[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