letter from Chair Grijalva requesting DOJ Analysis of H.R. 1522 and
                                   H.R. 2070

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                                     .

                  DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE--ANALYSIS OF H.R. 1522

               H.R. 1522, the Puerto Rico Statehood Admission Act

                               Executive Summary

        The Department of Justice supports providing the people of Puerto
    Rico the opportunity to vote on whether to become a state of the Union,
    as H.R. 1522 would do. The Department's concerns with the bill relate
    only to the manner of execution. The Department's primary concerns are
    (1) providing for an orderly transition of the Financial Managements
    and Oversight Board for Puerto Rico that was established by the Puerto
    Rico Oversight, Management, and Economic Stability Act (``PROMESA''),
    Pub. L. No. 114-187, 130 Stat. 549 (2016); and (2) addressing legal
    complications that would ensue from application of certain
    constitutional uniformity doctrines upon Puerto Rico's transition to a
    state. The Department stands ready to assist further in refining the
    legislation to address these and other concerns described in more
    detail below.

                          Section-by-Section Analysis

    Section 1 (Short Title)

        The stated purpose of H.R. 1522 is allow the Puerto Rican people to
    choose whether to become a state or remain a territory. The bill itself
    would not admit Puerto Rico as a state; rather, it would direct the
    President to issue a proclamation setting a date on which Puerto Rico
    will become a state if a majority of Puerto Rican voters chooses
    statehood in a territory-wide referendum. The Department would thus
    recommend that the title of the bill be the ``Puerto Rico Statehood
    Determination Act,'' or simply the ``Puerto Rico Statehood Act,'' so as
    not imply that admission of Puerto Rico as a state is a fait accompli.

    Section 2 (Findings)

        Subsection (4): It is unclear what section 2(4) means in saying
    that Puerto Rico, unlike Alaska and Hawaii, has not achieved statehood
    ``due to anomalies emanating from the 1901 Downes ruling and its
    progeny.'' Although Downes v. Bidwell, 182 U.S. 244 (1901), held that
    Puerto Rico was an unincorporated territory--and therefore not ``surely
    destined for statehood,'' Boumedienne v. Bush, 553 U.S. 753, 757
    (2008)--it did not hold that Puerto Rico's current status as an
    unincorporated territory is immutable.

        Subsection (13): As all of the current inhabited territories of the
    United States (the U.S. Virgin Islands, American Samoa, Guam, and the
    Northern Mariana Islands, in addition to Puerto Rico) are also
    considered unincorporated, we recommend changing ``unlike territories
    that are parts of the United States'' to ``unlike incorporated
    territories in the past.''

        Subsections (15)-(19): We note that the validity of the plebiscites
    identified in these findings is disputed. The Department of Justice has
    previously stated that the ballot propositions in the 2012 and 2017
    plebiscites contained inaccuracies and were potentially misleading and
    that the premise of the 2020 plebiscite--that the people of Puerto Rico
    had conclusively rejected the current territorial status in 2012 and
    2017--was one with which the Department disagreed. See, e.g., Letter
    for Juan Ernesto Davila Rivera, Chairman, Puerto Rico State Elections
    Commission, from Jeffrey A. Rosen, Deputy Attorney General, Re: Request
    of Federal Funds for Puerto Rico Plebiscite at 3 (July 29, 2020).
    Although the Department advised that all available status options were
    required to be included in the ballot for the 2017 plebiscite, we were
    not provided adequate time to review and approve the finalized ballot
    in time for the vote.*
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        *The Department has assumed a role in approving the ballots and
    voter education materials for the recent plebiscites upon Puerto Rico's
    requests for disbursement of funding for a plebiscite under the
    Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2014, Pub. L. No. 113-76, 128 Stat.
    5, 61 (2014).

    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Section 3 (Admission)

            Section 3 provides:

            Subject to the provisions of this Act, and upon issuance of the
            proclamation required by section 7(c), the Commonwealth of
            Puerto Rico is hereby declared to be a State of the United
            States of America, and as such shall be declared admitted into
            the Union on an equal footing with the other States in all
            respects.

        The language of section 3 is in some tension with the language of
    section 7(c). According to section 3, Puerto Rico would become a state
    upon ``issuance of the proclamation required by section 7(c).'' Section
    7(c), however, directs the President to issue a proclamation that
    declares the date (no more than twelve months after the Governor's
    certification) on which Puerto Rico would become a state, in order to
    ``facilitate a transition process.'' Under section 7(c), therefore,
    Puerto Rico becomes a state upon the date specified in the
    proclamation, not upon the issuance of the proclamation. Section 10,
    providing for termination of all federal and territorial laws
    incompatible with a status of statehood for Puerto Rico under the
    Constitution, similarly is tied to ``the date of statehood admission
    proclaimed by the President under section 7(c).'' We presume that one
    of the purposes of this transition process is to give Congress time to
    adjust federal law to be consistent with Puerto Rico's new status as a
    state (by, for instance, repealing tax and bankruptcy laws unique to
    Puerto Rico that might implicate the uniformity requirements of the
    Constitution, discussed further below). Declaring that Puerto Rico will
    become a state ``upon issuance of the proclamation required by section
    7(c)'' will not afford time for these adjustments.

            The Department therefore recommends that section 3 be revised
            as follows:

     [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

    Section 4 (Physical Territory)

        The Department has no concerns with this section.
    Section 5 (Constitution)

            Section 5 provides:

            The constitution of the State of Puerto Rico shall always be
            republican in form and shall not be repugnant to the
            Constitution of the United States and the principles of the
            Declaration of Independence. The constitution of the
            Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, as approved by Public Law 82-447
            and subsequently amended, is hereby found to be republican in
            form and in conformity with the Constitution of the United
            States and the principles of the Declaration of Independence,
            and is hereby accepted, ratified, and confirmed as the
            constitution of said State.

        This provision seems to leave open the possibility of further
    amendments to the Constitution of Puerto Rico that would not have been
    known to Congress or the President at the time this bill is enacted
    into law The Department recommends that section 5 be revised as
    follows

            The constitution of the State of Puerto Rico shall always be
            republican in form and shall not be repugnant to the
            Constitution of the United States and the principles of the
            Declaration of Independence. The constitution of the
            Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, as approved by Public Law 82-447
            and subsequently amended as of the date of enactment of this
            statute, is hereby found to be republican in form and in
            conformity with the Constitution of the United States and the
            principles of the Declaration of Independence, and is hereby
            accepted, ratified, and confirmed as the constitution of said
            State.

    Section 6 (Certification by President)

            Section 6 provides:

            Upon enactment of this Act, the President of the United States
            shall certify such fact to the Governor of Puerto Rico.
            Thereupon the Governor shall, within 30 days after receipt of
            the official notification of such approval, issue a
            proclamation for the election of Senators and Representatives
            in Congress.

        This language could be read to imply that Puerto Rico will be
    entitled to Senators and Representatives in Congress as soon as the
    bill is enacted, instead of on the date set by the President in section
    7(c) for Puerto Rico's admission as a state. To avoid that implication,
    the Department recommends that section 6 be revised as follows:

            Upon enactment of this Act, the President of the United States
            shall certify such fact to the Governor of Puerto Rico.
            Thereupon the Governor shall, within 30 days after receipt of
            the official notification of such approval, issue a
            proclamation for the election of Senators and Representatives
            to serve in Congress upon admission of Puerto Rico as a State.

    Section 7 (Ratification Vote)

        Subsection (a) (Ratification of Proposition): Subsection (a)
    prescribes the method by which the Puerto Rican people may vote to
    approve making Puerto Rico into a state. It requires a ballot with the
    following question:

            Shall Puerto Rico immediately be admitted into the Union as a
            State, in accordance with terms prescribed in the Act of
            Congress approved [date of approval of this Act]?    Yes
            No     .

        Because this language incorporates by reference the terms of this
    bill, including the territorial bounds of the new state (section 4) and
    other legal effects (sections 9 and 10), the Department believes it is
    constitutionally adequate to provide the voters of Puerto Rico with
    clear notice of what they would be approving. There is some tension,
    however, between voting that Puerto Rico be ``immediately'' admitted as
    a state and voting that Puerto Rico be admitted ``in accordance with
    terms prescribed in the Act of Congress,'' since that Act provides for
    the President to declare a later date on which Puerto Rico would be
    admitted. We recommend deleting the word ``immediately.''

        It should also be noted that the prescribed ballots for Alaska and
    Hawaii statehood included some additional detail about the legal
    effects of statehood that might have prompted voters to inspect the
    acts of Congress more closely. See Hawaii Statehood Act, Pub. L. No.
    86-3, Sec. 7(b), 73 Stat. 4, 7 (1959) (``(2) The boundaries of the
    State of Hawaii shall be as prescribed in the Act of Congress approved
    [on date of enactment], and all claims of this State to any areas of
    land or sea outside the boundaries so prescribed are hereby irrevocably
    relinquished to the United States. (3) All provisions of the Act of
    Congress approved [on date of enactment] reserving rights or powers to
    the United States, as well as those prescribing the terms or conditions
    of the grants of lands or other property therein made to the State of
    Hawaii[,] are consented to fully by said State and its people.'');
    Alaska Statehood Act, Pub. L. No. 85-508, Sec. 8(b), 72 Stat. 339, 343
    (1958) (``(2) The boundaries of the State of Alaska shall be as
    prescribed in the Act of Congress approved [on date of enactment] and
    all claims of this State to any areas of land or sea outside the
    boundaries so prescribed are hereby irrevocably relinquished to the
    United States. (3) All provisions of the Act of Congress approved [on
    date of enactment] reserving rights or powers to the United States, as
    well as those prescribing the terms or conditions of the grants of
    lands or other property therein made to the State of Alaska, are
    consented to fully by said State and its people.''). Congress might
    consider instructing Puerto Rico to include similar informative
    language on the ballot, which might include language making clear the
    effect of statehood on any federal laws found to be at odds with
    constitutional uniformity requirements, discussed further below.

        Subsection (b) (Certified Results): Subsection (b) prescribes a
    process by which the Governor of Puerto Rico would certify to the
    President and to Congress the results of the voter referendum in
    subsection (a). The Department does not recommend changes to this
    provision.

        Subsection (c) (Presidential Proclamation): Subsection (c) would
    direct the President, upon receiving the Governor's certification in
    subsection (b), to issue a proclamation ``declaring . . . the date
    Puerto Rico is admitted as a State of the Union on an equal footing
    with all other States.'' In this proclamation, the President would
    certify that the people of Puerto Rico have voted in favor of statehood
    (based on a certification by the Governor of Puerto Rico to that fact)
    and would designate a date on which Puerto Rico would become a state.
    The President could declare that Puerto Rico is to be admitted as a
    state as much as 12 months after the certification of results by the
    Governor, ``in order to facilitate a transition process.'' Confusingly,
    however, the final sentence of subsection (c) provides: ``Upon issuance
    of the proclamation by the President, Puerto Rico shall be deemed
    admitted into the Union as a State.'' This contradiction is similar to
    the one noted above in section 3. Assuming that Congress intends for
    the transition process to be effective, the Department recommends
    deleting the final sentence in section 7(c).

    Section 8 (Election of Officers)

        Section 8 provides that, upon issuing the proclamation required by
    section 6, the Governor of Puerto Rico shall institute a process for
    the voters of Puerto Rico to elect Senators and Representatives.
    ``Puerto Rico shall be entitled to the same number of Representatives
    as the State whose most recent Census population was closest to, but
    less than, that of Puerto Rico,'' H.R. 1522, Sec. 8(2), and that number
    of Representatives would be added temporarily to the current total of
    435 Representatives in the House, until the next apportionment, at
    which time the number of Representatives in the House would revert to
    435. ``Thereafter, the State of Puerto Rico shall be entitled to such
    number of Representatives as provided for by applicable law based on
    the next reapportionment.'' Id.

        According to the Census Bureau's recently issued population counts
    and apportionments based on the 2020 Census, Puerto Rico's population
    in 2020 was 3,285,874. Utah was the State with the closest population
    that was less than Puerto Rico's, with a population of 3,275,252 and
    four Representatives. As a result, under section 8 Puerto Rico would be
    temporarily entitled to four Representatives and the House would
    increase temporarily to 439 members. This arrangement would last until
    the next apportionment following the next decennial census, likely in
    2031.

        The temporary designation of Representatives for Puerto Rico based
    on its population count in the most recent census would comply with the
    constitutional requirements for apportionment of Representatives. Other
    than stating that ``Representatives shall be apportioned among the
    several States according to their respective numbers, counting the
    whole number of persons in each State excluding Indians not taxed,''
    U.S. Const. amend. XIV, Sec. 2 (Apportionment Clause) (emphasis added),
    the Constitution does not prescribe a precise formula by which
    population is to be used in determining how many Representatives each
    state will receive. Exact apportionment ``according to [the states']
    respective numbers'' is not possible, since it would yield a non-whole
    number of Representatives for each state, and the Apportionment Clause
    necessarily accords Congress some flexibility in devising a formula to
    distribute Representatives among the states. Congress has used a
    variety of methods over time to determine the number of Representatives
    for each state, settling on the current method of equal proportions in
    1941. See Royce Crocker, Cong. Research Serv., The U.S. House of
    Representatives Apportionment Formula in Theory and Practice, No.
    R41357, at 1-2 (Aug. 4, 2013); Pub. L. No. 77-291, Sec. 1, 55 Stat.
    761, 762 (1941), codified as amended at 2 U.S.C. Sec. 2a. Although the
    apportionment of Representatives to Puerto Rico equivalent to the
    number apportioned to the state with the closest, but lower, population
    than Puerto Rico deviates slightly from simple application of the equal
    proportions approach, it appears well within the range of discretion
    accorded to Congress by the Apportionment Clause and is consistent with
    historical practice when a territory is newly admitted as a state. For
    example, Hawaii received one Representative following its admission to
    statehood, and its apportionment then rose to two Representatives under
    the equal proportions approach after the 1960 census. See Cong.
    Research Serv., Puerto Rican Statehood: Effects on House Apportionment,
    No. R41113, at 2, 5 (Mar. 16, 2011); Hawaii Statehood Act, Pub. L. No.
    86-3, Sec 8 73 Stat. 4, 8 (1959).

        In addition, temporarily increasing the number of Representatives
    to 439 would come nowhere close to contravening the constitutional
    requirement that ``[t]he number of Representatives shall not exceed one
    for every Thirty Thousand.'' U.S. Const. art. I, Sec. 2, cl. 3. Here,
    too, this approach accords with historical practice. With the admission
    of Alaska and Hawaii, each of which received one Representative, the
    House of Representatives increased temporarily from 435 to 437 members
    until the next apportionment following the 1960 census. At that time,
    the House reverted to 435 members and the newly admitted states
    received Representatives along with the other 48 states in accordance
    with the method of equal proportions.

    Section 9 (Continuity of Laws, Government, and Obligations)

        Subsection (1) (Continuity of Laws): Subsection (1) would provide
    that laws both of the United States and of Puerto Rico shall remain in
    effect following Puerto Rico's admission as a state, if they are ``not
    in conflict with this Act.'' Section 10, discussed next, would provide
    for the repeal of any law ``incompatible with the political and legal
    status of statehood under the Constitution.'' To make these provisions
    parallel, the Department recommends that subsection (1) be modified to
    provide that the laws of the United States and of Puerto Rico shall
    remain in effect if they are ``not in conflict with this Act or with
    the Constitution.''

        The Department additionally recommends that Congress consider
    providing a more tailored solution for continuity in the operations of
    the Financial Managements and Oversight Board for Puerto Rico
    (``Oversight Board''). The Oversight Board was established by the
    Puerto Rico Oversight, Management, and Economic Stability Act
    (``PROMESA''), Pub. L. No. 114-187, Sec. 101, 130 Stat. 549, 553
    (2016), codified at 48 U.S.C. Sec. 2121, to approve plans for
    restructuring Puerto Rico's debt as well as Puerto Rico's budget and
    fiscal plans, id. Sec. Sec. 201-212, codified at 48 U.S.C.
    Sec. Sec. 2141-2152. PROMESA created the Oversight Board ``as an entity
    within the territorial government for which it is established,''
    pursuant to Congress's authority under the Territory Clause, Article
    IV, Section 3. Pub. L. No. 114-187, Sec. 101(b), (c). The Supreme Court
    recently held that the members of the Oversight Board were local or
    territorial officers because they have ``primarily local duties.'' Fin.
    Oversight & Management Bd. for P.R. v. Aurelius Inv., LLC, 140 S. Ct.
    1649, 1663 (2020).

        Subsection (2) (Continuity of Government): Subsection (2) would
    provide that ``individuals holding legislative, executive, and judicial
    offices of Puerto Rico shall continue to discharge the duties of their
    respective offices when Puerto Rico becomes a State.'' As the Oversight
    Board is statutorily denominated part of the territorial government,
    and the Board members are territorial officers, the Oversight Board
    would appear to become part of the new state government if Puerto Rico
    becomes a state. This would accord with historical practice, although
    the statehood admission acts for Alaska and Hawaii more clearly
    provided that, upon admission as a state, ``officers not required to be
    elected . . . shall be selected or continued in office as provided by
    the constitution and laws of said State'' and would ``exercise all the
    functions pertaining to their offices'' in, under, or by the authority
    of the government of said State. Alaska Statehood Act, Pub. L. No. 85-
    508, Sec. 8(c), 72 Stat. 339, 344 (1958); Hawaii Statehood Act, Pub. L.
    No. 86-3, Sec. 7(c), 73 Stat. 4, 8 (1959).

        One complication, however, is that PROMESA provides that the seven
    members of the Oversight Board will be appointed by the President and
    sets out an elaborate structure whereby the President can select from
    congressionally provided lists, thereby avoiding the need for Senate
    confirmation, or can appoint ``off-list'' in which case Senate advice
    and consent is required. 48 U.S.C. Sec. 2121(e)(2). It is unclear
    whether or how this appointment structure would transfer over to the
    state level upon Puerto Rico's becoming a state. Questions about the
    Oversight Board's composition might undercut its capacity to operate.

        The Department thus recommends that Congress expressly provide in
    H.R. 1522, or in separate legislation enacted during the transition
    period effected by the President's proclamation of a date for admission
    of Puerto Rico, for an orderly transition of the Oversight Board into
    an entity of the new State of Puerto Rico. Alternatively, of course,
    Congress may decide that the Oversight Board should terminate
    operations if Puerto Rico becomes a state, in which case the Department
    would also recommend express legislation to that effect.

    Section 10 (Repeals)

        Section 10 provides that ``[a]ll Federal . . . laws, rules, and
    regulations, or parts of Federal . . . laws, rules, and regulations,
    applicable to Puerto Rico that are incompatible with the political and
    legal status of statehood under the Constitution and the provisions of
    this Act are repealed and terminated as of the date of statehood
    admission proclaimed by the President under section 7(c) of this Act.''
    This abrupt transition oversimplifies what it will take to admit Puerto
    Rico on an equal footing with other states. Some additional legislation
    will likely be required to address instances where federal law
    regarding Puerto Rico is not compatible ``with the political and legal
    status of statehood.''

        Under current federal tax and bankruptcy law, for example, Puerto
    Rico is treated differently than states. See, e.g., 26 U.S.C. Sec. 933
    (providing tax credit to ``a bona fide resident of Puerto Rico'' for
    ``income derived from sources within Puerto Rico''); id. Sec. 7653(b)
    (``Articles, goods, wares, or merchandise going into Puerto Rico, the
    Virgin Islands, Guam, and American Samoa from the United States shall
    be exempted from the payment of any tax imposed by the internal revenue
    laws of the United States.''); PROMESA, Pub. L. No. 114-187, 130 Stat.
    549 (2016), codified at 48 U.S.C. ch. 20 (providing special process for
    restructuring the debt of Puerto Rico). The Constitution meanwhile
    requires that all ``Duties, Imposts, and Excises shall be uniform
    throughout the United States,'' U.S. Const. art. I, Sec. 8, cl. 1, and
    authorizes Congress to make ``uniform Laws on the subject of
    Bankruptcies throughout the United States,'' id. cl. 4; see also id.
    Sec. 9, cl. 6 (``No Preference shall be given by any Regulation of
    Commerce or Revenue to the Ports of one State over those of another;
    nor shall Vessels bound to, or from, one State be obliged to enter,
    clear, or pay Duties to another.''). These uniformity requirements have
    not applied to Puerto Rico given its status as an unincorporated
    territory, Downes v. Bidwell, 182 U.S. 244, 282-84, 287 (1901); id. at
    291, 339-40 (White, J., concurring, joined by Shiras and McKenna, JJ.),
    but would become applicable upon Puerto Rico's becoming a state.

        Presumably, one reason why the Act allows up to a year between a
    vote by Puerto Rico in favor of statehood and Puerto Rico's admission
    as a state is to provide a window within which Congress can address
    this conflict between current law and uniformity requirements, as well
    as any other issues implicated by Puerto Rico's transition to
    statehood. It is possible, however, that Puerto Rico would become an
    incorporated territory, and thus fully subject to the Constitution and
    the uniformity requirements of Article I, even before the date the
    President designates for Puerto Rico to be admitted as a state.
    Although the case law on when a territory is deemed to be incorporated
    is not ``altogether harmonious,'' Downes, 182 U.S. at 258, one
    formulation the Supreme Court has frequently used is that an
    incorporated territory is one that is ``surely destined for
    statehood.'' Boumediene, 553 U.S. at 757; see also United States v.
    Verdugo-Urquidez, 494 U.S. 259, 268 (1990) (an ``unincorporated
    territory'' is one ``not clearly destined for statehood''). Under H.R.
    1522, Puerto Rico would appear to be ``surely destined for statehood''
    when the President of the State Elections Commission for Puerto Rico
    certifies under section 7(b) that a majority of Puerto Rican voters
    have cast ballots in favor of statehood. At that point, section 7(c)
    requires the President to proclaim the date on which Puerto Rico would
    succeed to statehood.

        Attorney General Thornburgh took a similar view in 1991, regarding
    a bill that would have authorized a referendum on the legal status of
    Puerto Rico accompanied by a non-binding ``commitment by Congress to
    implement the status receiving a majority.'' S. 244, Sec. 101(e)(2).
    The bill contemplated that the implementing legislation would include a
    five-year transition period to phase out the special tax treatments for
    Puerto Rico that would have come into conflict with the Uniformity
    Clause. Attorney General Thornburgh testified that Puerto Rico ``would
    become subject to the requirements of the [U]niformity [C]lause as soon
    as Congress passe[d] implementing legislation to make Puerto Rico a
    State,'' because at that point in time it would have to be considered
    ``destined for statehood.'' Political Status of Puerto Rico: Hearings
    on S. 244 Before the S. Comm. on Energy and Natural Resources, 102d
    Cong. at 189-90 (Feb. 7, 1991) (``1991 Hearings'').

        We nevertheless believe that Congress should be able to enact
    legislation providing for a delayed or gradual application of the
    Constitution's uniformity requirements, including the potential delay
    of up to a year before these requirements apply envisioned by the
    combination of sections 7(c) and 10. Some case law suggests that
    incorporation rests on the intent of Congress as expressed in statutes
    (or on the intent of the President and Senate, as expressed in
    treaties), and not just on an independent judicial assessment of the
    likelihood that a particular territory will eventually become a state.
    See Balzac v. People of Porto Rico, 258 U.S. 298, 309 (1922) (``[I]n
    the absence of other and countervailing evidence, a law of Congress or
    a provision in a treaty acquiring territory, declaring an intention to
    confer political and civil rights on the inhabitants of the new lands
    as American citizens, may be properly interpreted to mean an
    incorporation of it into the Union[.]''); see also Rassmussen v. United
    States, 197 U.S. 516, 523 (1905) (``That Congress, shortly following
    the adoption of the treaty with Russia, clearly contemplated the
    incorporation of Alaska into the United States as a part thereof, we
    think plainly results from the act[s] . . . concerning internal revenue
    taxation, . . . extending the laws of the United States relating to
    customs, commerce and navigation over Alaska and establishing a
    collection district therein.'') In Balzac, the Court reasoned that,
    ``[h]ad Congress intended to take the important step of changing the
    treaty status of Porto Rico by incorporating it into the Union, it is
    reasonable to suppose that it would have done so by the plain
    declaration, and would not have left it to mere inference.'' 258 U.S.
    at 306; see also id. (``[I]ncorporation is not to be assumed without
    express declaration, or an implication so strong as to exclude any
    other view.''). The Supreme Court has also highlighted the role of
    ``practical considerations'' in determining which constitutional
    provisions apply to a given territory, noting ``a common thread'' in
    the relevant case law: ``the idea that questions of extraterritoriality
    turn on objective factors and practical concerns, not formalism.''
    Boumediene, 553 U.S. at 757-64.

        H.R. 1522 does not contain an express declaration of intent to make
    Puerto Rico an ``incorporated'' territory immediately upon
    certification of a pro-statehood vote. To the contrary, H.R. 1522 seems
    designed to postpone incorporation until the effective date in the
    President's declaration, at which time Puerto Rico would skip past the
    intermediate step of being considered an incorporated territory and be
    admitted directly into the Union as a state. Moreover, the immediate
    disruption that would result were Puerto Rico to quickly become subject
    to the Constitution's uniformity provisions should count strongly
    against such a result. To reduce the possibility of immediate
    incorporation even further, however, the Department recommends that
    Congress state expressly that Puerto Rico shall remain unincorporated
    until its admission as a state under section 3.

        Even if the uniformity requirements of Article I were to become
    immediately applicable upon certification of a pro-statehood vote, we
    think that legislation providing for a gradual transition to tax and
    bankruptcy uniformity for Puerto Rico would be constitutional. In
    United States v. Ptasynski, 462 U.S. 74 (1983), the Court upheld a tax
    exemption for crude oil produced in a geographically defined area that
    encompassed Alaska and ``certain offshore territorial waters'' that
    were ``beyond the limits of any State'' against a uniformity challenge.
    Id. at 78. Previously, the Court had made clear that the Uniformity
    Clause ``does not require Congress to devise a tax that falls equally
    or proportionately on each State'' and thus had confirmed Congress's
    authority to draw ``distinctions between similar classes'' in
    ``defining the subject of a tax,'' as long as the tax applied evenly
    ``wherever the classification is found.'' Id. at 82. The Court appeared
    to regard the geographic classification in Ptasynski as a logical
    extension of this principle, in view of credible evidence amassed by
    Congress of ``climatic and geographic conditions'' unique to the
    covered geographic region. Id. at 78; see id. at 78-79 & nn.6-7
    (discussing evidence).

        Although the tax exemptions for Puerto Rico in 26 U.S.C.
    Sec. Sec. 933 and 7653 are arguably distinct in being expressly ``drawn
    on state political lines,'' id. at 78, the reasoning of Ptasynski
    suggests that a geographic classification based on state boundaries
    does not violate the Uniformity Clause if Congress can demonstrate that
    the classification arises from genuine differences in economic
    circumstance that fall incidentally along state lines. In the case of
    Puerto Rico, the objective of maintaining the tax preferences for a
    short transition period would be to ameliorate the economic dislocation
    that would result from a sudden loss of pre-existing tax preferences
    accompanying the switch from commonwealth status to statehood. Attorney
    General Thornburgh testified to similar effect in 1991, stating that
    ``the uniformity clause permits tax transition provisions, provided
    they are narrowly tailored, to prevent specific and identified problems
    of economic dislocation that Congress concludes would otherwise result
    from the transition from a non-incorporated territorial status to
    either an incorporated territorial or State status.'' 1991 Hearings at
    190; see also Puerto Rico's Political Status: Hearings on S. 712 Before
    the S. Comm. on Finance, 101st Cong. at 7 (1989) (``1989 Hearings'')
    (testimony of Shirley D. Peterson, Assistant Attorney General for the
    Tax Division of the Department, that the Uniformity Clause did not
    ``disable Congress from fashioning reasonable and necessary
    transitional measures'').

        To the best of our knowledge, no court has addressed the extent to
    which Congress may provide for transitional disuniformity in the tax
    treatment of an incoming state, so any attempt to suggest an outer
    limit on how long the transition period could last would be speculative
    at best. In 1989, the Department testified that a three-year transition
    period to phase out special tax treatment was permissible, see 1989
    Hearings at 7 (testimony of Peterson); in 1991, the Department
    intimated that five years might be too much, see 1991 Hearings at 189
    (testimony of Thornburgh). Notably, at least one statute, retained from
    the period before Alaska and Hawaii were admitted as states, continues
    to single out portions of the routes to and from those states for a
    reduced tax on air transportation. See 26 U.S.C. Sec. 4262(b)(2),
    (c)(1); 26 C.F.R. Sec. 49.4262-2(b). It does not appear that this
    differential treatment has been challenged constitutionally, and this
    treatment may be justified by a uniform principle of reducing the
    incidence of the tax on routes of longer distances. By similar logic,
    Congress might be able to cite economic circumstances unique to Puerto
    Rico--perhaps, for example, patterns of investment undertaken in
    reliance on Puerto Rico's disuniform tax treatment--as a basis for a
    continuation or longer phase-out of tax statutes that treat Puerto Rico
    differently.

        We believe a transition period should also be permissible for the
    special bankruptcy provisions for Puerto Rico in PROMESA. In Railway
    Labor Executives Ass'n v. Gibbons, 455 U.S. 457 (1982) (``Rock
    Island''), the Court struck down on uniformity grounds a federal law
    designed solely for the bankruptcy of the Rock Island Railroad,
    reasoning that ``[t]o survive scrutiny under the Bankruptcy Clause, a
    law must at least apply uniformly to a defined class of debtors,'' and
    ``a bankruptcy law . . . confined as it is to the affairs of one named
    debtor can hardly be considered uniform.'' Id. at 473. Yet the Court
    also stated, similar to Ptasyski, that the uniformity requirement ``
    `does not deny Congress power to take into account differences that
    exist between different parts of the country, and to fashion
    legislation to resolve geographically isolated problems.' '' Id. at 469
    (quoting Regional Railroad Reorganization Act Cases, 419 U.S. 102, 159
    (1974)). Arguably, legislation limited to Puerto Rico should be viewed
    not as legislation directed at Puerto Rico as a specific debtor, but at
    Puerto Rico as a specific region for which it is necessary to resolve
    ``geographically isolated problems.'' In advising on the
    constitutionality of PROMESA before it was enacted, we had considerable
    doubts that this argument would prevail. But we believe that such an
    argument would be more likely to succeed as a justification for
    disuniformity during a transition period, given that Puerto Rico's
    change in status to a state is a factor distinct from its status as a
    debtor.

        More broadly, we think a good argument can be made that PROMESA
    would not violate the uniformity requirements of the Bankruptcy Clause
    at all were Puerto Rico to become a state. PROMESA was enacted under
    the Territories Clause and its bankruptcy provisions would attach to
    any relevant debt before Puerto Rico becomes a state and uniformity
    requirements applied. Congress could also determine that it is
    ``necessary and proper for carrying into Execution'' its Article IV
    powers to fashion a broader solution for territories entering the
    Union, thereby avoiding the pitfall of ``a bankruptcy law . . .
    confined as it is to the affairs of one named debtor.'' Rock Island,
    455 U.S. at 473. ``As stated by the Supreme Court in the Railroad Rail
    Reorganization Cases,'' the Bankruptcy Clause `` `was not intended to
    hobble Congress by forcing it into nationwide enactments to deal with
    conditions calling for a remedy only in certain regions.' '' 1989
    Hearings at 8 (quoting 419 U.S. at 159) (testimony of Peterson).

        In short, regardless of whether Puerto Rico becomes subject to the
    uniformity requirements in Article I at the time a pro-statehood vote
    is certified or on the date set by the President for admission to
    statehood, we think there will be opportunity for Congress to enact
    further legislation providing for a phase-out of those tax and
    bankruptcy laws that single out Puerto Rico for special treatment. We
    recommend, however, that Congress include findings in any such bill,
    ideally supported by expert testimony in public hearings, explaining
    why a phase-out period is necessary to avoid specific economic problems
    unique to Puerto Rico.

    Section 11 (Severability)

        The Department has no concerns with this section.

                                     ______

                  DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE--ANALYSIS OF H.R. 2070

           H.R. 2070, the Puerto Rico Self-Determination Act of 2021

                               Executive Summary

        The Department of Justice agrees that the people of Puerto Rico
    should be allowed to choose whether to become a nation independent of
    the United States, become a state within the United States, or retain
    the current status of a territory. Insofar as H.R. 2070 would
    facilitate a choice among those three options, which we believe are the
    three constitutional options available to Puerto Rico, the Department
    supports the bill. In the section-by-section analysis, the Department
    explains the basis for its view more fully and advises of its comments
    on certain sections of the bill.

                          Section-by-Section Analysis

    Section 1 (Short Title)

        The Department has no comment on this section.

    Section 2 (Findings)

        The Department has no comment on this section.

    Section 3 (Puerto Rico Status Convention)

        Section 3(a) provides that the Puerto Rico legislature will have
    ``inherent authority'' to call a status convention ``for the purpose of
    proposing to the people of Puerto Rico self-determination options.''
    The convention, consisting of delegates elected by Puerto Rico voters,
    would be tasked with ``debat[ing] and draft[ing] definitions on self-
    determination options for Puerto Rico, which shall be outside the
    Territorial Clause of the United States Constitution,'' and presenting
    those options, along with at least one transition plan for each option,
    to Puerto Rico voters in a referendum. H.R. 2070, Sec. 3(c). Once
    assembled, the convention would be ``dissolved only when the United
    States ratifies the self-determination option presented to Congress by
    the status convention as selected by the people of Puerto Rico in the
    referendum.'' Id. Sec. 3(a)(1).

        The Department has three comments on this section.

        1. The Department's first comment relates to the reference to the
    Puerto Rico legislature's having ``inherent'' authority to call a
    status convention. H.R. 2070, Sec. 3(a). We surmise that this
    description of the nature of Puerto Rico's authority is intended to
    acknowledge the Commonwealth's significant autonomy and powers of self-
    government. We note, however, that the use of the word ``inherent'' may
    create confusion as to the ultimate source of the Puerto Rico
    government's authority. As the Supreme Court recently noted, even
    though ``Puerto Rico today has a distinctive, indeed exceptional,
    status as a self-governing Commonwealth,'' the ``ultimate source'' of
    Puerto Rico law is an enactment of the U.S. Congress. Puerto Rico v.
    Sanchez Valle, 136 S. Ct. 1863, 1874 (2016) (concluding that Puerto
    Rico and the United States are not separate sovereigns for purposes of
    the Double Jeopardy Clause). Describing Puerto Rico's authority as
    ``inherent''--that is, ``existing . . . as a permanent attribute or
    quality . . . indwelling, intrinsic,'' OED Online (Mar. 2021)--when in
    fact that authority derives from Congress, is legally inaccurate. The
    Department does not object to some sort of acknowledgment of Puerto
    Rico's self-governance, but to avoid confusion as to the source of the
    Puerto Rico legislature's authority, we recommend striking the word
    ``inherent'

        2. Second, the Department notes that section 3 appears to be in
    tension with the Executive Branch's longstanding ``policy . . . to
    enable Puerto Ricans to determine their preference among options for
    the islands' future status that are not incompatible with the
    Constitution and basic laws and policies of the United States'' and to
    ``consider and develop positions on proposals, without preference among
    the options, for the Commonwealth's future status.'' Exec. Order No.
    13183 (Dec. 23, 2000). The tension results because of the combination
    of several provisions: section 3(a)(1), which provides that the
    convention would be ``dissolved only when the United States ratifies
    the self-determination option presented to Congress by the status
    convention as selected by the people of Puerto Rico'' pursuant to the
    referendum authorized in section 5; section 3(c)(1), which expressly
    instructs the status convention to develop options for Puerto Rico that
    are ``outside the Territorial Clause of the United States
    Constitution''; and section 3(c)(3), which provides that the convention
    ``shall  select and present to the people of Puerto Rico the self-
    determination options that will be included in the referendum under
    section 5.'' See also Sec. 5(a)(1)(B) (``A referendum vote by the
    people of Puerto Rico . . . may consist of choices each composed of a
    self-determination definition and accompanying transition plan as
    presented by the delegates under section 3'').

        Taken together, these provisions appear to eliminate the current
    territorial status as an available choice for the people of Puerto Rico
    under the procedures in the bill. Moreover, these provisions may be
    read to imply that the United States has determined that the people of
    Puerto Rico may not decide to retain the island's current territorial
    status, departing from the Executive Branch's longstanding view that
    ``Puerto Ricans should determine for themselves the future status of
    the Island'' and the federal government's responsibility is to
    facilitate ``the desire of the people of Puerto Rico to change status
    or to establish, for some period of time, that they have chosen no
    change in status.'' Report by the President's Task Force on Puerto
    Rico's Status at 23-24 (Mar. 2011) (``2011 Task Force Report''); see
    also Presidential Memorandum of December 23, 2000 (``Resolution of
    Puerto Rico's Status'') (noting that ``[s]uccessive Presidents . . .
    have supported the people of Puerto Rico in determining their status
    preference from among options that are not incompatible with the
    Constitution and basic laws and policies of the United States'' and
    concluding that the Executive Branch has ``the responsibility to help
    Puerto Ricans obtain the necessary transitional legislation toward a
    new status, if chosen''). One way to address these concerns is to
    remove the phrase ``which shall be outside the Territorial Clause of
    the United States Constitution'' from section 3(c)(1).

        3 Finally, the Department notes that section 3 does not specify
    that the only constitutionally permissible status options available to
    the status convention--and thus the only options that Congress could
    subsequently adopt by joint resolution, see H.R. 2070, Sec. 6--are
    statehood, independence, or Puerto Rico's current status as a
    territory. Independence is a general term that refers to the
    possibilities both of full independence from the United States and of a
    compact of free association, in which Puerto Rico would become a
    sovereign nation but would continue to have close ties to the United
    States under the terms of a mutually agreed-upon compact. See 2011 Task
    Force Report at 25. Were Puerto Rico to choose a compact of free
    association, it would occupy a status similar to the Republic of the
    Marshall Islands, the Federated States of Micronesia, and the Republic
    of Palau. Id.

        As has been the Department's consistent view since 1991, we
    continue to believe that the Constitution limits Puerto Rico to three
    constitutional choices: the current territorial status, statehood, or
    independence. The District of Columbia aside, land under United States
    sovereignty must be either a state or a territory; and if land is ``not
    included in any State,'' it ``must necessarily be governed by or under
    the authority of Congress.'' First Nat'l Bank v. Yankton County, 101
    U.S. 129, 133 (1879). Congress may, in its administration of non-state
    land, afford such a territory considerable powers of self-government,
    as it has already done with Puerto Rico. See Puerto Rican Federal
    Relations Act, Pub. L. No. 81-600, 64 Stat. 319 (1950), codified at 48
    U.S.C. Sec. Sec. 731b-731e. But Congress cannot constitutionally
    relinquish its ability to legislate with respect to that territory
    under the Territories Clause unless it either admits the territory as a
    state, U.S. Const. art. IV, Sec. 3, cl. 1, or enacts legislation making
    the territory independent and no longer subject to the jurisdiction of
    the United States. See Mutual Consent Provisions in the Guam
    Commonwealth Legislation, Op. O.L.C. Supp. , at *5 (July 28, 1994)
    (``Mutual Consent'') (``The requirement that the delegation of
    governmental authority to the non-state areas be subject to federal
    supremacy and federal supervision means that such delegation is
    necessarily subject to the right of Congress to revise, alter, or
    revoke the authority granted.'') (citing Dist. of Columbia v. Thompson
    Co., 346 U.S. 100, 109 (1953), among other cases). In other words,
    there is no constitutionally permissible status ``outside of the
    Territorial Clause'' other than statehood or independence (including
    free-association agreements)

        Our view on this issue also rests on the general rule that one
    Congress cannot irrevocably bind subsequent Congresses. See Marbury v.
    Madison, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137, 177 (1803) (Marshall, C.J.) (noting
    that legislative acts are ``alterable when the legislature shall please
    to alter [them]''). Although this general rule is subject to
    limitations imposed by the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment,
    those limitations do not apply to protect Puerto Rico's political
    status from congressional revision if Puerto Rico remains a territory.
    Mutual Consent at *8-9. Territories, like states and their political
    subdivisions, are not ``persons'' for purposes of due process. Id. at
    *6-7. And a particular political relationship with the national
    government is not the type of vested property right that due process
    protects. Id. at *8-9 (citing Bowen v. Public Agencies Opposed to
    Social Security Entrapment, 477 U.S. 41, 55 (1986), among other cases).

        In the past, Congress has purported to enter into covenants with
    territories that would be alterable only with mutual consent. See,
    e.g Pub. L. No. 24-241, 90 Stat. 263, 264 (1976) (approving the
    ``Covenant to Establish a Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands
    in Political Union with the United States of America,'' section 105 of
    which provides that certain provisions of the Covenant ``may be
    modified only with the consent of the Government of the United States
    and the Government of the Northern Mariana Islands''); Act of Aug. 7,
    1789, ch 8, 1 Stat. 50, 52 n.a (maintaining the Northwest Ordinance,
    including a prefatory clause providing that the articles of the compact
    would ``forever remain unalterable, unless by common consent''); Mutual
    Consent at *2 n.2. But in view of the foregoing principles, we believe
    that these provisions cannot be binding--a view to which the Department
    has long subscribed. See Mutual Consent at *13.

        We note, in addition, that the principle of a current Congress's
    not being able to bind future Congresses would also apply to any
    compact of free association entered into with Puerto Rico if Puerto
    Rico were to choose that type of independence. As a matter of our
    domestic law, such a compact would necessarily be revocable or subject
    to revision by a subsequent act of Congress. See Medellin v. Texas, 552
    U.S. 491, 509 n.5 (2008) (``[A] later-in-time federal statute
    supersedes inconsistent treaty provisions.'').
    Section 4 (Congressional Bilateral Negotiating Commission)

        Section 4(a) would establish a ``Congressional Bilateral
    Negotiating Commission . . . to provide advice and consultation to
    delegates elected'' to the status convention established under section
    3. H.R. 2070, Sec. 4(a). It would be composed of a number of members of
    Congress, including the chairs and ranking members of the relevant
    congressional committees, members selected by congressional leadership,
    and the Resident Commissioner of Puerto Rico. Id. Sec. 4(b)(1). In
    addition, the Commission would include ``a member from the Department
    of Justice'' and ``a member from the Department of the Interior,'' both
    ``with the consent of the Speaker of the House of Representatives and
    majority leader of the Senate.'' Id. Sec. 4(b)(1)(H), (I).

        The Commission would seem to be a legislative branch entity that
    reports only to congressional leadership and is limited to purely
    advisory functions, such as ``develop[ing] recommendations regarding
    self-determination options on constitutional issues and policies'' and
    ``provid[ing] technical assistance and constitutional advice to the
    delegates during the Puerto Rico status convention.'' Id. Sec. 4(c).
    Consistent with separation of powers constraints, we do not understand
    that policy or legal recommendations issued by the Commission would
    bind the Executive Branch. See, e.g., Metro. Wash. Airports Auth. v.
    Citizens for the Abatement of Aircraft Noise, Inc., 501 U.S. 252, 276
    (1991) (``If the power is executive, the Constitution does not permit
    an agent of Congress to exercise it.''); Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1,
    139 (1976) (per curiam) (holding that congressional appointees may
    ``perform duties only in aid of those functions that Congress may carry
    out by itself, or in an area sufficiently removed from the
    administration and enforcement of the public law'').

        Finally, we note that the name of the Commission, the
    ``Congressional Bilateral Negotiating Commission,'' does not seem to be
    an apt description of the Commission's advisory duties. The Department
    does not read the duties of the Commission to include negotiations with
    the convention and would accordingly suggest that the name be modified
    to more accurately characterize the Commission's role--e.g., the
    Congressional Advisory Commission.
    Section 5 (Puerto Rico Status Referendum; Education Campaign)

        The Department has identified no legal concerns with this
    provision, which sets out the structure for a referendum vote on the
    status options developed by the convention under section 3. We note,
    however, that in the past Congress has sought the Department of
    Justice's involvement in ensuring that the options presented to the
    Puerto Rican people in a plebiscite are constitutional. See H.R. Rep.
    No. 113-171, at 54 (2014). Were the legislation to provide for the
    Department of Justice to have a certification role here, it would help
    ensure that any status option developed by the convention and selected
    by the people of Puerto Rico would be constitutional and thus could be
    ratified by Congress.
    Section 6 (Congressional Deliberation and Enacting Resolution)
        Section 6 would provide that ``[i]f the referendum under this Act
    is approved by the people of Puerto Rico, Congress shall approve a
    joint resolution to ratify the preferred self-determination option
    approved in that referendum vote.'' This provision is constitutional
    only if it is read to mean that Congress shall consider whether to
    approve a joint resolution ratifying the results of the referendum. If,
    instead, it were read to bind Congress to approve a joint resolution,
    it would impermissibly constrain Congress.

        To address this constitutional concern, the Department recommends
    changing ``shall'' to ``may'' in section 6. Alternatively, section 6
    could be amended to provide that Puerto Rico's status shall become
    whatever the people selected. The Department has concluded that
    contingent legislation of that type is constitutionally permissible.
    See Altering Puerto Rico's Relationship with the United States Through
    Referendum, 36 Op. O.L.C. 93, 93-94 (2012) (concluding that
    ``legislation conditioning a change in Puerto Rico's political
    relationship with the United States on the results of one or more
    referenda by the Puerto Rican electorate, without subsequent
    congressional action, would be constitutional, insofar as the
    referendum . . . presented voters in the territory with a limited set
    of options specified in advance by Congress''). However, for this
    alternative approach to be available, it would be necessary for
    Congress to approve the options presented to the Puerto Rican people
    ahead of the vote (or to provide a list of acceptable options from
    which the status convention could choose).

                                     ______

          PUERTO RICO STATUS ACT--SECTION BY SECTION SUMMARY (ENGLISH)

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                   H.R. 8393, THE PUERTO RICO STATUS ACT
                               SECTION-BY-SECTION

    Section 1 Short Title.

    Section 2 Table of Contents.

    Section 3. Findings.

    Recognizes the inherent limitations of Puerto Rico's territorial status
    and the Federal Government's responsibility to facilitate the selection
    of and transition to a permanent, non-territorial, fully self-governing
    political status.

    Section 4 Definitions.

    Section 5 Plebiscite.

    Establishes a plebiscite to resolve Puerto Rico's political status that
    offers eligible voters three options: Independence, Sovereignty in Free
    Association with the United States, and Statehood. A majority vote (50%
    +1) is required to approve any status option, and if none of the
    options receive a majority in the initial vote, a runoff plebiscite
    will take place for voters to choose among the two options that
    received the most votes.

    Sets requirements for plebiscite ballot language, including
    descriptions of each of the three status options. Sets procedure for
    implementing the plebiscite and informing officials of the results.

    Provides the United States District Court for the District of Puerto
    Rico jurisdiction of any dispute or controversy related to the
    electoral process.

    Section 6 Nonpartisan voter education campaign.

    Requires the Puerto Rico State Elections Commission to lead a
    nonpartisan voter education campaign that includes voter education
    materials related to the plebiscites at all voting locations. Specifies
    some of the topics at minimum that must be addressed in the voter
    education materials.

    Section 7 Oversight.

    Sets a process and timeline for the Elections Commission to submit, and
    the United States Attorney General to review and require revisions to,
    the plebiscite ballot design and voter education materials.

    Section 8 Funds for voter education; plebiscites.

    Authorizes necessary funds to carry out a nonpartisan voter education
    campaign, an initial plebiscite and, if necessary, a runoff plebiscite.

    Section 9 Bilingual voter educational materials and ballots.

    Requires all voter educational materials and ballots to be made
    available in English and Spanish.

    Section 10. Puerto Rico Oversight, Management, and Economic Stability
            Act

    Provides that the Puerto Rico, Oversight, Management and Economic
    Stability Act (PROMESA) will no longer apply to Puerto Rico after it
    becomes a state or a nation.

    Requires the termination of the Financial Oversight and Management
    Board of Puerto Rico and the transfer of all duties, responsibilities,
    funds, property, and assets of the Board to the State of Puerto Rico or
    the nation of Puerto Rico.

    Section 11. Severability.

    Provides that any part of this Act being held invalid by a court of
    jurisdiction does not invalidate the remainder of the Act.

    TITLE I--TRANSITION AND IMPLEMENTATION--INDEPENDENCE

    Section 101 Constitutional convention.

    Requires the legislature of Puerto Rico to provide for an election of
    delegates to a constitutional Convention within six months of the
    certification of a plebiscite result in favor of independence to draft
    a constitution for the nation of Puerto Rico.

    Provides that all eligible voters may vote in the special election and
    that the electoral process will occur according to the laws of the
    territory of Puerto Rico.

    Requires the elected delegates to the constitutional Convention to meet
    within three months after the special election. This initial meeting
    constitutes the establishment of the Convention.

    Section 102 Character of the constitution.

    Requires the constitutional Convention to draft a constitution that
    guarantees the protection of fundamental human rights.

    Section 103 Submission; Ratification.

    Requires the drafted constitution to be submitted to eligible voters
    for ratification or rejection in a special election within one year
    after the establishment of the constitutional Convention.

    Provides that the special election process will be determined by the
    legislature of Puerto Rico.

    Section 104 Election of officers.

    Requires the Governor of the territory of Puerto Rico to issue a
    proclamation within one month of the constitution's ratification
    calling for the election of officers of the nation of Puerto Rico. The
    election of officers will be held within six months of the
    constitution's ratification and conducted according to the requirements
    in the constitution.

    Provides that the Elections Commission will certify the results of the
    election of officers within ten days of the election. The Governor of
    the territory of Puerto Rico then informs U.S. federal officials of the
    results.

    Requires another special election if voters reject the drafted
    constitution. Following the process described in Sections 101-103,
    eligible voters will elect officers to a constitutional Convention and
    officers are responsible for drafting a constitution to be ratified or
    rejected by voters.

    Section 105 Conforming amendments to existing law.

    Directs the President to review Federal law with respect to Puerto Rico
    within 30 days of the initial meeting of the constitutional Convention
    and submit recommendations as the President deems appropriate to
    Congress for changes to Federal law within one year of initiating the
    review.

    Section 106 Joint Transition Commission.

    Establishes a Joint Transition Commission within three months of the
    constitutional Convention's establishment. The Joint Transition
    Commission is responsible for expediting the transfer of all functions
    of the Federal Government in or relating to Puerto Rico to the nation
    of Puerto Rico.

    Section 107 Proclamations by President of the United States; Head of
            State of Puerto Rico.

    Requires the President of the United States to issue a proclamation
    within one month of the certification of elected officers of the nation
    of Puerto Rico to withdraw United States sovereignty exercised in
    Puerto Rico and to recognize the independence of the nation of Puerto
    Rico and the authority of its government under its constitution.

    Requires the presiding officer of the constitutional Convention to
    determine, within one week of receiving the Presidential proclamation,
    the date that the Government of the nation of Puerto Rico takes office.

    Section 108 Legal and constitutional provisions.

    Provides that all property, rights, and interests of the United States
    government over Puerto Rico is transferred to the nation of Puerto
    Rico.

    Provides that all laws of the United States applicable to the territory
    of Puerto Rico prior to the proclamation of independence will no longer
    apply in the nation of Puerto Rico.

    Section 109 Judicial pronouncements.

    Provides that the nation of Puerto Rico will recognize all orders and
    judgments made by the United States or territorial courts before the
    proclamation of independence.

    Provides that the judicial power of the United States will no longer
    extend to Puerto Rico upon the proclamation of independence. Pending
    proceedings will be transferred to the corresponding courts of the
    nation of Puerto Rico for disposition according to the laws applicable
    at the time when the controversy arose.

    Section 110 Citizenship and immigration laws after Puerto Rican
            independence.

    Provides that the Puerto Rican citizenship status of a person born in
    Puerto Rico will be determined according to the Constitution and laws
    of the nation of Puerto Rico.

    Provides that citizens of Puerto Rico seeking to enter the United
    States or obtain U.S. citizenship after the effective date of
    independence shall be subject to U.S. immigration laws.

    Clarifies that the provision of Puerto Rican citizenship by the laws of
    Puerto Rico shall not constitute or otherwise serve as the basis of
    loss or relinquishment of U.S. citizenship.

    Provides that an individual born in Puerto Rico after the effective
    date of independence to at least one parent who became a United States
    citizen under section 302 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA)
    is not a United States citizen at birth under subsections (c), (d), or
    (g) of section 301 of the INA.

    Describes temporary authorizations for Puerto Rican citizens who are
    not U.S. citizens to enter, work, and establish residence as a
    nonimmigrant in the United States without the need for a visa. However,
    the right of such persons to establish residence in the United States
    may be subjected to limitations provided for in statutes or regulations
    of the United States. These authorizations are modeled after travel,
    work, and residence authorizations available to citizens of the
    Federated States of Micronesia, the Republic of the Marshall Islands,
    and the Republic of Palau. These authorizations expire 25 years after
    independence.

    Section 111 Individual rights to economic benefits and grants.

    Provides that all vested rights and benefits available to residents of
    the territory of Puerto Rico will continue after the proclamation of
    independence until they are extinguished according to the applicable
    laws of the United States. All services provided as part of these
    rights and benefits will be available through the Government of the
    nation of Puerto Rico

    Provides that all contributions made by employees and employers to
    Social Security with respect to residents of the nation of Puerto Rico,
    who are not yet eligible for old age, disability, or survivor's
    insurance benefits, be transferred to the Government of the nation of
    Puerto Rico once it establishes its own social security system. The
    Government of the nation of Puerto Rico may use these funds only to
    establish and operate a social security system. Once the transfer is
    made, the United States Government's obligations under the Social
    Security Act to such residents of the nation of Puerto Rico will end.

    Provides that all Federal transfer payments to the territory of Puerto
    Rico are maintained in the form of annual block grants to be used by
    the Government of the nation of Puerto Rico. For ten fiscal years
    following the proclamation of independence, the annual block grants
    will amount to the annual aggregate funding of either all programs that
    currently extend to the territory of Puerto Rico or all programs that
    will be extended during the fiscal year prior to the proclamation of
    independence, whichever is greater. Beginning on the eleventh fiscal
    year, the annual block grants will decrease at a rate of ten percent
    each year.

    TITLE II--TRANSITION AND IMPLEMENTATION--SOVEREIGNTY IN FREE
            ASSOCIATION WITH THE UNITED STATES

    Section 201 Constitutional convention.

    Requires the legislature of Puerto Rico to provide for an election of
    delegates to a constitutional Convention within six months of the
    certification of a plebiscite result being certified in favor of
    Sovereignty in Free Association with the United States to draft a
    constitution for the nation of Puerto Rico.

    Provides that all eligible voters may vote in the special election and
    that the electoral process will occur according to the laws of the
    territory of Puerto Rico.

    Requires the elected delegates to the constitutional Convention to meet
    within three months after the special election. This initial meeting
    constitutes the establishment of the Convention.

    Section 202 Character of the constitution.

    Requires the constitutional Convention to draft a constitution that
    guarantees the protection of fundamental human rights.

    Section 203. Submission; Ratification.

    Requires the drafted constitution to be submitted to eligible voters
    for ratification or rejection in a special election within two years of
    the establishment of the constitutional Convention.

    Provides that the special election process will be determined by the
    legislature of Puerto Rico.

    Section 204 Election of officers.

    Requires the Governor of the territory of Puerto Rico to issue a
    proclamation within one month of the constitution's ratification
    calling for the election of officers of the nation of Puerto Rico. The
    election of officers will be held within six months of the
    constitution's ratification and conducted according to the requirements
    in the constitution.

    Provides that the Elections Commission will certify the results of the
    election of officers within ten days of the election. The Governor of
    the territory of Puerto Rico then informs U.S. federal officials of the
    result.

    Requires another special election if voters reject the drafted
    constitution. Following the process described in Sections 201-203,
    eligible voters will elect officers to a constitutional Convention and
    officers are responsible for drafting a constitution to be ratified or
    rejected by voters.

    Section 205 Proclamations by president of the United States; Head of
            State of Puerto Rico.

    Requires the President of the United States to issue a proclamation
    within one month of the certification of elected officers of the nation
    of Puerto Rico to withdraw United States sovereignty exercised in
    Puerto Rico and to recognize the international sovereignty through free
    association of the nation of Puerto Rico and the authority of its
    government under its constitution.

    Requires the presiding officer of the constitutional Convention to
    determine, within one week of receiving the Presidential proclamation,
    the date that the Government of the nation of Puerto Rico takes office.

    Section 206 Legal and constitutional provisions.

    Provides that all property, rights and interests of the United States
    government over Puerto Rico is transferred to the nation of Puerto
    Rico.

    Provides that all laws of the United States applicable to the territory
    of Puerto Rico prior to the proclamation of international sovereignty
    through free association will no longer apply in the nation of Puerto
    Rico.

    Section 207 Judicial pronouncements.

    Provides that the nation of Puerto Rico will recognize all orders and
    judgments made by the United States or territorial courts before the
    proclamation of international sovereignty through free association.

    Provides that the judicial power of the United States will no longer
    extend to Puerto Rico upon the proclamation of international
    sovereignty through free association. Pending proceedings will be
    transferred to the corresponding courts of the nation of Puerto Rico
    for disposition according to the laws applicable at the time when the
    controversy arose.

    Section 208 Citizenship and immigration laws after sovereignty through
            free association

    Provides that the Puerto Rican citizenship status of a person born in
    Puerto Rico will be determined according to the Constitution and laws
    of the nation of Puerto Rico.

    Provides that citizens of Puerto Rico seeking to enter the United
    States or obtain U.S. citizenship after the proclamation of
    international sovereignty through free association shall be subject to
    U.S. immigration laws.

    Clarifies that the provision of Puerto Rican citizenship by the laws of
    Puerto Rico shall not constitute or otherwise serve as the basis of
    loss or relinquishment of U.S. citizenship.

    Provides that an individual born in Puerto Rico after the proclamation
    of international sovereignty through free association to at least one
    parent who became a United States citizen under section 302 of the INA
    is not a United States citizen at birth under subsections (c), (d), or
    (g) of section 301 of the INA--except as follows. During the first
    Articles of Free Association, an individual born in Puerto Rico to two
    parents who are U.S. citizens shall be a U.S. citizen at birth under
    section 301(c) of the INA if otherwise eligible.

    Describes temporary authorizations for Puerto Rican citizens who are
    not U.S. citizens to enter, work, and establish residence as a
    nonimmigrant in the United States without the need for a visa. However,
    the right of such persons to establish residence in the United States
    may be subjected to limitations provided for in statutes or regulations
    of the United States. These authorizations are modeled after travel,
    work, and residence authorizations available to citizens of the
    Federated States of Micronesia, the Republic of the Marshall Islands,
    and the Republic of Palau. These authorizations expire upon the
    termination of the Articles of Free Association.

    Section 209 Conforming amendments to existing law.

    Directs the President to review Federal law with respect to Puerto Rico
    within 30 days of the initial meeting of the constitutional Convention
    and submit recommendations as the President deems appropriate to
    Congress for changes to Federal law within one year of initiating the
    review.

    Section 210 Bilateral Negotiating Commission.

    Establishes a Bilateral Negotiating Commission to conduct negotiations
    on Articles of Free Association with the United States if a plebiscite
    results in a majority vote for sovereignty in free association with the
    United States. The Commission is responsible for (1) expediting the
    transfer of all functions of the United States government in Puerto
    Rico to Puerto Rico, (2) negotiating the development of the Articles of
    Free Association, and (3) completing the Articles of Free Association
    within two years of the establishment of the constitutional Convention.

    Requires members to be assigned to the Bilateral Negotiating Commission
    within three months of the establishment of the constitutional
    Convention. The Convention will elect, by majority vote, five members
    among its delegates and the President of the United States will
    designate five members, including one with the rank of Ambassador.

    Requires the Bilateral Negotiating Commission to meet within three
    months of the election and designation of its members.

    Requires that the Government of the territory of Puerto Rico and the
    agencies of the Government of the United States will collaborate with
    the Commission.

    Section 211 Articles of Free Association approval and effective date.

    Provides that the Articles of Free Association are effective upon
    mutual agreement between the Government of the United States and the
    Government of Puerto Rico and after approval by a separate ratification
    vote by eligible voters of Puerto Rico in a special election held under
    Section 203 and by the Government of the United States in accordance
    with its constitutional processes.

    Requires that the process for negotiating, drafting, and approving
    Articles of Free Association be repeated if the special election
    results in the rejection of the Articles of Free Association.

    Section 212 Termination.

    Provides that the Articles of Free Association between the United
    States and Puerto Rico may be terminated at will by either party at any
    time.

    Section 213 Individual rights to economic benefits and grants.

    Provides that all vested rights and benefits available to residents of
    the territory of Puerto Rico will continue after the proclamation of
    international sovereignty through free association until they are
    extinguished according to the applicable laws of the United States. All
    services provided as part of these rights and benefits will be
    available through the Government of the nation of Puerto Rico according
    to agreements reached by the two nations.

    Provides that all contributions made by employees and employers to
    Social Security with respect to residents of the nation of Puerto Rico,
    who are not yet eligible for old age, disability, or survivor's
    insurance benefits, be transferred to the Government of the nation of
    Puerto Rico once it establishes its own social security system. The
    Government of the nation of Puerto Rico may use these funds only to
    establish and operate a social security system. Once the transfer is
    made, the United States Government's obligations under the Social
    Security Act to such residents of the nation of Puerto Rico will end.

    Provides that all Federal transfer payments to the territory of Puerto
    Rico are maintained in the form of annual block grants to be used by
    the Government of the nation of Puerto Rico. For ten fiscal years
    following the proclamation of international sovereignty through free
    association, the annual block grants will amount to the annual
    aggregate funding of either all programs that currently extend to the
    territory of Puerto Rico or all programs that will be extended during
    the fiscal year prior to the proclamation of international sovereignty
    through free association, whichever is greater. Beginning on the
    eleventh fiscal year, the annual block grants will decrease at a rate
    of ten percent each year.

    Provides that the terms and conditions of this section may be revised
    by agreement under the Articles of Free Association.

    TITLE III--TRANSITION AND IMPLEMENTATION--STATEHOOD

    Section 301 Presidential proclamation; Admission into the Union.

    Requires the President to issue a proclamation declaring the date that
    Puerto Rico is admitted as a State of the Union. This date must be
    within one year after the effective date of the plebiscite results in
    favor of statehood.

    Provides that the territory of Puerto Rico will be a State of the
    United States of America, known as the State of Puerto Rico, and
    admitted into the Union on an equal footing with the other States upon
    the date selected by the President. Puerto Rico will remain
    unincorporated until its admission.

    Section 302 Conforming amendments to existing law.

    Directs the President to review Federal law with respect to Puerto Rico
    within 30 days of the certification of a plebiscite result in favor of
    statehood and submit recommendations as the President deems appropriate
    to Congress for changes to Federal law within one year of initiating
    the review.

    Section 303 Territory and boundaries.

    Specifies the territory and boundaries of the State of Puerto Rico,
    including all the islands currently under Puerto Rico's jurisdiction.

    Section 304 Constitution.

    Declares the Constitution of the territory of Puerto Rico, previously
    found to be republican in form and aligned with the Constitution of the
    United States and the Declaration of Independence, is accepted as the
    Constitution of the State of Puerto Rico. Requires all future
    constitutions of the State of Puerto Rico also be republican in form
    and not contrary to the United States Constitution or the Declaration
    of Independence.

    Section 305 Elections of Senators and Representatives, certification,
            and legal disputes.

    Requires the Governor of Puerto Rico to announce the dates and other
    requirements for primary and general elections for representation in
    the Senate and the House of Representatives of the United States within
    one month of the President's proclamation to admit Puerto Rico as a
    state.

    Provides that the office of the Resident Commissioner of Puerto Rico
    will cease to exist upon swearing in the first Representative from the
    State of Puerto Rico to the House of Representatives.

    Provides for two senatorial offices separately identified and
    designated in the first election of Senators.

    Provides that the State of Puerto Rico is entitled to the same number
    of Representatives as the State whose most recent census population was
    closest to, but less than, that of Puerto Rico in the first election of
    Representatives and subsequent elections until the next census-based
    reapportionment cycle. The addition of these Representatives will
    temporarily increase the membership of the House of Representatives
    prescribed by law. The State of Puerto Rico will subsequently be
    entitled to the number of Representatives provided for by applicable
    law based on the next reapportionment.

    Requires the Elections Commission to certify the results of the primary
    and general elections for representation in Congress to the Governor
    and requires the Governor to declare and transmit the results within
    ten days of each certification.

    Provides the United States District Court for the District of Puerto
    Rico jurisdiction over any dispute or controversy related to the
    electoral process.

    Section 306 State title to land and property.

    Provides that the State of Puerto Rico retains title to all property
    held by the territory of Puerto Rico on the date of admission of Puerto
    Rico into the Union. Any property that has been set aside for the use
    of the United States at the time of admission of Puerto Rico into the
    Union will remain the property of the United States.

    Provides the State of Puerto Rico exclusive right to all seabed,
    natural, and mineral resources within three marine leagues (nine
    nautical miles) from its shore. All other rights of sovereignty
    regarding the continental shelf and waters will belong to the United
    States, except those already vested in Puerto Rico.

    Section 307 Continuity of laws, government, and obligations.

    Provides that all territorial laws existing upon the President's
    proclamation of Puerto Rico's admission into the Union will remain in
    place under State of Puerto Rico until the State amends, modifies, or
    repeals such laws. All United States laws will have the same force and
    effect within the State of Puerto Rico as in other states.

    Provides that individuals holding legislative, executive, and judicial
    offices of the territory of Puerto Rico will continue their duties when
    Puerto Rico becomes a State of the Union.

    Provides that all contracts, obligations, debts, and claims of the
    territory of Puerto Rico at the time of admission continue as those of
    the State of Puerto Rico.

    Provides that all United States laws reserving free use or enjoyment of
    property that vests in or is conveyed to the State of Puerto Rico will
    cease to be effective.

    Section 308 Judicial pronouncements.

    Provides for all pending actions in any court of the territory of
    Puerto Rico to proceed within the appropriate State courts as
    established under the Constitution of the State of Puerto Rico or
    within the U.S. District Court for the District of Puerto Rico as
    appropriate.

    Provides that all civil causes of action and criminal offenses that
    arise before admission but that do not have pending action at the time
    of admission will be subject to prosecution in the appropriate State
    courts or in the U.S. District Court for the District of Puerto Rico.

    Provides parties with the same rights of judicial review and appeal
    regarding any case of the U.S. District Court for the District of
    Puerto Rico or the Supreme Court of Puerto Rico upon admission into the
    Union as before admission.

                                     ______

            PUERTO RICO STATUS ACT--CITIZENSHIP PROVISIONS (ENGLISH)

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                                   H.R. 8393, THE PUERTO RICO STATUS ACT
                        Citizenship Provisions Explained

    The Puerto Rico Status Act is a historic proposal that represents an
    offer from Congress to the people of Puerto Rico to make an informed
    choice on their political future.

    The bill sets up a binding plebiscite in which Puerto Rico voters would
    select among three self-governing, non-territorial statuses:
    Independence, Sovereignty in Free Association with the United States,
    and Statehood. Importantly, the bill would implement the status option
    selected.

    Citizenship Under the Bill Generally

    Under Statehood, citizenship would operate in Puerto Rico as it does in
    the other fifty states.

    Under Independence and Sovereignty in Free Association with the United
    States, Puerto Rican citizenship would be determined by the nation of
    Puerto Rico, and U.S. citizenship would be determined by Congress.

    Generally, current law provides several scenarios for persons to be
    U.S. citizens when born outside of the United States to parents who are
    U.S. citizens. However, the new nation of Puerto Rico would be unique
    among foreign nations in that it would already be populated
    overwhelmingly by U.S. citizens. Keeping these default rules would
    prevent Puerto Rico from becoming a nation that is populated by a
    majority of its own citizens.

    The bill's sponsors agree that causing the nation of Puerto Rico to
    remain indefinitely with a population that is the majority the citizens
    of the United States would not be in the interest of the nation of
    Puerto Rico or in the interest of the United States.

    Accordingly, the bill would limit some of the scenarios in which
    persons born in the nation of Puerto Rico would be U.S. citizens at
    birth.

    Background on U.S. Citizenship

    The U.S. citizenship provisions in the bill require the following
    context regarding provisions of the Immigration and Nationality Act
    (INA)

    INA Sec. 301(a): INA section 301, subsection (a), implements the U.S.
    Constitution by providing U.S. citizenship at birth to persons born in
    the fifty states.

    INA Sec. 302: INA section 302 provides U.S. citizenship to persons born
    in the territory of Puerto Rico.

    INA Sec. 301(c), (d), and (g): These subsections regard births that
    occur outside of the United States:

         301(c) grants U.S. citizenship when both parents are U.S.
                citizens. (At least one parent must have had a U.S.
                residence at some point.)

         301(d) grants U.S. citizenship when one parent is a U.S.
                citizen and the other parent is a U.S. national but not a
                U.S. citizen. (The citizen parent must have been physically
                present in the United States for at least one continuous
                year at some point.)

         301(g) grants U.S. citizenship when one parent is a U.S.
                citizen and the other parent is not a U.S. citizen or
                national. (The citizen parent must have been physically
                present in the United States for at least five years, at
                least two of which were after reaching the age of 14.)

    U.S. Citizenship in the Nation of Puerto Rico

    Under Independence or Sovereignty in Free Association with the United
    States, the default in existing law would be that INA 301(c), (d), and
    (g) would apply to births in the nation of Puerto Rico just like those
    provisions apply to births in other foreign countries.

    However, for the reasons discussed above, the bill modifies how INA
    301(c), (d), and (g) would apply for purposes of births in the nation
    of Puerto Rico as follows.

         Under Independence, INA 301(c), (d), and (g) would not
                provide U.S. citizenship to a person born in the nation of
                Puerto Rico if one of the U.S. citizen parents obtained
                their citizenship under INA 302. (INA 301(c), (d), and (g)
                would remain applicable for persons born to parents who are
                U.S. citizens under provisions other than INA 302.)

         Under Sovereignty in Free Association with the United
                States, the bill provides for the same, with one key
                exception. During the first Articles of Free Association,
                INA 301(c) would remain available as in other foreign
                countries--that is, a person born in Puerto Rico to two
                U.S. citizens would be a U.S. citizen (regardless of
                whether the parents obtained their U.S. citizenships under
                INA 302 or under another provision of law).\1\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ Reminder: The duration of the first Articles would be subject
    to negotiation between the countries and would require approval by
    Congress and by the people of Puerto Rico.

                                     ______

            PUERTO RICO STATUS ACT--CITIZENSHIP PROVISIONS (SPANISH)

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                     H.R. 8393, LA LEY DEL ESTATUS DE PUERTO RICO
                 Explicacion de las disposiciones de ciudadania

    La Ley del Estatus de Puerto Rico es una propuesta historica que
    representa una oferta del Congreso al pueblo de Puerto Rico para tomar
    una decision informada sobre su futuro politico.

    El proyecto de ley establece un plebiscito vinculante en el que los
    votantes de Puerto Rico elegirian entre tres estatus politicos
    autonomos y no territoriales: Independencia, Soberania en Libre
    Asociacion con los Estados Unidos y Estadidad. El proyecto de ley
    implementaria la opcion de estatus seleccionada.

    Ciudadania bajo el proyecto de ley en general

    Bajo la Estadidad, la ciudadania operaria en Puerto Rico como opera en
    los otros cincuenta estados.

    Bajo la Independencia y Soberania en Libre Asociacion con los Estados
    Unidos, la ciudadania puertorriquena seria determinada por la nacion de
    Puerto Rico, y la ciudadania estadounidense seria determinada por el
    Congreso.

    En general, la ley actual proporciona varios escenarios para que las
    personas sean ciudadanos estadounidenses cuando nacen fuera de los
    Estados Unidos de padres que son ciudadanos estadounidenses. Sin
    embargo, la nueva nacion de Puerto Rico seria unica entre las naciones
    extranjeras en que ya estaria poblada abrumadoramente por ciudadanos
    estadounidenses. Mantener estas reglas predeterminadas evitaria que
    Puerto Rico se convierta en una nacion poblada por una mayoria de sus
    propios ciudadanos.

    Los auspiciadores del proyecto de ley estan de acuerdo en que hacer que
    la nacion de Puerto Rico permanezca indefinidamente con una poblacion
    que es en su mayoria de ciudadanos de los Estados Unidos no seria en el
    interes de la nacion de Puerto Rico ni en el interes de los Estados
    Unidos.

    Por consiguiente, el proyecto de ley limitaria algunos de los
    escenarios en los que las personas nacidas en la nacion de Puerto Rico
    serian ciudadanos estadounidenses al nacer.

    Trasfondo sobre la ciudadania estadounidense

    Las disposiciones de ciudadania estadounidense en el proyecto de ley
    requieren el siguiente contexto con respecto a las disposiciones de la
    Ley de Inmigracion y Nacionalidad (INA).

    INA Sec. 301(a): La seccion 301, subseccion (a) de INA implementa la
    Constitucion de los EE. UU. al proporcionar la ciudadania
    estadounidense al nacer a las personas nacidas en los cincuenta
    estados.

    INA Sec. 302: La seccion 302 de INA otorga la ciudadania estadounidense
    a las personas nacidas en el territorio de Puerto Rico.

    INA Sec. 301(c), (d) y (g): Estas subsecciones se refieren a los
    nacimientos que ocurren fuera de los Estados Unidos:

         301(c) otorga la ciudadania estadounidense cuando ambos
                padres son ciudadanos estadounidenses. (Al menos uno de los
                padres debe haber tenido residencia en los EE. UU. en algun
                momento).

         301(d) otorga la ciudadania estadounidense cuando uno de
                los padres es ciudadano estadounidense y el otro padre es
                nacional estadounidense pero no ciudadano estadounidense.
                (El padre ciudadano debe haber estado fisicamente presente
                en los Estados Unidos durante al menos un ano continuo en
                algun momento).

         301(g) otorga la ciudadania estadounidense cuando uno de
                los padres es ciudadano estadounidense y el otro padre no
                es ciudadano ni nacional estadounidense. (El padre
                ciudadano debe haber estado fisicamente presente en los
                Estados Unidos durante al menos cinco anos, al menos dos de
                los cuales fueron despues de cumplir los 14 anos).

    Ciudadania estadounidense en la nacion de Puerto Rico

    Bajo la Independencia o Soberania en Libre Asociacion con los Estados
    Unidos, la ley existente por defecto seria que INA 301(c), (d) y (g) se
    aplicaria a los nacimientos en la nacion de Puerto Rico al igual que
    esas disposiciones se aplican a nacimientos en otros paises
    extranjeros.

    Sin embargo, por las razones discutidas anteriormente, el proyecto de
    ley modifica como se aplicaria INA 301(c), (d) y (g) para los
    nacimientos en la nacion de Puerto Rico de la siguiente manera.

         Bajo la Independencia, INA 301(c), (d) y (g) no
                proporcionaria la ciudadania estadounidense a una persona
                nacida en la nacion de Puerto Rico si uno de los padres
                ciudadanos estadounidenses obtuvo su ciudadania bajo INA
                302. (INA 301(c), (d) y (g) seguirian siendo aplicables a
                las personas nacidas de padres que son ciudadanos
                estadounidenses segun disposiciones distintas de INA 302).

         Bajo la Soberania en Libre Asociacion con los Estados
                Unidos, el proyecto de ley preve lo mismo, con una
                excepcion clave. Durante los primeros Articulos de Libre
                Asociacion, INA 301(c) permaneceria disponible como en
                otros paises extranjeros--es decir, una persona nacida en
                Puerto Rico de dos ciudadanos estadounidenses seria
                ciudadano estadounidense (independientemente de si los
                padres obtuvieron su ciudadania estadounidense bajo INA 302
                o bajo otra disposicion de ley).\1\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ Un recordatorio: La duracion de los primeros articulos estaria
    sujeta a negociacion entre los paises y requeriria la aprobacion del
    Congreso y del pueblo de Puerto Rico.

                                     ______

          PUERTO RICO STATUS ACT--FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS (ENGLISH)

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                     H.R. 8393, PUERTO RICO STATUS ACT
                           Frequently Asked Questions

    1.  What opportunities were available to residents of Puerto Rico and
    other members of the public to provide input on this legislation?

        This Congress, the House Committee on Natural Resources held two
    hearings on bills relating to Puerto Rico's political status that
    eventually became the Puerto Rico Status Act. The first hearing, held
    on April 14, 2021, included testimony from elected officials and legal
    experts. The second hearing, held on June 16, 2021, included testimony
    from residents and human rights and legal experts. All witnesses were
    provided the opportunity to give their testimony in Spanish with the
    assistance of an interpreter.

        On May 19, 2022, the Committee on Natural Resources released a
    discussion draft of the Puerto Rico Status Act and made it available on
    an online portal for public comment, which was followed by an
    unofficial Spanish translation of the discussion draft. Approximately
    120 online comments were ultimately submitted in response to the
    request for public input.

        On June 2, 2022, a congressional delegation including Chair Raul M.
    Grijalva (D-AZ), Rep. Nydia M. Velazquez (D-NY), Rep. Jenniffer
    Gonzalez-Colon (R-PR), and Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) visited
    Puerto Rico to receive feedback on the discussion draft. On June 2, 3,
    and 4, the delegation met with representatives of the Popular
    Democratic Party, Puerto Rican Independence Party, New Progressive
    Party, Citizens' Victory Movement, Project Dignity Party, Puerto Rico
    Democratic Party, and Puerto Rico Republican Party. On June 4, 2022,
    the delegation also hosted a Congressional Public Input Forum.
    Registration for the event was open to the public and all attendees
    were provided an opportunity to join a panel to provide testimony and
    respond to the delegation's questions. Over the course of more than
    four hours, 38 witnesses provided testimony and 56 members of the
    public provided written comments. All witnesses were provided the
    opportunity to give their testimony and provide written comments in
    Spanish.

    2.  Why is territory status not included among the political status
    options on the plebiscite ballot?

        The intent of this legislation is to establish a path for
    decolonizing Puerto Rico from the territorial status that it has held
    for more than a century. The non-territorial status options made
    available to Puerto Rico through this Act--Independence; Sovereignty in
    Free Association with the United States; and Statehood--are the only
    non-territorial political status options acceptable under the United
    States Constitution and international law that would address the
    second-class treatment Puerto Rico receives due to its present
    territory status.

        Under territory status, Puerto Rico's residents are denied access
    to certain federal services and benefits and are unable to participate
    in U.S. presidential elections or have voting representation in
    Congress. At the same time, Puerto Rico currently does not have the
    full powers that devolve upon a sovereign nation to enter into
    relations with other nations or international organizations. The
    preservation of Puerto Rico's territory status would not resolve these
    issues and including territory status among the options to be selected
    by voters would undermine the overall intent of the legislation.

    3.  Why are Puerto Ricans residing in the states or abroad unable to
    participate in the plebiscite?

        ``Eligible voters'' in this bill are defined as bona fide residents
    of Puerto Rico who are otherwise qualified to vote in general elections
    in Puerto Rico. This definition respects the electoral laws of the
    Government of Puerto Rico.

        The U.S. House of Representatives has overwhelmingly rejected past
    recommendations to expand voter eligibility to individuals residing
    outside of Puerto Rico within previous legislation regarding Puerto
    Rico's political status.

    4.  In the event a majority of voters choose Independence or
    Sovereignty in Free Association with the United States, why does a
    transition to these status options require a constitutional convention?

        The federal government has a responsibility to the U.S. citizens
    residing in Puerto Rico to facilitate a stable and orderly transition.
    Should one of those options be selected by a majority of voters, a
    constitutional convention is necessary to ensure a rigorous and
    democratic process is in place for drafting a constitution for the
    nation of Puerto Rico so it may successfully transition to an
    independent or freely associated status.

    5.  In the event a majority of voters choose Independence or
    Sovereignty in Free Association with the United States, why does a
    transition to these status options provide financial support to Puerto
    Rico?

        The federal government has a responsibility to resolve Puerto
    Rico's political status in recognition of the United States acquiring
    Puerto Rico by conquest, not consent, more than a century ago. If
    Independence or Sovereignty in Free Association with the United States
    is selected by a majority of voters, this responsibility would be
    carried out through the provision of temporary support, in the form of
    federal transfer payments and economic benefits to the nation of Puerto
    Rico, to facilitate a stable transition.

    6.  Why is the process for obtaining U.S. citizenship different for
    Puerto Rico compared to other countries under Independence and
    Sovereignty in Free Association with the United States?

        Generally, current law provides several scenarios for persons to be
    U.S. citizens when born outside of the United States to parents who are
    U.S. citizens. However, the new nation of Puerto Rico would be unique
    among foreign nations in that it would already be populated
    overwhelmingly by U.S. citizens.

        Keeping these default rules would prevent Puerto Rico from becoming
    a nation that is populated by a majority of its own citizens.
    Therefore, the bill proposes limitations to some of the scenarios in
    which persons born in the nation of Puerto Rico would be U.S. citizens
    at birth. For more information about the citizenship provisions in the
    bill, see: https://naturalresources.house.gov/imo/media/doc/
    Puerto%20Rico%20Status%20Act%20-%20citizenship%20one-pager.pdf

    7 What is the difference between Independence and Sovereignty in Free
    Association regarding the transferring of U.S. citizenship from a
    parent to their child?

        Under Independence and Sovereignty in Free Association with the
    United States, Puerto Rican citizenship would be determined by the
    nation of Puerto Rico, and U.S. citizenship would be determined by the
    U.S. Congress.

        For more information about the citizenship provisions in the bill,
    see https://naturalresources.house.gov/imo/media/doc/
    Puerto%20Rico%20Status%20Act%20-%20citizenship%20one-pager.pdf

    8.  If a majority of eligible voters in Puerto Rico choose Statehood,
    will the transition process for admitting Puerto Rico as a state occur
    within one year?

        This bill recognizes that any of the three non-territorial status
    options--Independence, Sovereignty in Free Association with the U.S.,
    and Statehood--will require contingent federal laws to facilitate
    Puerto Rico's full transition to a new political status.

        Under the transition process of the three non-territorial status
    options, the President must conduct a review of federal law to address
    and resolve any conflicts between the laws of the United States and the
    laws of the state or nation of Puerto Rico. The President must then
    submit recommendations to Congress for changes to federal law within a
    year of initiating the review. This review process ensures that
    appropriate changes are made by Congress to avoid disruptions to the
    implementation of the status option selected by voters in the federal
    plebiscite.

                                     ______

                    AMENDMENTS TO H.R. 8393 FILED BY MEMBERS

                             BOEBERT--AMENDMENT #4

     Amendment to the Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute to H.R. 8393
                      Offered by Mrs. Boebert of Colorado

    On page 14, strike section 8.

    On pages 14 and 15, renumber sections 9 through 11 as 8 through 10,
            accordingly.

                              HICE--AMENDMENT #45

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                              HICE--AMENDMENT #46

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                              HICE--AMENDMENT #47

     Amendment to the Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute to H.R. 8393
                         Offered by Mr. Hice of Georgia

    On page 2, the Table of Contents are amended to add at the end the
            following----

         ``TITLE IV--ENACTMENT

         ``Sec. 401. Condition for Enactment.''

    On page 57, following line 3, insert the following----

         ``Title IV--Enactment

         ``Sec. 401. Condition for Enactment.--This Act shall not take
            effect until the territory of Puerto Rico has repaid in full
            the debt such territory has as of the day before the date of
            enactment of this Act.''

                              HICE--AMENDMENT #48

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                              HICE--AMENDMENT #49

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8133.180

                            HICE--AMENDMENT #50

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

    .[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                         MCCLINTOCK--AMENDMENT #70

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8133.183

                         MCCLINTOCK--AMENDMENT #71

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8133.184

                         MCCLINTOCK--AMENDMENT #72

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8133.185

                         MCCLINTOCK--AMENDMENT #74

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8133.186

                         .epsMCCLINTOCK--AMENDMENT #75

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8133.187

                           TIFFANY--AMENDMENT #9

     Amendment to the Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute to H.R. 8393
                      Offered by Mr. Tiffany of Wisconsin

    On page 7, line 25, strike ``Individuals born in Puerto Rico to
            parents''.

    On page 8, strike lines 1 through 5.

    On page 37, lines 24 through 25, strike ``Except as described in
            paragraph (2),''.

    On page 38, strike lines 9 through 15.

                             TIFFANY--AMENDMENT #10

     Amendment to the Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute to H.R. 8393
                      Offered by Mr. Tiffany of Wisconsin

    On page 25, strike lines 13 through 25.

    On page 26, strike lines 1 through 17.

    On page 38, strike lines 16 through 25.

    On page 39, strike lines 1 through 22.

                            WESTERMAN--AMENDMENT #2

     Amendment to the Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute to H.R. 8393
                      Offered by Mr. Westerman of Arkansas

    On Page 28, strike lines 17 through 25.

    On Page 29, strike lines 1 through 15.

    On Page 45, strike lines 9 through 24.

    On Page 46, strike lines 1 through 9.

                            WESTERMAN--AMENDMENT #7

     Amendment to the Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute to H.R. 8393
                      Offered by Mr. Westerman of Arkansas

    In Title I----

         Strike Sections 101, 102, 103, 104, 106, and 109.

         On page 27, line 21, strike ``All services which must be
            rendered'' through line 24.

         On page 28, line 10, strike ``The Government of the nation of
            Puerto Rico'' through line 12.

         Renumber Sections 105, 107, and 108 accordingly.

    In Title II----

         Strike Sections 201, 202, 203, and 204.

         On page 35, strike lines 13 through 25;

         On page 36----

             On line 1, strike ``(c)'' and insert ``(a)'';

             On line 4, strike ``All proceedings pending'' through the end
            of section 207.

         On page 44, line 14, strike ``All'' through line 18.

         On page 45, lines 2 through 5, strike ``The Government of the
            nation of Puerto Rico may not use these funds for any purpose
            other than the establishment and operation of a social security
            system.''

         Renumber Sections 205, 207, and 208 accordingly.

                            WESTERMAN--AMENDMENT #12

     Amendment to the Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute to H.R. 8393
                      Offered by Mr. Westerman of Arkansas

    On page 2, the Table of Contents are amended to add at the end the
            following----

         ``TITLE IV--ENACTMENT

         ``Sec. 401. Condition for Enactment.''

    On page 57, following line 3, insert the following----

         ``Title IV--Enactment

         ``Sec. 401. Condition for Enactment.--This Act shall not take
            effect until the terms of Section 209 of the Puerto Rico
            Oversight, Management, and Economic Stability Act (Pub. L. 114-
            187) have been satisfied.''

              AMENDMENT IN THE NATURE OF A SUBSTITUTE TO H.R. 8393

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                              MARKUP ACTION REPORT

                         Committee on Natural Resources
                              Markup Action Report

    The Committee on Natural Resources met on Wednesday, July 20, 2022, to
    consider the following measures. Per Committee Rule 9(f)(1), roll call
    votes will be posted no later than 48 hours after the vote is taken.
    These documents and the amendments below can be found at
    docs.house.gov, found here: https://docs.house.gov/Committee/Calendar/
    ByEvent.aspx?EventID=115035.

    H R 6353 (Rep. Susan Wild), To authorize the National Service Animals
    Monument Corporation to establish a commemorative work in the District
    of Columbia and its environs, and for other purposes.  National Service
    Animals Memorial Act.

     Available at: https://www.congress.gov/117/bills/hr6353/BILLS-
    117hr6353ih.pdf

            Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests, and Public Lands was
            discharged from further consideration of H.R. 6353 by unanimous
            consent.

         The bill was adopted and ordered favorably reported to the
                House of Representatives by unanimous consent.

    H R 6438 (Rep. Ken Buck), To authorize the Secretary of the Interior
    to conduct a special resource study of the site known as ``Dearfield''
    in the State of Colorado.  Dearfield Study Act.

     Available at: https://www.congress.gov/117/bills/hr6438/BILLS-
    117hr6438ih.pdf

            Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests, and Public Lands was
            discharged from further consideration of H.R. 6438 by unanimous
            consent.

         The bill was adopted and ordered favorably reported to the
                House of Representatives by unanimous consent.

    H.R. 6799 (Rep. Brad R. Wenstrup), To direct the Secretary of the
    Interior to conduct a special resource study to determine the
    suitability and feasibility of establishing the John P. Parker House in
    Ripley, Ohio, as a unit of the National Park System.  John P. Parker
    House Study Act.

     Available at: https://www.congress.gov/117/bills/hr6799/BILLS-
    117hr6799ih.pdf

            Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests, and Public Lands was
            discharged from further consideration of H.R. 6799 by unanimous
            consent.

         The bill was adopted and ordered favorably reported to the
                House of Representatives by unanimous consent.

    H.R. 7618 (Rep. Shontel M. Brown), To designate the Kol Israel
    Foundation Holocaust Memorial in Bedford Heights, Ohio, as a national
    memorial.

     Available at: https://www.congress.gov/117/bills/hr7618/BILLS-
    117hr7618ih.pdf

            Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests, and Public Lands was
            discharged from further consideration of H.R. 7618 by unanimous
            consent.

         The bill was adopted and ordered favorably reported to the
                House of Representatives by unanimous consent.

    H.R. 8393 (Chair Raul M. Grijalva), To enable the people of Puerto Rico
    to choose a permanent, nonterritorial, fully self-governing political
    status for Puerto Rico and to provide for a transition to and the
    implementation of that permanent, nonterritorial, fully self-governing
    political status, and for other purposes.  Puerto Rico Status Act.

     Available at: https://www.congress.gov/117/bills/hr8393/BILLS-
    117hr8393ih.pdf

         Chair Raul M. Grijalva (D-AZ) offered an amendment in the
                nature of a substitute.

         Rep. Tom McClintock (R-CA) offered an amendment designated
                McClintock #070 to the amendment in the nature of a
                substitute. The amendment was not agreed to by a roll call
                vote of 15 yeas and 27 nays.

         Rep. McClintock offered an amendment designated McClintock
                #071 to the amendment in the nature of a substitute. The
                amendment was not agreed to by a roll call vote of 14 yeas
                and 28 nays.

         Ranking Member Bruce Westerman (R-AR) offered an amendment
                designated Westerman #12 to the amendment in the nature of
                a substitute. The amendment was not agreed to by a roll
                call vote of 18 yeas and 25 nays.

         Rep. McClintock offered an amendment designated McClintock
                #075 to the amendment in the nature of a substitute. The
                amendment was not agreed to by a roll call vote of 17 yeas
                and 26 nays.

         Rep. Lauren Boebert (R-CO) offered an amendment designated
                Boebert #4 to the amendment in the nature of a substitute.
                The amendment was not agreed to by a roll call vote of 18
                yeas and 25 nays.

         Rep. McClintock offered an amendment designated McClintock
                #074 to the amendment in the nature of a substitute. The
                amendment was not agreed to by a roll call vote of 14 yeas
                and 30 nays.

         Rep. McClintock offered an amendment designated McClintock
                #072 to the amendment in the nature of a substitute. The
                amendment was not agreed to by a roll call vote of 18 yeas
                and 27 nays.

         Ranking Member Westerman offered an amendment designated
                Westerman #7 to the amendment in the nature of a
                substitute. The amendment was not agreed to by a roll call
                vote of 19 yeas and 26 nays.

         Ranking Member Westerman offered an amendment designated
                Westerman #2 to the amendment in the nature of a
                substitute. The amendment was not agreed to by a roll call
                vote of 18 yeas and 26 nays.

         Rep. Tom Tiffany (R-WI) offered an amendment designated
                Tiffany #10 to the amendment in the nature of a substitute.
                The amendment was not agreed to by a roll call vote of 17
                yeas and 26 nays.

         Rep. Tiffany offered an amendment designated Tiffany #9 to
                the amendment in the nature of a substitute. The amendment
                was not agreed to by a roll call vote of 17 yeas and 26
                nays.

         Rep. Jody B. Hice (R-GA) offered an amendment designated
                Hice #045 to the amendment in the nature of a substitute.
                The amendment was not agreed to by a roll call vote of 18
                yeas and 26 nays.

         Rep. Hice offered an amendment designated Hice #046 to the
                amendment in the nature of a substitute. The amendment was
                not agreed to by a roll call vote of 18 yeas and 27 nays.

         Rep. Hice offered an amendment designated Hice #047
                (Revised) to the amendment in the nature of a substitute.
                The amendment was not agreed to by a roll call vote of 18
                yeas and 28 nays.

         Rep. Hice offered an amendment designated Hice #048 to the
                amendment in the nature of a substitute. The amendment was
                not agreed to by a roll call vote of 17 yeas and 27 nays.

         Rep. Hice offered an amendment designated Hice #049 to the
                amendment in the nature of a substitute. The amendment was
                not agreed to by a roll call vote of 17 yeas and 27
                nays.\1\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ During the markup, the total on this vote was announced
    incorrectly. The numbers above are accurate and authoritative.

         Rep. Hice offered an amendment designated Hice #050 to the
                amendment in the nature of a substitute. The amendment was
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
                withdrawn.

         The amendment in the nature of a substitute was agreed to
                by voice vote.

         The bill, as amended, was adopted and ordered favorably
                reported to the House of Representatives by a roll call
                vote of 25 yeas and 20 nays.

                                     ______

                [ADDITIONAL MATERIALS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

               .EPSREPUBLICAN CAUCUS OF THE HOUSE REPRESENTATIVES

                                 OF PUERTO RICO

                                                      July 19, 2022

    Hon. Jenniffer Gonzalez-Colon
    House Committee on Natural Resources
    2338 Rayburn House Office Building
    Washington, DC 20515

        Dear Congresswoman Gonzalez:

        On behalf of the Republican Legislative Caucus of Puerto Rico, I
    want to express our unwavering support for H.R. 8393, the ``Puerto Rico
    Status Act.'' H.R. 8393 allows and provides for a federally sanctioned
    plebiscite, under the American Constitution and legal system, for the
    U.S. Citizens in Puerto Rico to choose freely a permanent, non-
    territorial, fully self-governing political status.

        Puerto Rico's territorial condition, the actual Commonwealth, also
    known in Spanish as ``Estado Libre Asociado'' has restricted its
    opportunity to achieve full political, economic, and social growth for
    years. This situation looks awry in the 21st Century, especially when
    the United States is the leader of the Free World. The time to end the
    underprivileged territorial-colonial relationship of our beloved Island
    has arrived.

        Every law approved and enacted by a U.S. President, and Congress
    applies to Puerto Rico. Because of the territorial status, the
    residents of Puerto Rico have limited rights and can't choose an
    elected official with full voting rights in either the House or the
    Senate. Furthermore, they can't vote for the President and/or the
    Commander in Chief, despite over 250,000 US Citizens born in Puerto
    Rico who have honorably defended the United States and its democratic
    principles since World War I.

        The latest example of how the territorial status negatively affects
    the U.S. Citizens on the Island was recently illustrated by the U.S.
    Supreme Court's decision in United States v. Vaello Madero, decided on
    April 21, 2022. The case involved the question of whether the equal-
    protection component of the Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause
    requires U.S. Congress to make Supplemental Security Income (SSI)
    benefits available to the U.S. Citizens residents in Puerto Rico to the
    same extent U.S. Congress makes those benefits available to U.S.
    Citizens residents of the States. SCOTUS answer was ``no''. It
    reaffirmed Article IV, Sec. 3, Clause 2, known as ``the Territory
    Clause'' of the U.S. Constitution, the power of Congress to ``make all
    needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other
    Property belonging to the United States.'' The Territory Clause allows
    Congress to exercise any discretion to legislate for the U.S.
    Territories.

        By approving H.R. 8393, Congress would be providing, under a
    federally sponsored plebiscite, the opportunity to the U.S. Citizens in
    Puerto Rico to choose between specific non-territorial status options,
    which include: Statehood, Independence, and Sovereignty in Free
    Association with the United States. Any attempt to include the actual
    Commonwealth or ``Estado Libre Asociado'' as part of H.R. 8393 is
    archaic and detrimental to the principles of self-determination and our
    American tradition.

        Former Republican Presidents such as Gerald Ford, Ronald Reagan,
    George H.W. Bush, and George Bush expressed public support for Puerto
    Rico's right to self-determination. In 2016, even President Trump
    publicly expressed that the residents of Puerto Rico deserve a process
    of self-determination and to resolve their political status under the
    U.S. Constitution.

        Approval of H.R. 8393 or, more importantly, bringing the
    territorial status debate to a close by providing a sanctioned path to
    the U.S. Citizens in Puerto Rico is the American way. ``A person in a
    U.S. territory with national citizenship, but not state citizenship, is
    denied the most fundamental rights in the domestic community of
    states.'' Dick Thornburgh, Former Attorney General for President Ronald
    Reagan and President George H. Bush.

        We, the Republican Legislative Caucus of Puerto Rico,
    representatives of the majority conservative constituency, thank you
    for your leadership. Hence, we respectfully request your support for
    H.R. 8393. May God bless you.

                Best regards,

                                       Jose F. Aponte-Hernandez

                                     ______

                        Democratic Party of Puerto Rico

                                                      July 19, 2022

    Hon. Raul Grijalva, Chairman
    Natural Resources Committee
    United States House of Representatives
    Washington, DC 20515

        Dear Mr. Chairman:

        I write to you on behalf of the Democratic Party of Puerto Rico to
    express our gratitude for having introduced H.R. 8393, the Puerto Rico
    Status Act, a consensus bill co-sponsored by Majority Leader Steny
    Hoyer, Rep. Nydia Velazquez, Rep. Darren Soto, Rep. Ruben Gallego, Rep.
    Betty McCollum, Rep. Katie Porter, and Delegate Michael F.Q. San
    Nicolas. The bill is also supported by Resident Commissioner Jenniffer
    Gonzalez-Colon and Rep. Maria Elvira Salazar.

        Puerto Rico has been a territorial colony of the United States for
    more than a century. After 124 years under the American flag, the
    island's undemocratic and unequal territory status has failed both the
    people on the Island and America as a whole. Congress needs to vote
    ``YES'' for H.R. 8393 to finally end colonialism in Puerto Rico.

        Even though Puerto Rico residents pay most federal taxes and serve
    in the U.S. military, the 3.2 million U.S. citizens living in Puerto
    Rico lack basic democracy having only one non-voting representative in
    the U.S. House, no U.S. Senators, and no chance to vote in presidential
    elections. To make matters worse, Puerto Rico can legally be treated
    differently from states and is therefore excluded from many federal
    programs. This disparity has diminished Puerto Rico's quality of life,
    prevented its people from growing their local economy, forced millions
    of Puerto Ricans to leave for the states, and has hurt veterans with
    less support and lower benefits.

        As you are fully aware, piecemeal solutions to the island's
    problems are simply not good enough anymore. There is no way to help
    Puerto Rico fully recover or reach its potential under the current
    territory status, which is why it is not surprising that on November 3,
    2020, an absolute majority of voters in Puerto Rico chose to be
    immediately admitted into the Union as a state. That was the third time
    in ten years where voters rejected the territory and favored statehood
    among the non-territory options.

        The leadership of the Democratic Party of Puerto Rico strongly
    urges you to bring H.R. 8393 to a vote on the Natural Resources
    Committee and recommend its approval to the House. This bill will
    finally allow the people of Puerto Rico, your fellow U.S. citizens, the
    option to choose to become full and equal participants in American
    society through statehood or to create a separate country through
    either independence or sovereignty in free association.

        Congress cannot continue to perpetuate the injustice of territorial
    colonialism anymore.

                Sincerely,

                                          Charles A. Rodriguez,
                                                                  Chair

                                     ______

                               PROYECTO DIGNIDAD
                   INITIAL POSITION STATEMENT FOR THE RECORD
             PERTAINING TO THE DISCUSSION DRAFT BILL CIRCULATED BY
            SEVERAL MEMBERS OF THE FEDERAL HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
          TO ENABLE THE PEOPLE OF PUERTO RICO TO CHOOSE A PERMANENTE,
                      NONTERRITORIAL, FULLY SELF-GOVERNING
             POLITICAL STATUS FOR PUERTO RICO AND TO PROVIDE FOR A
    TRANSITION TO AND THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THAT PERMANENT, NONTERRITORIAL,
                     FULLY SELF-GOVERNING POLITICAL STATUS,
                             AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES
                                  June 3, 2022

    I Proyecto Dignidad's (PD) position as to the circulated Draft Bill:

    It is PD's position to support all efforts initiated by Congress,
    including the submitted draft, that will enable the people of Puerto
    Rico to choose a permanent, nonterritorial, fully self-governing
    political status that provides for a transition to and the
    implementation of the status options presented, without supporting any
    specific status as a political institution.

    II Why PDSupports this Bill:

      a. Coincides with PD's Declaration of Principles as to Puerto Rico
                Status, which in principle supports all efforts in which
                the following criterions are included: (1) Democratic
                Process in all essential determinations that enable the
                recognition and acceptance of the Puerto Rico electorate
                self-determination; (2) Congress is involved and takes
                responsibility to enable all democratic results; (3) the
                status options presented to the electorate provide for a
                permanent and non-colonial/ territorial solution to the
                political relationship with the USA; (4) PD will not
                support any specific status in the process and its members,
                as individuals, will be free to advocate in favor of any of
                the status included in the process.

      b  The draft Bill recognizes Congress responsibility as an
                indispensable participant in any effective and permanent
                implementation of the plebiscite electoral results and its
                follow up consequences.

      c  The draft Bill is in accordance and in compliance with federal,
                international and Commonwealth of Puerto Rico laws.

      d  The draft Bill enables a non-partisan educational process in
                Puerto Rico related to all status options and the effects
                and consequences of each transition process.

      e  If the draft Bill is presented as is, without any substantial
                amendment, PD is in the position to publicly support the
                same.

      f  PD's official position as to the political status of Puerto Rico
                enables our party to, along side with Congress, become an
                impartial educational voice pertaining to the electoral
                process contained in the Bill and the consequences under
                each political status options provided by the Bill.

                                     ______

                            Statement for the Record
                               Pedro R. Pierluisi
       Governor of Puerto Rico and President of the New Progressive Party
              to the Delegation of the Natural Resources Committee
                      of the U.S. House of Representatives
                                  June 3, 2022

        Chairman Grijalva and all members of the Delegation from the House
    Natural Resources Committee:

        It is a pleasure to welcome you to Puerto Rico and I particularly
    thank you for your work to resolve the century-old Puerto Rico status
    issue. For 124 years Puerto Rico has been a territory of the United
    States, ``separate and unequal''.

        During the past decade the colonial nature of the powers of
    Congress over Puerto Rico has been revealed for all to see. The PROMESA
    law with an unelected Oversight Board controlling our local government;
    several opinions of the U.S. Supreme Court upholding unequal treatment
    for Puerto Ricans under federal law, including denying them access to
    SSI just because they reside on the Island; the year-to-year funding
    debacles for important programs such as Medicaid, and limited block
    grants for nutritional assistance are all examples of the unfair use of
    the plenary power of Congress over Puerto Rico.

        In fact, these matters have been a catalyst in our fight to have
    the democratic self-government that Puerto Rico deserves either through
    statehood or through nationhood.

        This Committee, and all Members of Congress, have the great
    responsibility of heeding our people's call to put an end to the
    territorial status of Puerto Rico. For many years this body has been
    called to deal with this issue. For over thirteen years, Resident
    Commissioner Jenniffer Gonzalez and I, in my previous role in Congress,
    have been urging Congressional action to resolve Puerto Rico's status
    and to achieve equality.

        All those born in Puerto Rico have been American citizens for over
    105 years. Congress approved Puerto Rico's constitution in 1952. Since
    then, almost 70 years ago, Congress has never even asked the American
    citizens of Puerto Rico if they continue to accept the Island's
    territorial form of government or if they want to become a state or a
    sovereign nation.

        This context is important because since the late 80s and early 90s
    the U.S. House of Representatives and this Committee have had multiple
    bills that purported to resolve Puerto Rico's status problem, only two
    of which were approved by the House (HR 856 in 1998 and H.R. 2499 in
    2010) and none of which made it through the Senate.

        Nonetheless, all of those bills, as well as a variety of
    plebiscites held on the Island, have been steps forward toward a
    permanent solution to our territorial status. Moreover, since 2012,
    when a majority of Puerto Rico's voters clearly rejected the current
    status in a local plebiscite, there has been no consent of the governed
    in Puerto Rico.

        The American citizens of Puerto Rico have taken this issue up
    themselves six times since the late 1960s, and during the past 50 years
    statehood has grown to be the option preferred by the majority of the
    people. That is fact.

        Now we have entered a new and promising phase. We have a draft
    consensus bill that offers constitutional non-territorial options to
    the people of Puerto Rico. Real options that do away with pie-in-the-
    sky alternatives that have no place in the United States form of
    government. This proposed bill not only asks Puerto Ricans what they
    want their Island's status to be, it also commits Congress to implement
    the status option chosen by the people. After all, that is one of the
    most basic principles of American democracy: a government of the
    people, by the people and for the people.

        That is why Puerto Ricans are hopeful with this new draft bill.
    Because let us be real, no Member of Congress would accept a status
    like ours for their constituents.
        Having reiterated why it is important for Congress to deal with
    this issue, I want to make a few comments about the proposed bill.

      1  It is important that Puerto Rico's territorial status is not
                included in the proposed plebiscite. Nobody can deny that
                Puerto Rico lacks full democracy under its current status.
                Remaining a colony cannot be an option.

      2  I agree that the preferred option should have a majority of the
                votes, like the bill proposes.

      3  The bills' options are fair, reasonable and constitutional. Let
                me make some suggestions on them:

              a  Statehood option:

                      i.   The bill could acknowledge that Congress has the
                    power to increase the number of members of the House of
                    Representatives to account for the new members from
                    Puerto Rico.

              b  Sovereignty with Free Association option:

                      i.   The social security issue could be explained
                    further.

                      ii.   The bill could address what happens to the
                    accumulated, but not realized, benefits of the members
                    of the U.S. Armed Forces residing if Puerto Rico
                    becomes a sovereign nation.

                      iii.   The citizenship allowance in the bill means
                    that Puerto Rico as a sovereign nation would have a
                    considerable number of its population with U.S.
                    citizenship. As the bill currently proposes, the
                    duration of this allowance should not be afforded
                    beyond the first term of the pact of association.

              c  Independence:

                      i.   Clarifying the social security plan and the
                    Armed Forces members' benefits could also be helpful in
                    this option.

        I will end by reminding you of the responsibility I alluded to at
    the beginning of my remarks. The process to approve this bill must be
    expeditious. Puerto Ricans deserve to be heard. Congress must ensure
    the United States democratic ideals fully apply in Puerto Rico.

        Some have said that this is a futile attempt. That you are not
    really serious about actually resolving the status issue. That there is
    not enough time. That the Senate will not take it up. That Puerto Rico
    is not a priority in Congress.

        You must prove the naysayers wrong. I know how hard you all worked
    to achieve this consensus. I recognize your commitment to Puerto Rico.
    And I am glad that President Biden supports your efforts.

        The 3.2 million American citizens of Puerto Rico demand swift
    action

        The more than 5 million Puerto Rican-Americans living in the states
    expect it

        We deserve equality, we have earned it and we will not stop this
    fight until we achieve it.

                                     ______

                   PUERTO RICO INDEPENDENCE PARTY--MATERIALS

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

    Ruben Berrios Martinez

    The President of the Puerto Rican Independence Party, Ruben Berrios
    Martinez, is currently a professor at the University of Puerto Rico
    School of Law. Berrios Martinez, is an Honorary President of the
    Socialist International, a Vicepresident and co-founder of the
    Permanent Conference of Political Parties of the Caribbean and Latin
    America (COPPAL), and a member of the Executive Committee of the
    Latinamerican Association of Human Rights. Berrios Martinez, served as
    a senator in the Puerto Rican Senate for four terms. He obtained a
    B.S.B.A from Georgetown University, a LL.B. and an LL.M. from Yale Law
    School, and a Diploma in International Law from Oxford University.

    Maria de Lourdes Santiago Negron, Vice President of the Puerto Rican
    Independence Party, is currently serving as Senator at large in Puerto
    Rico's Senate. In the last election she obtained the highest amount of
    votes for said position. This is her third term as a Senator. Santiago
    Negron obtained her BA and her JD from the University of Puerto Rico,
    Rio Piedras Campus.

    Juan Dalmau Ramirez is a professor at the Interamerican University
    School of Law and Secretary General of the Puerto Rican Independence
    Party. He was elected senator at large for the Puerto Rico's Senate in
    2016. As the Puerto Rican Independence Party gubernatorial candidate in
    2020 he obtained 14% (175,000 votes), the best result for Governor in
    the Party's history. Dalmau Ramirez obtained a BA and JD from the
    University of Puerto Rico, Rio Piedras Campus and an LL.M. from Harvard
    Law School.

    Carlos Ivan Gorrin Peralta

    Professor of Constitutional Law at the Inter-American University of
    Puerto Rico since 1980. He has lectured in several law schools both in
    Puerto Rico, the United States and Latin America. He obtained a B.A.
    from the College of the Holy Cross, a J.D. from the University of
    Puerto Rico School of Law and an LL.M. from Harvard Law School. Since
    1979 he has published on constitutional law, human rights, the U.S.
    territorial policy and the admission of states to the Union, and
    particularly on the relations between Puerto Rico and the United
    States.
                        Puerto Rican Independence Party:
    Position paper on the discussion draft for a bill to enable the people
                                       of
        Puerto Rico to choose a permanent, non-territorial, fully self-
                                   governing
                                political status

                            PIP Admonishes Congress

        Self-execution of the statehood option dooms the bill to failure

    I Colonialism and self-determination

        The People of Puerto Rico have the inalienable right to self-
    determination and independence, and the United States the obligation to
    discharge their decolonizing responsibility with respect to Puerto
    Rico. After 124 years as a possession resulting from military conquest
    and the Treaty of Paris, the United States still keeps Puerto Rico--a
    Latin American and Caribbean nation--under colonial subordination and
    fundamental decisions about our collective lives are unilaterally
    controlled by the three branches of the United States government. This
    constitutes a flagrant violation of the civil and political human
    rights of our people, and therefore both countries ought to end the
    colonial regime as soon as possible.

        To make matters worse, the economic and social consequences of
    colonialism have been grave. Per capita income today--as it was 70
    years ago--is one third of that of the United States, and half of that
    of the poorest state. Over forty percent of the population is below the
    poverty line, our labor force participation rate is by far lower than
    that of any state, and we suffer the worst rates of social inequality.
    The country has endured more than fifteen years of virtually continuous
    economic contraction, a seventh of the population has emigrated during
    the last decade, and for the last six years the government of the
    territory has been placed under receivership by federal law.

        The two parties that have alternatively shared power in Puerto Rico
    for over half a century--the PPD and the PNP--have left a toxic legacy
    of inequality, corruption, poverty, and political subordination that
    has torn the country to pieces. Dependence and indebtedness have
    clearly evidenced the failure of the colonial regime.

    II Change in the territorial public policy of the United States

        This bleak picture makes it is imperative to launch a political
    process toward achieving the decolonization of Puerto Rico.

        How to do it?

        The PIP has spent decades proposing the convening of a Status
    Assembly (or with another name) composed of delegates elected by Puerto
    Ricans according to their commitment to status alternatives not subject
    to the Territorial Clause. The task of this Assembly is not to decide
    what our future status should be; that decision must ultimately be in
    the hands of the voters. The role of the Assembly that the PIP has
    proposed is twofold. First, it would be a powerful claim of
    decolonization to be clearly heard by the international community and
    the civil society of the United States, generating enthusiasm and
    commitment so that Congress and the President will feel compelled to
    promptly act responsibly. The second task of the Status Assembly is
    that the delegations elected to represent different non-colonial or
    non-territorial alternatives negotiate with the corresponding
    congressional committees and the White House the precise content of
    each of the alternatives and their respective processes of transition,
    which would be eventually put to a vote in a federally sanctioned
    decolonizing plebiscite law.

        Since Congresswomen Velazquez and Ocasio Cortez presented their
    first version of what is now the draft bill announced in Washington
    together with the Resident Commissioner, Jenniffer Gonzalez and
    Congressman Soto, the PIP expressed itself in favor of an initiative
    that had as its fundamental objective that the alternatives to be
    submitted to the electorate would not be subject to the powers of
    Congress under the Territory Clause. We are therefore pleased to see
    that the draft bill contains as indispensable requirement that the vote
    be between independence, sovereign free association, and statehood;
    that is to say that the purpose of the bill is to put an end to the
    colonial condition of Puerto Rico. This is an important step.
        Not only Congress (in the PROMESA law) but also the Executive
    Branch (through the Department of Justice and the White House Reports)
    as well as the Supreme Court (in Puerto Rico v. Sanchez Valle) have
    undoubtedly stated that Puerto Rico continues to be an unincorporated
    territory subject to the plenary powers of Congress; it is now
    necessary that the political branches make a commitment to put an end
    to that colonial condition.

       In pathetic demonstration of how deeply colonialism has damaged the
    minds in Puerto Rico, some voice an argument in favor of the benefits
    and convenience of colonialism and insist on the inclusion of
    territoriality in any plebiscite, absurdly claiming a democratic right
    to colonialism.

        The proponents of the bill do well to ignore that pitiful and
    absurd claim. A slave contract is not valid nor can there be a valid
    ``consent'' to servitude. It is forbidden by the United States
    Constitution with regards to individuals. It is also prohibited with
    regards to peoples; colonialism is proscribed by international law. The
    United States are party to the International Covenant on Civil and
    Political Human Rights since 1992. Nothing is less democratic and more
    contradictory than considering the denial of democracy as an option of
    self-determination. In any case, it is no longer in dispute that a
    clear majority of the Puerto Rican people has repudiated and repudiates
    the continuation of the colonial and territorial regime.

    III The poison pill: statehood

        Having said that, the proponents of the bill should be
    congratulated for the decolonizing objective of the measure, but one
    must question whether the proposed bill as drafted may achieve its
    purpose. If we are to seriously pursue the objectives, we must be frank
    about the possibilities of the draft bill. We must not ignore the
    elephant in the middle of the room.

        To be serious we must recognize that the great obstacle and the
    source of most problems in Congress to advance a true process of self-
    determination is the alternative of statehood. The reasons, like the
    elephant in the room, are obvious and known to everyone. Just examining
    the precedents for the admission of new states, it is clear that Puerto
    Rico does not meet the traditional minimum requirements, namely:

      1  an economy that may not only support its own state government,
                but may contribute its fair share to the federal treasury;

      2  the widespread use of English and its adoption as the language of
                government and public institutions in territories where the
                use of another language was generalized; and

      3  a consensus of the inhabitants of the territory in favor of
                admission (in the absence of any alternatives of separate
                sovereignty).

        But there are even more far-reaching considerations. Puerto Rico
    has its own deeply rooted national identity, different from that of the
    United States. It is a territory that legally belongs to the United
    States but that culturally and sociologically constitutes a different
    nation, part of the great Latin American and Caribbean family. There
    may be respect and tolerance in the U.S. toward certain manifestations
    of cultural diversity (albeit dwindling in recent times) but
    undoubtedly the United States is not, nor does it aspire to become, a
    multinational country by admitting other nations as states of the
    Union.  E pluribus unum is the essence of the American nation.

        This issue cannot be avoided, no matter how thorny it may be for
    some, because as long as we do not address it, there will be no self-
    determination bill advancing in this Congress nor in any other. By not
    facing the difficult complexities of the statehood option, we condemn
    the People of Puerto Rico to captivity in the dungeons of colonialism.

        If the bill is to serve as the lifeboat to save the passengers of
    the colonial sinking ship, its success depends on not overloading the
    boat; otherwise it will sink with everyone on board.

        It is difficult--not to say impossible--to think of more than a
    handful of congressmen and senators who are really willing to vote in
    favor of an admission bill that provides--as the draft bill would
    require--that if statehood gets 51% of the vote and sovereignty--either
    under independence or under free association--obtains a combined 49%,
    the President would have to proclaim the admission of Puerto Rico as a
    state within a year of the vote. With an overload like that, no
    lifeboat can stay afloat. Even if the margin were greater, one must ask
    how many members of Congress would be willing to renounce their
    constitutional power of incorporating new states as part of the nation
    abdicating his or her responsibility of admitting them to further the
    interests of the United States and not as the result of the momentary
    interest perceived by the population of the territory. There is no
    doubt that the insistence on the self-execution of a statehood vote
    constitutes the proverbial poison pill that guarantees the failure of
    the measure as a whole, and the decolonizing objectives it purports to
    advance.

        The way to deal with the problem cannot be to ignore it. A bill of
    self-determination--as far as the statehood option is concerned--must
    address at least the following questions:

      1  What requirements regarding the use of the English language in
                Puerto Rico would be necessary for admission as a state?

      2  What would be the minimum percentage of votes for statehood, and
                of electoral participation for Congress to conclude that
                there is sufficient consensus in the population, and in
                what circumstances would subsequent votes be required?

      3  What minimum economic and financial metrics must be achieved as a
                precondition to admission?

      4  Assuming that Congress were inclined to admit Puerto Rico as a
                state, what measures would it take in the event that at
                some point in the future the People of Puerto Rico would
                claim their inalienable right to self-determination and
                independence, such as in nations like Quebec, Scotland and
                Catalunya, among others?

        If the political process in Congress focuses on searching for
    consensus on these questions, then it is possible that the lifeboat may
    sail. This exploration is also decisive for Puerto Rican statehooders
    who, for the most part, are jealous and proud of their language, their
    culture, and their identity, and have the right to demand from Congress
    to lay out the cards on the table regarding these sensitive and crucial
    issues. Possibly this exploration by Congress may point to the
    conclusion that statehood for Puerto Rico is not a feasible alternative
    for the United States, which also has, of course, its own right to
    self-determination, including the decision regarding the incorporation
    and admission of new states. If so, then a decolonizing process must
    proceed between the alternatives of independence (a right pertaining to
    all peoples) and free sovereign association. The decolonization of
    Puerto Rico cannot be held hostage by the elephant in the room.

    IV Future negotiation processes

        Any final version of this draft bill should specify issues relating
    to the transition to independence, [such as trade and public debt,
    among others.] With respect to sovereign free association, [other
    alternatives relating to citizenship should be explored (e.g., dual or
    reciprocal), as well as the powers to be delegated to the United States
    should be specified, and for how long.]

        All these considerations regarding the three status options point
    to the need for a broader dialogue and negotiation process between
    accredited representatives of the three formulas and teams representing
    Congress and the Executive Branch. This is why we had also positively
    valued that aspect of the original bill of Congresswomen Velazquez and
    Ocasio Cortez.

        Regardless of what may be achieved this year in the House of
    Representatives (including attention to a possible amendment to include
    the option of territorial commonwealth, which the PPD will surely
    promote among its allies) it is evident that in the Senate the doors
    are slammed shut. Few senators are interested in talking about the
    elephant in the room.

        Here in Puerto Rico, no PPD or PNP Governor is willing to seriously
    pressure Congress to comply with its decolonizing obligation. That
    would require creating a political crisis to move Congress and the
    United States to action. The PPD leadership is not willing to do so
    since they do not have a decolonizing proposal and thus prefer that
    nothing ought to change. The PNP leaders are not willing because they
    fear exposing the statehood option to scrutiny and to the analysis
    required regarding the political reality of the United States. They are
    satisfied with any procedural move that they may claim as political
    gain, as they manipulatively use the idea of statehood as a subterfuge
    to achieve government power with promises of an inexhaustible
    cornucopia of federal funds.

        Fortunately, the winds of change have finally begun to blow
    strongly in Puerto Rico, and one can anticipate that a new correlation
    of political forces will continue to strengthen in order to elect a
    governor committed to decolonization and to the regeneration of the
    country as the most urgent priority.
                                     ______

                        REPUBLICAN PARTY OF PUERTO RICO

                                                       June 4, 2022

    US House of Representatives
    Committee on Natural Resources
    1324 Longworth House Office Building
    Washington, DC 20515

    Re: Puerto Rico Status Act Discussion Draft

        We wanted to start by thanking Majority Leader Hoyer, Chairman
    Grijalva and the other members of the Committee for this unprecedented
    effort to resolve Puerto Rico's centuries old colonial status; and
    finally, ``bestow upon the Residents of Puerto Rico the full measure of
    democracy that is consistent with our nation's founding principles.''
    This is the last unfinished business of American democracy and only you
    and the US Congress have the power to finally resolve it.

        On May 23 of this year, the Republican Party of Puerto Rico
    approved a Resolution in Support of a Compromise Bill on Status, where
    it unequivocally supports the status resolution process and calls on
    Republican Members of Congress to vote for its passage.
        As you are aware, following the directives established by Task
    Forces under Presidents Bush and Obama, Puerto Rico has sponsored 3
    plebiscites in the last 10 years. They have included all possible
    options and all possible matchups amongst those options. Statehood has
    prevailed on all. Much spin has been authored as to why the referenda
    was unfair. But one issue has risen above all arguments and is
    undisputed; the people of Puerto Rico do not want to continue their
    present relationship with the United States. And although the Draft
    Bill we are discussing today does not recognize the favorable results
    for statehood, it at least recognizes the fact that the present
    territorial relationship is unfavored and unacceptable.
        Because of the leadership shown by the sponsors of this bill, there
    is now no turning back from a bill empowering the people of Puerto Rico
    to end territory status. However, before this bill becomes law Congress
    will need to clarify and correct one provision of the bill that may
    seem appealing to some, but in reality, does not make much sense. Since
    1917 Congress has conferred statutory U.S. nationality and citizenship
    under laws applicable only to persons born in Puerto Rico. Congress can
    repeal that law and end conferral of citizenship based on Puerto Rico
    birth at any time. But Section 208 would in fact take away from
    Congress the ability to withdraw such conferral and create an
    international obligation encumbering Congressional power to end U.S.
    citizenship under free association. In other words, this section 208
    provides a higher order of citizenship under separate sovereignty, than
    we have now under the territorial relationship.
        Why would Puerto Rico, after voting to become a separate sovereign
    from the United States, but in free association with it, want all its
    residents to be US citizens, and then hand that status down to
    succeeding generations in perpetuity? And why would the United States
    want to impose its citizenship on all citizens of a separate sovereign
    country? Where would the loyalty of these dual citizens fall? Could
    these dual citizens be called to fight in a war for the United States
    if selective service military draft were instituted?
        We believe that independence and Sovereignty in Free Association,
    as Statehood, are noble and decolonizing aspirations for the People of
    Puerto Rico to consider. But Section 208 is misleading and voter
    education materials for the proposed plebiscite will not be able to
    clearly explain the reality that if the people of Puerto Rico decide to
    become a separate sovereign, their loyalty and allegiance will be to
    Puerto Rico and not the United States, as it is now.
        We unequivocally support the status resolution process proposed by
    this compromise Bill except for the conferral of U.S. citizenship to
    citizens born on the sovereign Nation of Puerto Rico.

                Cordially,

                                         Zoraida F. Fonalledas,
                                                National Committeewoman

    Attachments: Resolution 2022-3 and Memorandum of Law and Policy

                        REPUBLICAN PARTY OF PUERTO RICO

                               RESOLUTION 2022-3

    TO EXPRESS THE SUPPORT OF THE REPUBLICAN PARTY OF PUERTO RICO FOR
    APROMISE BILL ON STATUS BEFORE THE 117TH CONGRESS

    WHEREAS, for over 60 years the Republican Platform and every Republican
    President have supported Statehood for Puerto Rico.

    WHEREAS, the United States should move resolutely to ensure that the
    3.2 million U.S. citizens in Puerto Rico can assume their full
    responsibilities and at the same time fully enjoy all their civil and
    democratic rights as citizens.

    WHEREAS, the President's Task Force under President George W. Bush
    recommended that Puerto Ricans determine their preference regarding a
    fully democratic status for the islands by first voting on the current
    territory status and then voting on the alternatives and the Task Force
    under President Barack Obama also expressed a preference for a Puerto
    Rican status choice made through a referendum;

    WHEREAS, along with the general elections on November 6th,
    2012, Puerto Rico held a referendum on status options inspired by the
    recommendations of the President's Task Force on Puerto Rico's Status
    under Presidents George W. Bush and Obama. Per the certified results by
    the Puerto Rico's Elections Commission, 54% of the vote opposed and
    rejected the current territorial status and 61.2% was for Statehood
    among the alternatives;

    WHEREAS, no other U.S. territory in American history has remained
    subject to the power of Congress to govern territory outside the states
    of the union as long as Puerto Rico. No territory in U.S. history has
    remained a territory for as many decades after U.S. citizenship was
    granted as Puerto Rico.

    WHEREAS, there are more U.S. citizens in Puerto Rico than in 25 states
    of the union. Americans from Puerto Rico serve in U.S. armed forces at
    a per capita rate higher than 49 states. In every war since citizenship
    was conferred in 1917, Puerto Ricans have defended with valor overseas
    for rights of equal national citizenship and democratic national
    government they are denied back home, and some of those who fought and
    died for our country won the Congressional Medal of Honor;

    WHEREAS, U.S. citizens in Puerto Rico pay the same federal taxes as all
    Americans on income earned in the 50 states or foreign countries. The
    current exemption from federal income tax on local earnings is offset
    by local taxation that subsidizes the ``commonwealth'' regime of local
    territorial government established under the territorial power of
    Congress;

    WHEREAS, the 2020 Republican National Convention Platform calls for
    Federal sponsorship of an informed process of self-determination for
    Puerto Rico to establish a ``permanent non-territorial status with
    government by consent and full enfranchisement'' for Puerto Ricans;

    WHEREAS, under the leadership of Congresswoman Jenniffer Gonzalez
    Colon, the sole and duly elected representative of the people of Puerto
    Rico in Congress, on May 19th of 2022 a bipartisan agreement
    was announced under which legislation would be introduced in the United
    States House of Representatives a congressionally sponsored status
    plebiscite to be held in Puerto Rico would be enacted into law;

    WHEREAS, the bipartisan legislation specifies and defines the non-
    territorial status options for Puerto Rico: Statehood, Independence or
    another form of independence in the form of Separate Sovereignty in a
    treaty of free association with the United States;

    WHEREAS, It is imperative that voters in Puerto Rico are fully informed
    about the options in the proposed ballot and what each option
    represents for future generations. Only through constitutionally valid
    options can the promise of American democracy be fulfilled. Statehood
    is the only status option that guarantees irrevocable U.S. citizenship
    for all residents of Puerto Rico currently and for future generations.

    NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the REPUBLICAN PARTY OF PUERTO
    RICO, unequivocally supports the status resolution process for Puerto
    Rico through the compromise bill co-sponsored by Congresswoman
    Jenniffer Gonzalez Colon, calls on all republican members of Congress
    to vote for its passage and urges all Republican voters in the island
    to support Statehood for Puerto Rico in the plebiscite to be held in
    accordance to federal law. (Adopted by the State Committee of the
    Republican Party of Puerto Rico on May 23, 2022).
    Memorandum of Law and Policy*

    STATEMENT OF ISSUES:

        As a general principle of federal law and policy practices, U.S.
    law allows Americans to acquire nationality and citizenship rights in
    foreign nations, as long as doing so is not incompatible with
    allegiance to the U.S. and the duties of U.S. nationality and
    citizenship. However, U.S. does not proactively create dual citizenship
    by operation of U.S. law. In other words, with only narrowly drawn
    exceptions the U.S. does not strip Americans of U.S. nationality and
    citizenship if another nationality is retained or acquired, but the
    U.S. holds every national and citizen to the full duties and
    obligations of allegiance, nationality and citizenship of the United
    States.\1\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ Dual Nationality (state.gov): ``Section 101(a)(22) of the
    Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) states that ``the term `national
    of the United States' means (A) a citizen of the United States, or (B)
    a person who, though not a citizen of the United States, owes permanent
    allegiance to the United States.'' Therefore, U.S. citizens are also
    U.S. nationals . . . The concept of dual nationality means that a
    person is a national of two countries at the same time. Each country
    has its own nationality laws based on its own policy . . . Dual
    nationals . . . are required to obey the laws of both countries, and
    either country has the right to enforce its laws. It is important to
    note the problems attendant to dual nationality. Claims of other
    countries upon U.S. dual-nationals often place them in situations where
    their obligations to one country are in conflict with the laws of the
    other . . . U.S. nationals, including dual nationals, must use a U.S.
    passport to enter and leave the United States. Dual nationals may also
    be required by the foreign country to use its passport to enter and
    leave that country. Use of the foreign passport to travel to or from a
    country other than the United States is not inconsistent with U.S.
    law.''

        In addition to those general principles, the U.S. has not created
    dual citizenship in connection with acquiring sovereignty over a
    foreign territory and population through annexation or cession
    (Louisiana Purchase, Art. III, 1803; Alaska Cession, Art III 1867);
    Spanish Cession 1899, Art. IX; Hawaii Annexation, Territorial Organic
    Act, Sec. 4, 1900), or in divesting sovereignty over a U.S. territory
    and its population (Philippine Independence Act, Sec. 14, 1934-
    1946).\2\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \2\ ``Puerto Rico's Future: A Time to Decide,'' Richard Thornburgh,
    Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), Washington D.C.
    (2007).

        Accordingly, if Puerto Rico ceases to be a U.S. territory and
    becomes a separate sovereign nation, applicable legal and policy
    precedent would require persons who acquired statutory U.S. nationality
    and citizenship based on birth in the territory to make an election
    between declaration of retained allegiance to and nationality of the
    United States, or declaration of allegiance to and nationality of the
    nation of Puerto Rico (Treaty of Paris, Art. IX, 1899; Foraker Act, Sec
    7. 1900). To give that election prospective effect in accordance with
    precedent and enable orderly succession of Puerto Rico to nation
    status, including effective exercise of sovereign powers over a defined
    territory and population, the U.S. will require measures to ensure
    persons with statutory U.S. nationality and citizenship based on birth
    in Puerto Rico who acquire nationality and citizenship of Puerto Rico
    do not retain as a matter of statutory policy a status of dual U.S. and
    Puerto Rico nationality and citizenship by operation of U.S. law.\3\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \3\ ``Citizens Without a State,'' Howard Hills, Pacific Noir Pulp
    Press, Laguna Beach CA (2016), 2nd Edition, Washington D.C.
    (2021).

        Concomitantly, upon termination of current territorial status,
    conferral of U.S. citizenship for persons born in Puerto Rico will end
    due to succession of sovereignty and conformity of law requirement that
    8 U.S.C. 1402 will be repealed as part of the succession to nationhood.
    Likewise, since children born in Puerto Rico will be foreign born but
    may have one or more parent who is a U.S. national and/or a U.S.
    citizen, 8 U.S.C. 1401 will be restricted to preclude naturalization of
    children born in the nation of Puerto Rico based on U.S. nationality or
    citizenship of parents. Any proposal to extend U.S. naturalization for
    children born in Puerto Rico with citizenship of that nation after a
    proclamation of independence, or succession to separate sovereign
    nationhood with free association, if based on U.S. nationality or
    citizenship of parents acquired due to birth in Puerto Rico under 8
    U.S.C. 1402 or naturalization in Puerto Rico under 8 U.S.C. 1401 during
    the period of territorial status, will constitute creation of dual U.S.
    and Puerto Rico citizenship by operation of U.S. law.\4\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \4\ See, Congressional Research Service, Report 98-819, October 1,
    1989 (excerpts attached).
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Discussion:

        If Puerto Rico is admitted as a state of the union, all persons
    born in Puerto Rico will acquire full equal rights of U.S. national
    citizenship and the full equal rights of state citizenship under
    Section 1 of the 14th Amendment. If Puerto Rico is not
    permanently incorporated into the union and admitted as a state, the
    current territorial status will end only when there is a succession of
    the territory and population of Puerto Rico to the political status of
    separate foreign sovereign nationhood consistent with the status and
    rights of independence.

        The latter independent status can include national sovereignty
    under an international agreement on free association as defined by U.S.
    and international law (See, U.S. Public Law 99-239, U.S. Public Law
    658, U.S. Public Law 108-188; United Nations General Assembly
    Resolution 1541 (XV), U.N. General Assembly Resolution 2625 (XXV). Any
    form of separate nationhood with an agreement purporting to establish
    free association that does not establish full and effective separate
    nationality and citizenship, as well as the right of both governments
    unilaterally to terminate free association, would not meet U.S. or
    international standards of sovereignty consistent with the right of
    independence. Only based on full separate sovereignty, nationality and
    citizenship under free association terminable at will by either party
    has the U.S. acceded to free association agreements with three Pacific
    Island nation states, and only on that basis have those nations been
    admitted to the U.N. membership per the U.S. statutes cited above.

    CONCLUSION:

        If historical norms adhere, current U.S. statutory birthright
    citizenship for persons born in Puerto Rico under 8 U.S.C. 1402, as
    well as naturalization under 8 U.S.C. 1401 for children born outside
    the U.S. and its outlying possessions based on U.S. citizenship of
    parent(s) acquired under 8 U.S.C. 1402, will end upon termination of
    territorial status of Puerto Rico. It would be historically
    unprecedented and create conflicts of domestic constitutional statutory
    law, as well as conflicts with international law recognized by the
    United States, for the U.S. Congress to allow the temporary territorial
    statutory system of collective birthright citizenship based on birth in
    Puerto Rico during the territorial period under 8 U.S.C. 1402 to be
    misappropriated for exogenous and unintended purposes if Puerto Rico
    ceases to be a territory and becomes a sovereign nation.

        That would be the result if 8 U.S.C. 1402 were hijacked and
    misapplied by ad hoc, sui generis statutory measures to convert
    statutory individual derivative citizenship procedure under 8 U.S.C.
    1401 into a collective naturalization scheme for mass dual citizenship
    in an independent or sovereign free associated state of Puerto Rico.
    Free association as used here is not as defined by Puerto Rico law, but
    by U.S. and international law as cited above.

    *Prepared by: Jose A. Fuentes-Agostini, former Attorney General of
    Puerto Rico, in consultation with other scholars
    Attachment:
    Congressional Research Service, Report 98-819, October 1, 1989: Dual
            Citizenship

    ``There are several potential problem . . . first, actions which may
    result in expatriation from the U.S., i.e., loss of American
    citizenship, and second, potentially conflicting obligations to both
    countries, e.g., mandatory military service . . . double income
    taxation, voting privileges, public office or employment and
    repatriation of income from employment or investment abroad . . .
    potentially conflicting obligations of holding citizenship of the U.S.
    and another nation, the dual citizenship laws and legislative activity
    of selected countries in which a significant number of U.S. citizens
    may be eligible for dual citizenship There are several potential
    problems and issues falling into two categories . . .''

            CRS Report 98-819 Analysis & Findings:

         ``Actually, nationality and citizenship are distinct
                concepts. Citizenship concerns the political status and
                rights conferred on a person by a nation, such as the right
                to vote and to hold office . . . Nationality concerns the
                status of a person under international law, i.e., the
                allegiance which a person owes to a nation and the
                protection owed by a nation to a person vis-a-vis another
                nation. In the U.S., all citizens are nationals, but not
                all nationals are citizens. Nationals by birth who are
                citizens are those persons born or presumed to be born in
                the U.S., born in the outlying possessions to parents at
                least one of whom is a U.S. citizen who satisfies certain
                conditions precedent, or born outside the U.S. and its
                possessions to parents at least one of whom is a U.S.
                citizen who satisfies certain conditions precedent . . .
                Nationals by birth who are not citizens are those persons
                born or presumed to be born in an outlying possession of
                the U.S. on or after the date of formal acquisition of the
                possession or born to parents at least one of whom is a
                U.S. national who satisfies certain conditions precedent .
                . . Aside from this distinction, generally the terms seem
                to be used interchangeably, although citizenship is really
                a subset of nationality. Therefore, although the U.S.
                provision concerning loss of nationality is entitled ``Loss
                of nationality by native-born or naturalized citizen,'' . .
                . ,the courts also appear to have used the two terms
                interchangeably, so the loss of nationality seems to be
                understood usually to mean the loss of citizenship as well
                where both are involved.  . . . Therefore, the terms will
                be used interchangeably in this report. Dual citizenship
                can arise in several ways, from naturalization and from two
                doctrines of citizenship. Jus soli is the principle that a
                person acquires citizenship in a nation by virtue of his
                birth in that nation or its territorial possessions . . .
                Jus sanguinis is the principle that a person acquires the
                citizenship of his parents, ``citizenship of the blood.''

         ``. . . [Title 8 U.S.C.] Section 1481 includes acts
                demonstrating an allegiance to another nation which may be
                incompatible with allegiance to the U.S. Those acts include
                naturalization in a foreign country; taking an oath of
                allegiance to a foreign state or one of its political
                subdivisions; serving in the armed forces of a hostile
                foreign state or serving as a commissioned or non-
                commissioned officer in the armed forces of a foreign
                state; serving in any office, post or employment under a
                foreign state's government, if one is a national of that
                state; making a formal renunciation before a diplomatic or
                consular officer of the United States in a 8 Constitution
                of the United States . . . making a formal renunciation in
                a manner prescribed by the Attorney General when the U.S.
                is at war; and committing treason. Section 1483 of Title 8
                restricts the conditions for expatriation. Except for
                treason and formal renunciation in the U.S., a citizen
                cannot be expatriated while he is in the U.S. or its
                possessions. However, acts committed in the U.S. or its
                possessions can be grounds for expatriation once the
                citizen leaves the U.S. and resides outside it and its
                possessions. There has been at least one case which found
                that Congress could set conditions on the retention of U.S.
                citizenship for a person born abroad to parents only one of
                whom has U.S. citizenship. Since the person was neither
                born nor naturalized in the U.S. but merely derived his
                citizenship from the parent, he was not protected from
                denationalization by the Fourteenth Amendment. . .
         ``. . . bilateral treaties between the U.S. and other
                countries to avoid double taxation but these address
                situations in which a citizen or national of one party is
                domiciled in another party; often they do not address the
                special issue of the dual national. The tax laws of the
                U.S. provide for foreign tax credit and a court has even
                found that taxes levied by a political subdivision of a
                country, not by the federal government, may be credited
                toward the taxes owed by a U.S. corporation; current
                regulations are consistent with this ruling. Laws governing
                the repatriation of income earned and investment by aliens
                and dual nationals may differentiate between the alien and
                the dual national; the dual national may not be permitted
                to take as much money out of the country because he is
                considered a national with not as much reason as an alien
                to remove assets to another country, even if he is a
                national of that other country. If there is no treaty to
                which the U.S. and the particular nation involved are
                parties, the U.S. and that nation can negotiate
                naturalization, tax or military obligation treaties in
                which they can resolve any conflicting obligations to make
                the status, rights and obligations of dual nationals clear.
                Historically, treaties of expatriation which resolved
                questions of dual nationality have been negotiated with a
                number of countries; however, some of these have
                terminated.''

         ``. . . the dual nationality or citizenship laws of
                selected countries in which it appears that a significant
                number of Americans possess nationality or citizenship, in
                particular, recent changes in the constitution and federal
                statutes of Mexico have received a great deal of attention
                in the United States, since those changes were apparently
                motivated, at least in part, by the effects of recent
                immigration law reforms in the United States on Mexican
                citizens who are permanent resident aliens in the United
                States. Additionally, the relevant citizenship and
                nationality laws of Israel, Ireland and Colombia will be
                discussed. The laws discussed here do not include the
                naturalization laws, which could result in dual citizenship
                if a U.S. citizen chose to apply for naturalization in
                those countries. Rather, this discussion focuses on
                describing those laws which provide for retention of
                nationality after naturalization in the United States or
                for acquisition of nationality by descent, a sort of jus
                sanguinis. It has been suggested that the exercise of the
                rights and privileges of a prior nationality by a
                naturalized U.S. citizen, after the date of naturalization,
                calls into question the truthfulness of the citizen's oath
                of allegiance to the United States and renunciation of
                other allegiances, and that therefore, the naturalization
                could be. For example, the United States has two taxation
                treaties with Ireland, a country in which many Americans
                hold nationality--Convention for the avoidance of double
                taxation and the prevention of fiscal evasion with respect
                to taxes on the estates of deceased persons, invalidated on
                the grounds of fraud in the procurement. On the other hand,
                since some of the foreign laws provide for reacquisition of
                native nationality, it could be argued that persons who
                take advantage of reacquisition procedures are not acting
                differently from native-born U.S. citizens who seek
                naturalization in another country. Mexico Recent changes in
                the constitutional and federal statutory laws of Mexico
                have made possible the retention or reclamation of Mexican
                nationality for former Mexican citizens who are now
                naturalized U.S. citizens and for their U.S.-born children.
                In December 1996, both chambers of the Mexican federal
                legislature unanimously passed amendments to articles 30,
                32, and 37 of the Constitucion Politica de los Estados
                Unidos Mexicanos [Political Constitution of the United
                Mexican States]. The effective date of these amendments was
                March 20, 1998, one year after the date of publication in
                the Diario Oficial de la Federacion [Official Journal of
                the Federation]. Publication occurs upon ratification by a
                majority of the 31 state legislatures in Mexico. These
                amendments made possible the retention of Mexican
                nationality by Mexicans who possess the nationality of
                another country. Such persons can also transmit Mexican
                nationality to their children born outside Mexico.
                Transmission is limited to persons born outside Mexico to
                parents one or both of whom are Mexicans by birth or
                naturalization in Mexican territory. Only Mexicans with no
                other nationality may be appointed or elected to public
                offices where national security and sovereignty concerns
                are implicated. Mexican dual nationals will be able to hold
                passports and to own real property in restricted areas.
                Under Mexican law, foreigners are prohibited from owning
                land within 100 kilometers of borders and 50 kilometers of
                the coastline. Former Mexican nationals who have already
                lost their nationality through naturalization in another
                country have five years after the entry in force of the
                amendment to initiate the procedure for recovering their
                Mexican nationality, that is, until March 3, 2003. The law
                implementing the constitutional amendments with respect to
                dual nationality was passed by both chambers of the Mexican
                Congress in December 1997, published on January 23, 1998,
                and went into effect on March 20, 1998, the effective date
                of the underlying amendments. Mexican law distinguishes
                between nationality and citizenship with regard to the
                rights enjoyed. Although Mexican dual nationals will be
                able to travel and live in Mexico and to own property
                without restrictions, they will be exempted from certain
                obligations and also barred from certain privileges and
                rights associated with citizenship. As mentioned above,
                they will not be allowed to hold certain public offices.
                They will not be required to serve in the Mexican armed
                forces, but will have to register abroad at consulates or
                embassies. Significantly, the right to vote. the primary
                political right associated with citizenship, has not been
                extended to dual nationals by the new laws. Apparently, at
                the current time there are no procedures for absentee
                voting even by those possessing Mexican nationality and
                citizenship who reside outside of Mexico.''

         ``Israel The Law of Return in Israel provides for the
                right of every Jew to immigrate to Israel and become an
                Israeli citizen, unless it is determined that the person is
                engaged in activity directed against the Jewish people, may
                endanger public health or the security of the state, or has
                a criminal past, likely to endanger public welfare. A
                ``Jew'' is defined as a person born of a Jewish mother or
                who has converted to Judaism and is not a member of another
                religion. An extension has been made to cover the offspring
                of intermarriage between a Jewish man and a non-Jewish
                woman. In that case, the right of return is extended to the
                child and grandchild of a Jew, the spouse of a Jew, the
                spouse of a child of a Jew, and the spouse of a grandchild
                of a Jew, except for a person who has been a Jew and has
                voluntarily changed his religion. Ireland Under the
                Nationality and Citizenship Acts of 1956 and 1986, a person
                born outside Ireland may acquire Irish nationality by
                descent transmitted up to three generations down from the
                person born in Ireland. A person born outside Ireland,
                whose mother or father was born in Ireland and was an Irish
                citizen at the time of his birth, is automatically an Irish
                citizen. A person whose grandfather or grandmother was born
                in Ireland, but whose parents were not, may acquire Irish
                citizenship by registering in the Foreign Births Register
                at a consulate or embassy of Ireland or at the Department
                of Foreign Affairs in Dublin, Ireland. other harbingers of
                a global trend toward liberalization of dual nationality
                laws. These foreign laws and foreign legislative activity
                potentially could have a particular impact on the United
                States, traditionally perceived as a nation of immigrants.
                On the one hand, concern has been expressed in the media
                and elsewhere about split loyalties and protecting the
                national interests of the United States in the face of the
                growing numbers of Americans who hold the nationality of
                other countries, regardless of whether those other
                countries are perceived as friendly to the United States or
                not. These concerns are reflected in some of the current
                policies in the federal government. In one reported
                instance, a renewal of security clearance was denied to a
                government employee when he informed authorities that he
                had acquired Irish nationality and possessed an Irish
                passport.''

                                     ______

                        REPUBLICAN PARTY OF PUERTO RICO

                                                      July 18, 2022

    Hon. Bruce Westerman, Ranking Member
    House Committee on Natural Resources
    1329 Longworth House Office Building
    Washington, DC 20515

        Dear Ranking Member Westerman:

        For several months, the House Committee on Natural Resources has
    been considering legislation to help resolve the centuries-old
    inequality U.S. citizens in Puerto Rico face due to their colonial
    relationship, first with Spain and for the last 124 years with the
    United States. This relationship has impeded Puerto Rico's social,
    economic and political development, given its lack of sovereignty. The
    inequality and lack of rights that we have experienced during this time
    is without precedent in American history.

        The lack of participation in the government that establishes all
    our laws is a hinderance to democratic principles which we, the United
    States seek to project and establish around the world. Government by
    consent of the governed has eluded us for way too long. Even though
    every law the U.S. Congress passes applies in full force to Puerto Rico
    and the 3.2 million U.S. citizens that live here, we have no vote in
    Congress nor get to vote for our Commander in Chief despite having
    proudly fought in every war since 1917 and participating in our
    military forces at a rate higher than most states. During the last 10
    years, Puerto Rico has seen a disproportionate number of our residents
    migrate to the mainland states where they become full citizens upon
    arrival enjoying the same rights, responsibilities and benefits as our
    fellow Americans including voting rights. We now total over 6 million
    living on the mainland.

        The Supreme Court and Congress have repeatedly reaffirmed that the
    current status keeps the U.S. Citizens in Puerto Rico in a state of
    being wards of Congress with no participation in the key decision
    making about their lives. The Department of Justice has even indicated
    that there cannot be a binding ballot question promising some vaguely
    stated ``enhancement'' of the status-quo. The People of Puerto Rico
    need to be able to choose alternatives that provide a permanent
    constitutional status backed by Congress, of either equal footing with
    the rest of the States or separate sovereignty.

        Finally, there is a Bill filed in the House that would provide a
    structured path to end this last unfinished business of American
    democracy. H.R. 8393, the Puerto Rico Status Act, is a bipartisan
    compromise Bill which would finally accomplish what the Republican
    Party Platform has been supporting for 82 years. The Bill is not the
    ideal we would have chosen, but it does contain the language of the
    Puerto Rico Statehood Admission Act (H.R. 1522) that the Puerto Rico
    Republican Party previously supported, and overall, it provides for a
    fair, democratic process supported by Congress to provide a realistic
    and constitutional solution to Puerto Rico's democratic status
    aspirations as supported by the Republican National Committee.

        The Republican Party of Puerto Rico has supported statehood since
    its inception in 1899. The National Republican Committee has repeatedly
    included statehood in its platforms since 1940, and the last five
    Republican Presidents have either explicitly advocated for statehood or
    supported the right of the Puerto Rican people to opt for it once
    achieving majority support. We look forward to your leadership in a
    Republican controlled Congress to see that platform made a reality, but
    at this time it is of the utmost importance that we as Republicans are
    not seen as obstructing this process, but rather help create a platform
    upon which we can build in a future Congress.

            ``If we cannot design a model for a political economy that is
            sufficiently attractive, if we can't win over our fellow
            citizens in Puerto Rico, how can our model succeed as an
            instrument of foreign policy anywhere in the world?'' Ronald
            Reagan, Wall Street Journal, February 11, 1980
        The Republican Party of Puerto Rico hereby endorses H.R. 8393 and
    requests that you as Ranking Member of the committee with jurisdiction
    support our Resident Commissioner Jenniffer Gonzalez-Colon's efforts.
    We are aware there will be calls from various interests to introduce
    procedural hurdles, preconditions and burdens that have not been
    applied to other territories, extraneous matters, and language to
    render the bill ineffectual, which even if they fail will be used as
    ``messaging'' that there is opposition and obstruction against the
    process, and there will be bad faith speculation as to motivations.
    This is why we need to count on your leadership.

        This is an important piece of policy that will help the Republican
    Party of Puerto Rico, an active participant in the election of
    Republicans across the country, to continue our efforts to open the
    doors of our tent to more and more Hispanic voters. Not reinforcing
    what the Republican Party Platform has stood for during the last 82
    years would send a terrible message of our commitment to our stated
    conservative postulates and derail the gains and investment made with
    this important community. The negative overtones in the media will
    impact all of us. Last month, KAConsulting LLC surveyed 1,000 Puerto
    Ricans from across the country focusing on six states where the
    November stakes for Republicans are highest. The survey found that,
    ``Support for Puerto Rico statehood also carries notable political
    currency. Nearly 7 in 10 are more likely to support a candidate that
    supports Puerto Rico becoming a state. Just 13% are less likely.''

        That same poll (attached) showed that 46% identified as
    conservative and 25% as moderate (#36), that over 50% attended
    religious services at least a few times per month (#39), 85% responded
    that abortion should be either limited or prohibited in all
    circumstances (#40), 65% approved of the job Donald Trump did as
    President (#5), and 63% disapproved of the job Joe Biden is doing as
    President (#4).

        Due to everything mentioned above, we respectfully ask you to
    support H.R. 8393 and that you rally under your leadership the
    Republican Members on the Committee on Natural Resources.

        We thank you for your leadership on this and other critical issues
    and look forward to working together in a future Republican Majority in
    the 118th Congress.

                Respectfully submitted,

            Angel Cintron, Esq.,          Zoraida F. Fonalledas, Esq.,
            State Chairman                National Committeewoman

            Hon. Luis G. Fortuno,
            National Committeeman

                                     ______

                                                      June 24, 2022

            Hon. Raul M. Grijalva         Hon. Bruce Westerman
            Chairman                      Ranking Member
            Committee on Natural
            Resources                     Committee on Natural Resources
            1324 Longworth House
            Building                      1329 Longworth House Building
            Washington, DC 20515          Washington, DC 20515

        Dear Chairman Grijalva and Ranking Member Westerman:

        We, the undersigned organizations, write to thank you for taking
    into consideration our letter of December 15, 2021 in which we
    requested that the Committee either bring H.R. 1522, The Puerto Rico
    Statehood Admission Act, immediately to a vote or negotiate and advance
    compromise legislation to finally decolonize Puerto Rico.\1\ Given that
    the Committee was unable to bring H.R. 1522 to a vote, we welcomed the
    announcement made on May 19, 2022 of a proposed compromise bill
    discussion draft, the Puerto Rico Status Act (``PRSA''), and now we ask
    you to please schedule a markup of this bill as quickly as possible.
    The PRSA is historic because it is the first time Congress has ever
    proposed binding legislation that would empower the U.S. citizens of
    Puerto Rico to make a definitive and self-executing choice on whether
    to become full and equal participants in American society through
    statehood or to create their own separate country through either
    independence or independence with free association.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ Letter from Various Organizations to Hon. Raul Grijalva and
    Hon. Bruce Westerman, Chairman and Ranking Member, H. Comm. on Natural
    Resources. December 15, 2021. PR51st.com. http://www.pr51st.com/wp-
    content/uploads/2021/12/Letter-to-Congress-Calling-for-Action-on-
    Statehood-for-Puerto-Rico-December-15-2021-FINAL-4.pdf (Retrieved June
    15, 2022).

        Given the complexity of untangling 124 years of America's
    territorial colonial relationship with Puerto Rico, we understand that
    the bipartisan negotiations to develop the PRSA were intense and
    challenging. We therefore want to commend and express our sincere
    gratitude to Majority Leader Hoyer, Chairman Grijalva, Resident
    Commissioner Gonzalez-Colon, Rep. Velazquez, Rep. Soto, Rep. Ocasio-
    Cortez, their respective staff members and all others who contributed
    to crafting the PRSA. We also want to thank the Committee for providing
    civil society organizations and the general public the opportunity to
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    provide input prior to the formal introduction of the PRSA.

        The PRSA is a direct acknowledgement of the fact that the current
    territory status is fundamentally undemocratic and colonial in nature,
    that it goes directly against America's founding principles of
    government by the consent of the governed, and that Congress needs to
    correct this historic injustice, which has a detrimental impact upon
    3.2 million American citizens living under U.S. sovereignty every day.
    As supporters of statehood for Puerto Rico, we believe that by finally
    offering Puerto Rico's voters a binding and self-executing choice,
    including the option of statehood, the discussion draft of the PRSA
    respects the will of the majority of Puerto Rico voters who have
    formally expressed their desire for statehood in 2012, 2017 and
    2020.\2\ We are completely confident that when Congress finally gives
    the U.S. citizens of Puerto Rico a binding choice to decide the
    territory's political future, a majority of voters will once again
    choose statehood.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \2\ P.R. State Elections Comm'n, Official Plebiscite Results for
    2012, 2017 & 2020, https://elecciones2020.ceepur.org/
    Escrutinio_General_93/index.html#es/default/PLEBISCITO_Resumen .xml,
    https://resultados2017.ceepur.org/Escrutinio_General_79/index.html#en/
    default/CONSUL TA_DE_ESTATUS_Resumen.xml, http://168.62.166.179/eg2012/
    REYDI_Escrutinio/index.html #en/default/
    OPCIONES_NO_TERRITORIALES_ISLA.xml (last visited June 9, 2022).

        While we support the PRSA discussion draft as written, and
    acknowledge that making any changes to it that are not agreed to by all
    of the parties could cause the bipartisan agreement to fall apart, we
    believe the Committee must consider making several critical
    improvements to the legislation before its introduction or during the
    legislative process. Our recommendations are meant to ensure that the
    three choices presented to voters in Puerto Rico are constitutionally
    attainable, defined as clearly as possible so that the most important
    implications of those choices are clear, and that significant
    ambiguities in the current PRSA discussion draft can be eliminated or
    greatly mitigated. Our proposed changes are meant to ensure that voters
    can provide informed consent, which is necessary to guarantee that the
    plebiscite results have legitimacy and obtain the greatest degree of
    public acceptance possible both in Puerto Rico and in the eyes of the
    U.S. federal government. However, if the choice is between the
    implementation of these proposed changes or Congress not taking action
    to approve the PRSA, we would much prefer the approval of the current
    discussion draft over the perpetuation of the unequal, unjust and
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    fundamentally colonial current territory status.

    Recommended Clarifications to the ``Free Association'' Status Option

        In Sec. 5(a)(2) the PRSA establishes three non-territorial options
    for the eligible voters residing in Puerto Rico to choose from:
    ``Statehood'', ``Independence,'' or ``Sovereignty in Free
    Association.'' \3\ While the constitutional implications of the options
    of statehood and independence are clearly understood by the general
    public, the constitutional implications of ``Free Association'' are not
    as well understood and give rise to a significant uncertainty that must
    be clarified.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \3\ The Puerto Rico Status Act Discussion Draft, H. Comm. on
    Natural Resources (May 19, 2022), https://naturalresources.house.gov/
    imo/media/doc/DISCUSSION_DRAFT_Puerto_Rico_ Status_Act.pdf.

        Use of the word ``Sovereignty'' as the main descriptor for the
    option of ``Free Association'' is insufficient to ensure that voters
    understand that for constitutional purposes this option is a form of
    independence outside the protection of the U.S. Constitution.\4\ The
    bill must make clear to voters that under ``Free Association'' Puerto
    Rico must be sovereign under its own constitution so that it can
    function as a fully independent nation if the ``Free Association'' is
    terminated by either party acting unilaterally or simply expires. PRSA
    should also make clear that the ``Free Association'' relationship
    contained in the Articles of Free Association (``AFA'') cannot be
    guaranteed because the AFA would still need to be approved under
    federal law as a type of international treaty.\5\ As a treaty-based
    relationship voters must understand that ``Free Association'' is not a
    permanent constitutionally defined status, instead it is defined by the
    terms of the treaty and continues only as long as the treaty creating
    the association remains in effect. We appreciate that the bill
    specifies that under ``Free Association'' either party can terminate
    the relationship at any time, but the bill must explicitly inform
    voters that such termination will result in Puerto Rico's full and
    complete independence. Such a monumental change cannot be left as an
    implied consequence.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \4\ ``Independence is a general term that refers to the
    possibilities both of full independence from the United States and of a
    compact of free association, in which Puerto Rico would become a
    sovereign nation but would continue to have close ties to the United
    States under the terms of a mutually agreed-upon compact . . . there is
    no constitutionally permissible status `outside of the Territorial
    Clause' other than statehood or independence (including free-
    association agreements),'' U.S. Department of Justice: Analysis of H.R.
    2070, the Puerto Rico Self-Determination Act of 2021, H. Comm. on
    Natural Resources (June 14, 2021), https://naturalresources.house.gov/
    imo/media/doc/DOJ%20Analysis%20of%20HR%202070.pdf.
        \5\ ``[The President] shall have Power, by and with the Advice and
    Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the
    Senators present concur,'' U.S. Constitution, Article II, Section 2,
    Clause 2.

        Therefore, we recommend amending the ``Free Association'' option
    from ``Sovereignty in Free Association'' to ``Independence in Free
    Association.'' Using the word ``Independence'' before ``Free
    Association'' would make the constitutional implications of this option
    much clearer to voters than using the word ``Sovereignty,'' whose
    meaning is more ambiguous and less commonly understood. We also
    recommend amending Sec. 5(b)(3)(E) by adding the words ``which would
    result in Puerto Rico's independence.'' These changes are necessary to
    ensure the genuine informed consent of Puerto Rico's voters who may
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    select this option under the plebiscite proposed by PRSA.

    Recommendation for Educational Materials

        As part of the ``Nonpartisan Voter Education Campaign'' proposed in
    the PRSA, we recommend adding a Sec. 6(b)(5) to ensure that the ``Voter
    Educational Materials'' include an explanation of the ``Constitutional
    Implications'' of each option. Such an explanation must make clear to
    voters that the ``Free Association'' option means national sovereignty,
    which is a form of independence outside of the protection of the U.S.
    Constitution, based on a treaty with the United States that can be
    terminated at any time by either party, resulting in full independence
    for Puerto Rico. The explanation of ``Statehood'' should make clear to
    voters that it means admission into the ``Union of States'' on equal
    footing where each state retains its own state Constitution, state
    identity, state flag, sovereignty under the 10th Amendment of the U.S.
    Constitution, and where state citizens have full and equal rights,
    benefits and responsibilities at the federal level as U.S. citizens in
    all other states.

        Additionally, the educational materials under Sec. 6(b)(1) should
    also clearly inform voters in Puerto Rico that under the options of
    ``Independence'' and ``Sovereignty in Free Association,'' individuals
    who retain their U.S. citizenship while living in Puerto Rico will be
    required to report all taxable income to the Internal Revenue Service
    and to pay federal taxes as U.S. citizens living abroad.\6\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \6\ 26 U.S.C. Sec. 911 (2022).

    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Clarifying Citizenship Provisions

        We appreciate the clarity with which the PRSA articulates in Sec.
    5(b)(4)(C) that the only status option where the U.S. citizenship of
    those born in Puerto Rico is ``recognized, protected, and secured''
    under the U.S. Constitution is ``Statehood.'' That clarity is
    unquestionable becausetate of the Union, the U.S. citizenship of
    individuals in Puerto Rico would be protected under the 14th Amendment
    of the U.S. Constitution, just as it is in every other state.

        However, in both the ballot language and implementation provisions
    for the options of ``Independence'' (Sec. 5(b)(2) & Sec. 109) and
    ``Free Association'' (Sec. 5 (b)(3) & Sec. 208) the PRSA's current
    draft language creates a number of very serious ambiguities regarding
    the level of protection of the citizenship rights of U.S. citizens born
    on the island once Puerto Rico exits territorial status and the U.S.
    cedes sovereignty over the territory and its population. The
    citizenship provisions in PRSA must make it absolutely clear to Puerto
    Rico's voters that, notwithstanding any implicit or explicit statutory
    guarantees made in the PRSA, as a sovereign nation the U.S. will always
    retain control over its citizenship policy.\7\ This includes the
    possibility that a future Congress could mandate that U.S. citizens
    make an election between retaining U.S. citizenship and obtaining a new
    Puerto Rican citizenship should they choose to remain in an independent
    Puerto Rico with or without free association.\8\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \7\ U.S. Constitution, Art. 1, Sec. 8, Cl. 4 & 18.
        \8\ See PRSA Sec. 5(b)(2)(C) and Sec. 5(b)(3)(C) which both state
    that, ``persons who have such United States citizenship have a right to
    retain United States nationality and citizenship for life, by
    entitlement or election as provided by Federal law'' (emphasis added).
    For a summary of the discussion of the constitutionality of
    congressionally prescribed expatriation, which is as of yet
    ``unsettled,'' see U.S. Library of Congress. (2020). U.S. Constitution
    Annotated, Naturalization Power, ArtI.S8.C4.1.2 Expatriation.
    Constitution.Congress.gov. Retrieved June 10, 2022, from https://
    constitution.Congress.gov/browse/essay/artI-S8-C4-1-2/ALDE_00001063/.

        Up to now, the legal and policy precedent of the U.S. federal
    government has been that former U.S. territories which have obtained
    either ``Independence'' (the Philippines) or independence with ``Free
    Association'' (the former trust territories of the Marshall Islands,
    Micronesia, and Palau) have established their own separate nationality
    and citizenship to enable their orderly succession into nation status
    with effective sovereign powers over their territory and population.\9\
    An exception to this occurred following the U.S. possession of the
    Panama Canal, where individuals born in the Canal Zone acquired U.S.
    citizenship unconditionally and maintained their citizenship after
    enactment of the Panama Canal Treaty through which the U.S. ceded
    sovereignty over the Canal Zone back to Panama.\10\ However, this
    exception is completely different than the case of Puerto Rico because
    the Canal Zone was located within an already independent country where
    the overwhelming majority of the population are citizens of Panama and
    not U.S. citizens.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \9\ See P.L. 73-127, Philippines Independence Act; P.L. 99-239,
    Compact of Free Association Act of 1985; P.L. 108-188, Compact of Free
    Association Amendments Act of 2003; P.L. 99-658, Compact of Free
    Association between the United States and the Government of Palau.
        \10\ See 8 U.S.C. Sec. 1403(a) (2022), where any person born in the
    Canal Zone on or after February 26, 1904, acquired U.S. citizenship if
    at least one parent was a U.S. citizen, and 8 U.S.C. Sec. 1403(b)
    (2022) where any persons born in the Republic of Panama on or after
    February 26, 1904, with at least one U.S. citizen parent ``employed by
    the Government of the United States or by the Panama Railroad Company,
    or its successor in title,'' acquired U.S. citizenship.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        The bill must make it absolutely clear to voters Congress' intent
    in relation to these precedents of federal law and policy. The bill
    must address whether and how its promise to continue granting statutory
    U.S. citizenship to individuals born in Puerto Rico can be fulfilled
    after the U.S. cedes sovereignty over the territory for the duration of
    the first agreement of the AFA--or make clear that it is making no such
    promise. Additionally, in the PRSA Congress must not only address what
    is possible for it to legislate under the limits of the U.S.
    Constitution, but what is practical, prudent and effective foreign
    policy for the U.S. We simply do not see any way in which offering to
    make Puerto Rico an independent country (with or without free
    association) where the totality of their population would be U.S.
    citizens would be a practical, prudent or effective foreign policy for
    the U.S.

        For Congress, the only practical, prudent and effective policy when
    offering Puerto Rico ``Independence'' and ``Free Association'' is to
    let voters on the island know that under either option the federal
    government's goal must be to eventually phase out U.S. citizenship for
    the people of Puerto Rico, so that the majority of people in the new
    country can enjoy their separate nationality and citizenship free and
    independent of undue influence and control by the U.S. Clarifying this
    policy goal under the two non-statehood options is critical to ensure
    that the U.S. does not retain an ongoing right and responsibility to
    intervene in the internal affairs of the newly independent or freely
    associated Puerto Rico. Such a scenario would be the current day
    equivalent of the long-discredited Platt Amendment, through which the
    U.S. dominated Cuba in the early 20th Century, and would replace
    current territorial colonialism with another form of colonialism which
    would be that of a captive and dependent sovereign relationship. An
    independent or freely associated Puerto Rico where the totality or vast
    majority of its residents and citizens are also U.S. citizens would
    result in the island being a sovereign on paper while the U.S. would
    retain de-facto responsibility, control and dominance over the island
    and its people. That would not be in the interest of either the U.S. or
    of Puerto Rico, and the PRSA must make that explicit and clear.

    Clarifying Implementation Provision for ``Free Association''

        Additionally, we urge you to amend Sec. 209(d)(3) to provide
    clarification as to what happens if voters on the island choose ``Free
    Association'' and the Bilateral Negotiating Commission (``BNC'') fails
    to complete the AFA within the two years following the commencement of
    constitutional convention. The current draft of the PRSA only says that
    the BNC shall ``endeavor to complete'' the AFA within a two-year
    timeframe.\11\ Given that the current draft bill does not indicate what
    occurs if the BNC fails to meet that deadline, we propose that if the
    BNC fails to meet their duty and complete the AFA by the two-year
    deadline, that the bill clarify that Puerto Rico's political status
    shall revert to ``Independence'' as described in Sec. 5(b)(2) and Title
    1, Sec. 101 of the PRSA.\12\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \11\ The Puerto Rico Status Act Discussion Draft, H. Comm. on
    Natural Resources 37 (May 19, 2022), https://
    naturalresources.house.gov/imo/media/doc/DISCUSSION_DRAFT_Puerto_Rico_
    Status_Act.pdf.
        \12\ On Page 38, Line 1 of the PRSA, we recommend inserting a new
    Sec. 209(d)(4) with the following amendment language: ``If the
    Bilateral Negotiating Commission fails to complete the Articles of Free
    Association not later than 2 years after commencement of the
    constitutional Convention, the status of Puerto Rico shall be
    Independence as provided for in Sec. 101.''

        In Sec. 210(b), the PRSA further states that if the AFA are
    completed and presented to voters, but voters reject the AFA, the
    process provided in Sec. 210 shall be repeated.\13\ As drafted this
    will only lead to a repeated vote, but would not provide an opportunity
    for the BNC to correct or re-negotiate underlying cause of the
    rejection of the AFA. Additionally, Sec. 210(a)(2) does not address
    what would occur if the Government of the United States fails to
    approve the completed AFA. We recommend that the PRSA be amended to
    provide at least one additional opportunity for the BNC to re-negotiate
    the issues in the AFA that lead to the agreement's rejection by
    Congress. If the repeated attempt to approve the AFA by either party
    fail, then the bill must specify that Puerto Rico's political status
    shall revert to ``Independence'' as described in Sec. 5(b)(2) and Title
    1, Sec. 101 of the PRSA.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \13\ Id at 38.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Puerto Rico's voters must be made fully aware that the only
    constitutionally guaranteed option their vote for ``Free Association''
    offers them is that of ``Independence.'' Unlike the ``Statehood'' or
    ``Independence'' options, under ``Free Association'' a future Congress
    would need to approve the AFA for ``Free Association'' to come into
    effect. The bill must make it absolutely clear to voters that such
    approval of the AFA by a future Congress cannot be guaranteed, and
    therefore when voting for ``Free Association'' the only guarantee that
    the voters will have is that of Puerto Rico's ``complete and
    unencumbered independence.'' \14\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \14\ Letter from Dana Boente, Acting Deputy Attorney General, to
    Hon. Ricardo Rossello, Governor of Puerto Rico, April 13, 2017. Puerto
    Rico Report. https://www.puertoricoreport.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/
    04/Hon-Ricardo-Rossello-Nevares-Letter-DOJ-Apr-13-2.pdf (Retrieved June
    15, 2022).

    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Conclusion

        For Puerto Rico to ever truly prosper and reach its full potential,
    it needs full democracy. In this bill, Congress can finally offer the
    people of Puerto Rico a fair choice between legitimate,
    constitutionally attainable and implementable status options so that
    Island voters can definitively end more than 500 years of colonialism.
    Only Congress has the power to pass federal legislation for this
    purpose, and it is past time for Congress to take up its responsibility
    to the millions of fellow American citizens in Puerto Rico. The people
    of Puerto Rico deserve an opportunity to begin building a viable,
    competitive and fully democratic future, and the PRSA must offer it to
    them.

        We again wish to thank all the members of Congress that worked to
    reach this compromise which we hope can swiftly pass both chambers of
    Congress and be signed into law this year. We are in full support of
    this historic proposal, and the input we have provided is meant to
    improve the legislation. Now, we need your leadership to move the bill
    through the legislative process as quickly as possible before the
    current window of opportunity draws to a close. We will continue our
    citizen advocacy efforts, but we look to you to lead, and to do
    everything in your power to make this bill become law. The time to take
    action is now.

                Sincerely,

            George H. Laws Garcia         Irma R. Rodriguez
            Executive Director            President
            Puerto Rico Statehood
            Council                       Puerto Rico Escogio Estadidad

            Anthony Carrillo              Nathaniel Morel
            President                     Secretary
            National Puerto Rican
            Equality Coalition            National Puerto Rican Equality
                                          Coalition

            Dr. Hernan Padilla            Annabel Guillen
            Founder                       President
            Igualdad, Futuro Seguro       Igualdad, Futuro Seguro

            Hon. Jose Aponte-Hernandez    Matthew Helder
            Executive Director            Director
            Instituto Mision Estadista    Puerto Rico Star Project

            Hon. Charles A. Rodriguez     Hon. Angel Cintron
            President                     Chairman
            Democratic Party of Puerto
            Rico                          Republican Party of Puerto Rico
                                          [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        [LIST OF OTHER DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD WHICH ARE NOT
         INCLUDED HERE BUT RETAINED IN THE COMMITTEE'S OFFICIAL FILES]

    Link to Committee Repository: https://docs.house.gov/Committee/
    Calendar/ByEvent.aspx?EventID=115035

    Committee Materials

       Public comments--June 4, 2022 Congressional Forum in
                San Juan, Puerto Rico

       Discussion Draft (English)--Puerto Rico Status Act

       Discussion Draft (Spanish)--Puerto Rico Status Act

       Puerto Rico Status Act--Section by Section Summary
                (Spanish)

       Puerto Rico Status Act--Frequently Asked Questions
                (Spanish)

       House Natural Resources Committee--Press Release,
                May 31, 2022

       House Natural Resources Committee--Press Release,
                June 14, 2022

       POPVOX Puerto Rico Status Act Landing Page--July 25,
                2022

    Additional Support Documents for the Record

       Power 4 Puerto Rico, Letter

       Brig. Gen. Victor Perez, U.S. Army, Ret. Chairman,
                Veterans for Puerto Rico Statehood Task Force,
                Letter

       Alejandro Torres, Colegio de Abogados y Abogadas de
                Puerto Rico, Letter

       Boricuas Unidos en la Diaspora, Letter

       Senator (Shadow) Zoraida Buxo, Congressional Forum,
                June 4, 2022, Statement

       Nestor Duprey, Congressional Forum, June 4, 2022,
                Statement

       Ramon-Luis Nieves, Congressional Forum, June 4,
                2022, Statement

       Elisa Munoz, Congressional Forum, June 4, 2022,
                Statement

       Antonio Torres Miranda, Congressional Forum, June 4,
                2022, Statement

       Brig. Gen. Victor Perez, Congressional Forum, June
                4, 2022, Statement

       Karina Claudio Betancourt, Congressional Forum, June
                4, 2022, Statement

       Ivette Chardon, Congressional Forum, June 4, 2022,
                Statement

       Antonio Fas Alzamora, Congressional Forum, June 4,
                2022, Statement

       Dialogo por Puerto Rico, Letter

       Puerto Rico Pro-Statehood Veterans Commission
                (Carlos A. Quinones), Materials

       Jesus Rodriguez Roldan, Letter

       Rafael Mendez Acosta, Letter

       Compact of Association/Pacto de Asociacion (Antonio
                Fas Alzamora)

       Environmental Concerns in Puerto Rico (Jorge R.
                Sepulveda Torres, Hector Varela Velez, Abel Vale
                Nieves, Pedro M Cardona Roig)

       Mayor Carmen Yulin Cruz, Letter to Majority Leader
                Steny Hoyer

       Melissa Mark Viverito, Letter to Speaker Pelosi