[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 [email protected]. 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 [email protected].
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