[Congressional Record Volume 156, Number 62 (Thursday, April 29, 2010)]
[House]
[Pages H3019-H3026]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
{time} 1015
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 2499, PUERTO RICO DEMOCRACY ACT OF
2009
Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I
call up House Resolution 1305 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 1305
Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this
resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule
XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the
Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of
the bill (H.R. 2499) to provide for a federally sanctioned
self-determination process for the people of Puerto Rico. The
first reading of the bill shall be dispensed with. All points
of order against consideration of the bill are waived except
those arising under clause 9 or 10 of rule XXI. General
debate shall be confined to the bill and shall not exceed one
hour and 30 minutes, with one hour equally divided and
controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the
Committee on Natural Resources and 30 minutes controlled by
Representative Velazquez of New York or her designee. After
general debate the bill shall be considered for amendment
under the five-minute rule. It shall be in order to consider
as an original bill for the purpose of amendment under the
five-minute rule the amendment in the nature of a substitute
recommended by the Committee on Natural Resources now printed
in the bill. The committee amendment in the nature of a
substitute shall be considered as read. All points of order
against the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute
are waived except those arising under clause 10 of rule XXI.
Notwithstanding clause 11 of rule XVIII, no amendment to the
committee amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be in
order except those printed in the report of the Committee on
Rules accompanying this resolution. Each such amendment may
be offered only in the order printed in the report, may be
offered only by a Member designated in the report, shall be
considered as read, shall be debatable for the time specified
in the report equally divided and controlled by the proponent
and an opponent, shall not be subject to amendment, and shall
not be subject to a demand for division of the question. All
points of order against such amendments are waived except
those arising under clause 9 or 10 of rule XXI. At the
conclusion of consideration of the bill for amendment the
Committee shall rise and report the bill to the House with
such amendments as may have been adopted. The previous
question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and
amendments thereto to final passage without intervening
motion except one motion to recommit with or without
instructions.
Sec. 2. The Chair may entertain a motion that the
Committee rise only if offered by the chair of the Committee
on Natural Resources or his designee. The Chair may not
entertain a motion to strike out the enacting words of the
bill (as described in clause 9 of rule XVIII).
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Colorado is recognized
for 1 hour.
Mr. POLIS. For the purposes of debate only, I yield the customary 30
minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Lincoln Diaz-Balart). All
time yielded during consideration of the rule is for debate only.
General Leave
Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members be
given 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks on
House Resolution 1305.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Colorado?
There was no objection.
Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 1305 provides for consideration of H.R.
2499, the Puerto Rico Democracy Act of 2009, under a structured rule.
The rule provides 1 hour and 30 minutes of general debate, with 1 hour
equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority
members of the Committee on Natural Resources and 30 minutes controlled
by Representative Velazquez of New York. The rule makes in order those
amendments printed in the report of the Committee on Rules. The
amendments made in order may be offered only in the order printed in
the Rules Committee report, may be offered only by a Member designated
in the report, shall be considered as read, shall be debatable for the
time specified in the report, equally divided and controlled by the
proponent and an opponent, shall not be subject to amendment, and shall
not be subject to a demand for a division of the question. Finally, the
rule provides one motion to recommit with or without instructions.
The rule is a fair rule. There were 35 amendments submitted for this
bill, 13 of which were found to be nongermane. Of the remaining
amendments, eight are made in order under this rule--three offered by
Republicans and five offered by Democrats.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of House Resolution 2499, the
Puerto Rico Democracy Act. I'd like to thank Speaker Pelosi, who has
been an unrelenting champion of this important issue; and Leader Hoyer,
whose strong support of this bill helped bring the resolution to the
floor. I also want to recognize Resident Commissioner Pierluisi for
sponsoring the bill and Chairman Rahall for his leadership on this
issue.
This bill is based on the most fundamental democratic principle, the
rule of self-determination. Puerto Rico has been a U.S. territory for
over 100 years; yet during that time, Congress has never bothered to
determine whether Puerto Ricans are actually satisfied with the status
quo. H.R. 2499 aims to fix that by offering fellow citizens this basic
right.
Puerto Ricans have been American citizens since 1917. During that
time, they've contributed to our country's culture and economy while
also serving proudly in the Armed Forces to defend our Nation. In fact,
Puerto Rico has historically ranked alongside the top five States in
per capita military service in defense of our Nation.
Yet, in spite of the contributions Puerto Ricans have made to this
country, they do not receive all of the benefits that are due to them
as American citizens. Their representative in Congress is a resident
commissioner, who works tirelessly to advance their interests, yet has
limited voting rights, instead of several Congresspeople with full
voting rights the Puerto Ricans deserve. While they pay many taxes,
Federal programs treat Puerto Rico less
[[Page H3020]]
than equally when compared to the 50 States. As I mentioned before,
while they have courageously served in the military, and in fact at a
higher rate than many other States, they do not yet have the right to
vote for President of the United States, the Commander in Chief.
It's imperative that Congress act to right these wrongs which Puerto
Ricans have had to live through for so long. The Puerto Rico Democracy
Act would do that. If enacted, this bill would authorize a plebiscite
process which would offer Puerto Ricans the chance to vote on the
future of their island. The plebiscite would ask the unambiguous
question: Are you satisfied with the status quo? If a majority of
Puerto Ricans vote ``yes,'' then the government of Puerto Rico would be
authorized to hold regular plebiscites every 8 years to ensure that
voters continue to have the opportunity to express themselves
democratically over time.
If a majority vote is against the status quo, if they decide that
they are tired of their being treated as second-class citizens, the
plebiscite will ask them to choose between nonterritorial status
options: independence, statehood, and free association. This plebiscite
represents the straightforward expression of self-determination and
direct democracy that would allow Puerto Ricans to express their wishes
to Congress. I, for one, will support the express wishes of the Puerto
Rican people as a Member of Congress representing Colorado.
Like any important piece of legislation, this bill has some critics.
You will hear from them today. Opponents have claimed that the bill
favors statehood, and they take issue with how the plebiscite is being
constructed. It's not only fair but imperative that voters, our fellow
Americans, be given the opportunity to express whether or not they
approve of their current status quo that is disenfranchising Puerto
Ricans.
I urge and encourage my colleagues to support the rule, and I reserve
the balance of my time.
Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I'd like to, first
of all, thank my friend, the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Polis), for
the time; and I yield myself such time as I may consume.
The underlying legislation, H.R. 2499, the Puerto Rico Democracy Act
of 2009, is a fair and appropriate way for the people of Puerto Rico to
express themselves at the ballot box regarding the critical issue of
their permanent status. The legislation would allow a plebiscite
whereby the people of Puerto Rico will decide whether to maintain their
current political status or have a different status. If a majority
favors a different status, the Government of Puerto Rico would be
authorized to conduct a second plebiscite among three nonterritorial
status options recognized under United States and international law:
independence, United States statehood, or sovereignty in association
with the United States. They would, obviously, have to be worked out
between sovereign Puerto Rico and sovereign United States.
The legislation does not dictate an outcome for the people of Puerto
Rico. Congress will not take sides by voting for this legislation.
Congress will only be asking the Puerto Rican people to vote on the
issue of their permanent status. This process is absolutely respectful
of the Puerto Rican people's right to decide their future status.
I wish to commend Resident Commissioner Pierluisi and my dear friend
and former colleague, Governor Luis Fortuno, for extraordinary
leadership on this issue. Both of them have earned the admiration of
both sides of the aisle in the United States Congress and deserve
commendation for their leadership.
Mr. Speaker, I understand that some Members of Congress have concerns
that the results of the election would be automatically implemented. I
was discussing with my colleague, Ms. Ros-Lehtinen, some falsehoods
that are being said on radio and other media that the vote today is one
that would set up a process that would automatically be implemented.
That is not the case. The results of the plebiscites are nonbinding on
Congress. So in order for the results to be put into effect, whatever
the results of the referendum would be, Congress would need to debate
again and, again, pass legislation. In other words, new legislation.
My position with regard to the status of Puerto Rico is that the
people of Puerto Rico have the right to decide the political and legal
status of their wonderful island through a fair, neutral, as well as
federally recognized, plebiscite. I have ultimate admiration for the
people of Puerto Rico. They are a wonderful people. If the people of
Puerto Rico ultimately vote to request admission to the United States
of America as a State of the American Union, there will be no stronger
defender of their right to be the 51st American State than me. If they
vote to remain in their current status, there will be no stronger
defender of their decision than me. And if they vote for independence,
there will be no stronger defender of their decision than me. This
legislation is a self-determination vehicle, and I support self-
determination. I support democracy everywhere. The Puerto Rican people
should be able to decide their permanent status themselves.
The House last addressed this issue in 1998. I remember, Mr. Speaker,
that I had the honor of chairing that debate in the House when H.R.
856, the United States-Puerto Rico Political Status Act, after much
leadership and advocacy by Resident Commissioner Romero-Barcelo, was
brought to the floor under a Republican majority.
{time} 1030
I was a member of the Rules Committee at that time, and I am proud to
say that our majority, the Republican majority, allowed that bill to
proceed under an open rule, a rule that allows Members from both
parties to have their amendments to the legislation debated on the
House floor without having to get approval from the Rules Committee.
This is an important issue, and if there's ever been legislation that
deserves an open debate process, it's this legislation.
I remind the House of the process that we used when we were the
majority because today the current majority has decided to restrict
debate on this issue, on this very same issue that we allowed an open
debate process on in 1998. And not only on this legislation, but on
every piece of legislation brought before this Congress. This majority
has not allowed any open rules, any open debate process in over 2\1/2\
years. Since they regained the majority, they have allowed only one
open rule, apart from appropriations bills. And even on appropriations
bills, they have restricted debate.
Now I disagree with some of the amendments that were presented before
the Rules Committee yesterday, and if, by chance, the majority would
have allowed their consideration by the full Congress, I would have
voted against those amendments. I may have even debated against those
amendments. But just because I disagree with amendments that were
brought before the Rules Committee, asking the Rules Committee to allow
consideration by the full House does not mean that I believe that those
Members of the House do not deserve the right to be heard. I believe
the House should be allowed to work its will.
Now, unlike the current majority, I believe in open debate. Let
amendments stand or fall on their merits. Just about every week I have
the honor to come to the floor of this House to help manage rules
debates on behalf of my party, and pretty much every time I come to the
floor, I criticize the current majority for systematically blocking
open debate with ruthless efficiency on every bill that we consider.
Even on appropriations bills, which have long been brought to the floor
under a tradition of open rules, they blocked debate. Today they could
have easily upheld the tradition set by the Republican majority to
allow an open debate on the extremely important issue of Puerto Rico's
political status; yet the current majority, they can't bear to do
something so abhorrent to them, to permit an open debate process. They
cling, Mr. Speaker, they cling to their modus operandi, restricting
debate, restricting debate. So they've done so again today.
Now, that doesn't negate the historic nature of what the Congress of
the United States is doing today. Today whatever the outcome of this
legislation, Congress will send its greeting,
[[Page H3021]]
its support and admiration for the wonderful people of ``La Isla del
Encanto,'' Puerto Rico.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from
Puerto Rico (Mr. Pierluisi), the sponsor of the bill.
Mr. PIERLUISI. I thank the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Polis), and
thank you for your eloquent explanation as to why H.R. 2499, the Puerto
Rico Democracy Act, is a fair bill, a necessary bill, and a bill that
is long overdue. I'm also thankful for the kind words given by the
gentleman from Florida, Congressman Diaz-Balart, and for his support
for H.R. 2499.
I'm so grateful to you and to the hundreds of my other colleagues on
both sides of the aisle who support H.R. 2499. I cannot cast a vote
this afternoon, but please know that your vote will give voice to the
aspirations of 4 million men, women, and children from Puerto Rico whom
I am honored to represent. I'm also grateful for the support of diverse
organizations such as LULAC, the Nation's oldest Hispanic civil rights
organization, the Young Democrats of America, and the Puerto Rico
Republican Party.
I want to say a special thank you to Majority Leader Steny Hoyer. The
majority leader has been a champion without peer for the U.S. citizens
of Puerto Rico. My constituents and I owe him a debt of gratitude that
no words, however sincerely uttered, can ever repay.
Mr. Speaker, this has not been easy, but I am a firm believer that
nothing truly worth doing ever is. The fundamental justice of our
cause, to enable a fair and meaningful self-determination process for
the people of Puerto Rico after more than 110 years of inaction, is
beyond question. Patience is a virtue, but my people have been patient
enough.
H.R. 2499 is a simple bill designed to address a longstanding
problem. Since joining the American family at the close of the 19th
century, the Puerto Rican people have enriched the lives of this Nation
in many ways. For generations, the island's sons and daughters have
fought proudly alongside their fellow citizens of the States to protect
freedom and democracy around the world. Many have given their lives in
defense these values. Many more have borne the scars of their service
to this great country.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman from Puerto Rico
has expired.
Mr. POLIS. I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.
Mr. PIERLUISI. Notwithstanding their contributions, my people have
never expressed their views in a fair process authorized by Congress as
to whether Puerto Rico should remain a U.S. territory or seek a
nonterritorial status. If the majority of the voters express a desire
for a nonterritorial status, the bill would authorize the government of
Puerto Rico to conduct a second-stage plebiscite among the three
alternatives to territorial status: independence, free association, and
statehood. The bill before us would, for the first time, provide the
people of Puerto Rico with the opportunity to be heard on the
fundamental question of their political destiny.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman from Puerto Rico
has again expired.
Mr. POLIS. I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.
Mr. PIERLUISI. Thank you, Congressman Polis.
This bill does not favor or exclude any valid status options, and
claims to the contrary are without merit.
In the 21st century, shouldn't this Congress at least ask the people
of Puerto Rico, the 4 million citizens living in Puerto Rico, whether
they want to continue to be treated differently, different than their
fellow citizens in the States? That is the question posed by H.R. 2499.
I ask for your support.
Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, it's my privilege to
yield 3 minutes to my dear friend and colleague from Florida (Ms. Ros-
Lehtinen).
Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my dear friend
and colleague, Congressman Lincoln Diaz-Balart, for yielding me the
time.
I rise in strong support of the underlying legislation, the Puerto
Rico Democracy Act, and I commend the bill's author--we just heard from
him--Resident Commissioner Pedro Pierluisi, for his work in bringing
this important legislation to the floor this morning. And I would be
remiss if I did not also recognize the efforts of our former colleague
Luis Fortuno, now the Governor of Puerto Rico, for his many years of
leadership on this issue.
This day has been long in the making. With a population of nearly 4
million people, the people of Puerto Rico deserve the opportunity to
decide their fate. Puerto Rico has been under the U.S. flag for 111
years, and its residents have been U.S. citizens for more than 90
years.
Since the extension of U.S. citizenship to its residents in 1917,
Puerto Rico has maintained one of the highest per capita rates of
participation in the U.S. Armed Forces. Puerto Ricans have fought and
have died in every armed conflict since the First World War. And yet
while Puerto Ricans have fought valiantly for self-determination
overseas, they have never been given the opportunity to participate in
a federally sanctioned vote to determine Puerto Rico's political
status. That is until today.
H.R. 2499 authorizes the government of Puerto Rico to conduct an
initial plebiscite. In this process, eligible voters would be asked
whether they wish to maintain the current political status or to have a
different status. The rationale for this plebiscite is simple: In
accordance with the American principle of government by consent,
Congress should seek the meaningful consent of Puerto Rico to the
political status that it has had for more than 110 years. The American
citizens of Puerto Rico have a right to determine their political
future. This bill does not exclude any viable status option, nor does
it provide for a change in status to be automatically implemented.
Under the initial plebiscite, eligible voters will be asked if they
wish to maintain the current status or to have a different status. If a
majority favors the current status, then the government of Puerto Rico
would be authorized to ask voters this question again in 8 years. If a
majority of voters cast ballots in favor of a different political
status, then the government of Puerto Rico would be authorized to hold
a second plebiscite on the three status options: independence,
statehood, and free association.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman from Florida has
expired.
Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. I yield the gentlewoman an
additional 30 seconds.
Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. I thank the gentleman for the time.
After 111 years under the U.S. flag, our founding principles dictate
that the people of Puerto Rico be allowed to determine their political
future in a fair and orderly vote sponsored by the Federal Government.
And it is for those reasons, Mr. Speaker, that I urge my colleagues
to vote ``yes'' on H.R. 2499, the Puerto Rico Democracy Act.
Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from
Illinois (Mr. Gutierrez), the author of two of the amendments that were
made in order under this rule.
Mr. GUTIERREZ. I thank the gentleman from Colorado for allowing me
the opportunity.
First of all, I really think that if you're going to talk about
democracy, if you're going to talk about freedom, that if you're going
to talk about self-determination, then you have to deal with the
process, and this process is just patently unfair.
I thank the majority for two amendments. That was nice. But isn't it
interesting that as a Democrat--100 percent Democrat, one that has been
consistently a senior Democrat--that when I came down here in 1998 when
it was Gingrich's bill, when the author was Young, when it was a
Republican-sponsored bill and I went before the Rules Committee, I had
seven amendments ruled in order. Each amendment was given 30 minutes.
That's 210 minutes of debate time. And now when my party, the party
that says they are promoting this legislation to foment, to foster, to
encourage, and to engage the people of Puerto Rico in a democratic
process, the Democratic majority has decided to give me two amendments
and then 10 minutes each. Well, you do
[[Page H3022]]
the math. That's 10 to 1, 10 times more time, and that's just on mine.
I want everybody to remember--I think it's kind of sad--Dorothy
Height. There is a wonderful ceremony. I would have liked to have been
at that ceremony. Here is a woman who gave everything for freedom, for
civil rights, and this Congress couldn't wait until after the funeral
arrangements were completed to begin this debate? You don't want people
on this House floor to hear this debate. You don't want a full,
compelling, articulate debate on this issue. You want this issue done
today. You want it done quickly. You want it done swiftly.
I am telling you, this is going to blow up just like the Goldman
Sachs derivatives blowup that don't have any transparency. And then
everybody's going to say, What, that happened? We don't know how that
happened. We don't know what room that was put together in. We don't
know who put it together. But we are going to make a case today, a case
today that this bill is just not what it pretends to be.
{time} 1045
It is a bill, I mean, listen to yourselves. You say: Well, we have to
stop the current system. I agree. I don't like the current colonial
system of Puerto Rico either. I think it is a bad system, too. I would
like to eliminate it and make sure that it ends in Puerto Rico. But you
want to know something, I want to do it with respect to the people of
Puerto Rico. I want to make sure that as we engage in this process,
it's proper, so I just want to read something to you. Here's what it
says. It says that the people of Puerto Rico will be able to vote for
statehood. But guess what, we don't define what ``statehood'' means. I
think statehood, they should continue to have their Olympic team
because the statehooders say they can continue to have their Olympic
team. I think statehood, they should continue to speak Spanish and be
the predominant language which it is today. Under statehood, I think
that's fine. But we don't get to debate it or discuss it.
I think there are many issues we should look at, but we are not going
to define statehood because you know what, the proponents don't want a
definition.
Now independent, we don't need to define that either. What is the one
alternative that we define, the current status. You know, that's like,
can you imagine Barack Obama going to John McCain and saying: Hey,
John, by the way, would you set my platform for me so when we run
against each other, I have to defend and articulate what you have said
my platform is, because that's really what is happening here today.
Moreover, this is what is going to happen today: The people of Puerto
Rico are going to be engaged in a process in which, you know, one of
the alternatives is going to be sovereignty in association with the
United States. Let me repeat that. Sovereignty in association with the
United States. People of America, call in if you know what that means.
Call in right now if you've figured it out. I'm sure there are
political scientists all over the country. You know what, it's okay if
we don't understand it. The Congressional Research Service, that's what
they're paid for. They have smart people there. You know what they
said: It is ambiguous at best. And this is going to be congressionally
sanctioned? And one of the alternatives our Congressional Research
Service says they don't even have an explanation for. Let's have an
open rule and let's vote ``no.''
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. POLIS. I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.
Mr. GUTIERREZ. Thank you so much.
Look, we had a debate the last time. If statehood wins, I'm going to
support it. I'm going to support it, but it has got to win in a fair
way. It has got to win in a fair way. And you know what, the people of
Puerto Rico, 1967, 1993, 1998, they had a chance. Why is it that we are
advancing this? What happened to the people of the District of Columbia
who, on numerous occasions, have begged and implored this Congress to
take action as America citizens, and we have done nothing. And the
people who have said no, we don't think so, we are moving forward.
Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair will remind Members to address
their comments to the Chair.
Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to
the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Hastings).
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, as today's debate begins on
this very important issue, where opposition is obviously on both sides
of the aisle, there are two basic points I wish to make: first, to
express the fundamental unfairness of this rule for debate, as the
previous speaker just pointed out; and second, to explain why the
underlying bill violates this Nation's established precedents when it
comes to admitting States in the Union.
First, this rule is unfair to both Republicans and Democrats. It is
astonishing to me to see how the Democrat leaders are denying the
amendments proposed and offered by Members of their caucus. Senior
Democrat Members are being limited. Their amendments were blocked.
Their ability to speak and engage in debate is being restricted. And
for what possible reason, Mr. Speaker? By what justification is this
necessary and how is it fair?
In 1998, when the House last debated a similar Puerto Rican bill,
there was an open rule, as Mr. Gutierrez mentioned. That rule was
supported by both the Republican chairman and the ranking Democrat at
that time, and it resulted in a full, all-day debate on this very
important issue. So what is wrong with an open rule and a fair debate
in 2010? This bill isn't about naming a post office; it is a bill that
Congress is asking Puerto Rico if they want to become the 51st State.
This is an important issue.
Amendments of importance, of ensuring Second Amendment rights by
Puerto Rico if it becomes a State were blocked. Amendments to address
the issue of English as an official language, that too was blocked.
Mr. Speaker, this rule should be defeated. Actually, the previous
question should be defeated. And if the House is going to consider this
bill, it should do so under an open process.
Second, the reason why such a thorough debate is necessary is that
this bill is a dramatic departure from past procedures by which a State
has sought and been admitted into the Union. Look at Alaska, look at
Hawaii just in the last century. Look at numerous other States. They
all held local referendum on the question of their desire to become a
State. When a strong majority expressed their desire to become a State,
the results of those individual referendum were communicated to
Congress, and it was then that Congress responded to those referendum.
In this bill that process is exactly backwards. This bill is asking
if Puerto Rico wants to become a State.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. I yield the gentleman 1
additional minute.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. This bill has Congress blessing statehood
before Puerto Rico even expresses its will. This bill isn't needed for
Puerto Rico to hold a self-determination vote on what they desire of
their future political plans. Puerto Rico can conduct a vote right now,
just like they have done three times previously.
Mr. Speaker, it is wrong to deviate from the precedent of Alaska,
Hawaii, and other States where those territories self-initiated a
communication to Congress and Congress responded by making them States.
So, Mr. Speaker, I oppose this unfair rule for those reasons. I think
that Republicans and Democrats on this important issue ought to have as
much time as we had in 1998 to debate this issue. With that, I thank my
friend for yielding me this time.
Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, in brief response to the gentleman from
Washington, all States, certainly including the residents of Puerto
Rico, if they, in fact, become a State, would have the protections of
the Second Amendment, as well as all of the other amendments and
protections of our Constitution as interpreted by the Supreme Court.
And, of course, it is entirely up to States what they do with regard
to recognizing official languages. My own State of Colorado has no
official language. I understand there are other
[[Page H3023]]
States that do. Certainly any State can establish English, Spanish,
French, whatever language they want, as an official language or
languages.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from
New York (Mr. Serrano).
(Mr. SERRANO asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for the time.
My colleagues, I come to you today in a unique situation because, you
see, I was born in the territory of Puerto Rico; and by being a
resident of New York and having been raised in New York, I am able to
be a Member of Congress. Not a Resident Commissioner, with all due
respect to my brother, but a full voting Member of Congress.
And so I come fully understanding how it is to be able to look at
yourself and to wonder what, if ever, will be resolved when it comes to
the status of Puerto Rico.
This is a very significant moment and a very significant bill. For
the first time in 112 years, the Congress of the United States will ask
the 4 million American citizens in Puerto Rico what they wish their
relationship to the United States to be. And it is done, I believe, in
a fair way.
Now many will argue today that it is not binding on the Congress.
That is a good thing because Congress can then take the results and
analyze them and determine how it wants to apply the results, yes or
no, whether it wants a higher vote for independence, if that is what
they choose, or a higher vote for statehood. Congress can make that
determination.
But I believe the process is fair. It says in the initial vote: Do
you wish to remain as you are or do you wish to change your
relationship to the U.S.? And then in the second vote if they choose
for change, it says: Do you wish to become the 51st State, do you wish
to become an independent nation, or do you wish to go and become an
associated republic? Well, we have that. Some people say they don't
know what that means. We have that. Micronesia is an associated
republic of the United States. Palau is an associated republic of the
United States. The Marshall Islands is an associated republic of the
United States. So we know what that means.
I would argue for those who support commonwealth, that the next
natural step of the commonwealth is free association unless they have a
notice and it is statehood or unless they have been misled and it is
independence. I think the next step is free association.
Why are those the three options available? Because all three options
will remove Puerto Rico from the territorial clause of the Constitution
of the United States, meaning it will no longer be a territory and then
we can decide what to do.
It has been said here that Puerto Ricans have served our Armed
Forces. That means a lot to us. And it means a lot to be able to say to
those veterans who are now in Puerto Rico that they will have a chance
to express themselves.
Many have asked me, Joe, if it doesn't do all of the things that some
people claim it does, why do you support this bill? Because it begins a
process, because it allows people to speak, because we would have heard
for the first time that we know that they have something that they want
to change.
Now, the opponents claim that this bill pushes Puerto Rico to
statehood. Now I grew up in New York, but I can tell you one thing as a
fact that I know about the Puerto Rican community and Puerto Rico: they
know the status issue through and through. I think from the time you
are 10 years old, all you debate in Puerto Rico is the status and
baseball. And the status is bigger than baseball. So no one in Puerto
Rico will be forced to vote for statehood unless they want it. Nobody
will be forced to vote for independence unless they want it. No one
will be forced to vote for anything unless they want it. They are very
adamant. You think I'm excited now, you should see the way they speak
about those issues in Puerto Rico. Nobody will force them into
anything.
At the same time, the opponents tell you there is no majority support
for statehood in Puerto Rico, but they'll be forced to vote for
statehood. I don't understand that; if there is no support, then they
won't vote for statehood. That's a fact.
Now, briefly, some of the commonwealth people, with all due respect
to them, have proposed a new commonwealth, but they have never
presented it in legislative form. They've had years. In the 20 years
I've been here, they've never presented the commonwealth in a
legislative form. We have presented many bills that speak to self-
determination.
What they propose, and are you ready for this, Puerto Rico would
remain American citizens. Puerto Rico would get more Federal dollars.
Puerto Rico would be able to choose and pick any Federal law it wishes
to follow and not follow. And Puerto Rico would be able to exchange
ambassadors with other countries. That's the commonwealth that has been
proposed.
I want that for the Bronx. That's a great deal. And I am sure that
the gentleman wants it for Florida. And the Texans would jump at it
immediately. But that is not what it is. Give the people of Puerto Rico
the opportunity to express themselves.
Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to
my friend from Utah (Mr. Chaffetz).
Mr. CHAFFETZ. Mr. Speaker, I believe this is a rushed process. This
should be considered under an open rule, as it has in the past. Even
Louise Slaughter, the chairwoman of the Rules Committee, was cited in
Congress Daily today saying she didn't know why the House is even
taking up the bill.
I offered an amendment that said two-thirds of the people of Puerto
Rico should vote affirmatively for statehood in order to move forward,
yet that was not ruled in order. Believe me, we want to make sure that
more than 51 percent of the people want this before we move forward.
You don't want to get married to someone who is only 51 percent sure,
for goodness sake.
Nobody necessarily even knows what is in this bill; sovereignty and
association with the United States has been pointed out. I don't think
the people understand what that necessarily means, certainly in this
body.
And there is no need for a federally sanctioned vote. In 1967, 1993
and 1998, the people of Puerto Rico voted. They voted against
statehood. There is no reason that the heavy hand of the United States
Congress needs to come down and force the people of Puerto Rico to vote
on this.
{time} 1100
They can do it themselves. And if they do it, they should do it with
a very simple question: Are you in favor of statehood, yes or no? That
simplicity would go a long ways with people like me and a lot of
others. Let's have that kind of straight vote.
We love the people of Puerto Rico. They're fellow citizens; they've
served in our military. There is a great kinship. But it doesn't
necessarily mean that the people of Puerto Rico want statehood. If
they're going to have a vote, they should do so in Puerto Rico. They
don't need the heavy hand of Congress; let them vote on that straight
vote.
I stand in opposition to this rule and in opposition to this bill,
and I urge my colleagues to do the same.
Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Maryland, the distinguished majority leader, Mr. Hoyer.
Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman from Colorado.
I rise in strong support of the bill. I rise in strong support of the
underlying legislation. I am pleased to join my colleague from Puerto
Rico (Mr. Pierluisi) in support of the rule and the bill.
I know that Mr. Pierluisi, who was elected to represent Puerto Rico
in the Congress of the United States as their representative, has
worked long and hard on this bill, as have so many of his predecessors.
When I came to Congress, Carlos Barcelo was the representative of
Puerto Rico, and he was for this. That was 30 years ago, and we're
still talking about this. The gentleman from Puerto Rico and Mr.
Serrano make points that I would make.
Now, the gentleman who preceded me said that we are rushing this
bill. This bill was reported out of committee last July, 30-8. This
bill has 181 cosponsors,
[[Page H3024]]
broad bipartisan support in this Congress. And so we have brought this
bill to the floor for consideration. It offers amendments to those who
are opposed to this bill. It offers amendments, frankly, that I think
are extraneous to the basic premise of this bill as well. The fact of
the matter is that America prides itself on being the beacon for
democracy.
What this bill does is celebrate democracy in Puerto Rico. I am
grieved from time to time when I read that some of our fellow American
citizens in Puerto Rico talk about the United States treating Puerto
Rico as a colony. I don't know about the rest of you, but I'm not
interested in having colonies. I don't perceive and have never
perceived the United States as an imperial power with colonies. I
perceive the United States of America as priding itself on being
supportive of self-determination, of being committed to the premise
that people freely ought to be able to come together and determine
their own status.
That's what this legislation does. I don't think it does more than
that or less than that. Unlike previous legislation, it does not say
that if in fact the voters of Puerto Rico vote one way or the other,
that action will automatically follow by this Congress. This Congress
will then have to make a determination as to what relationship we want
to have to Puerto Rico in a democratic fashion in this House and in the
Senate, as should be the case.
The President of the United States has said he would want to see the
status of Puerto Rico resolved. I want to see the status of Puerto Rico
resolved. And, yes, if the citizens of Puerto Rico, under this bill,
decide that they want to remain a Commonwealth and vote not to change,
that will be the conclusion. If on the other hand they decide they want
to have change, then they will have the options that the United Nations
has set forth for colonies to become free nations.
I myself do not refer to Puerto Rico as a colony; some in Puerto Rico
do. The fact of the matter is that it gives three options which are the
three options sanctioned by the United Nations, and that is, for a free
people to self-determine if they want to be an independent nation, or,
alternatively, that they want to be a State, or, alternatively, they
want to have a free association with the United States. That latter
category, as I suppose similar to the relationship that England has to
Australia and Great Britain or that Micronesia has, or some other
entity that has its own independent laws, it's a sovereign nation, as
is Canada; but the Queen of England is the head of their government.
That may be somewhat like a free association. But whatever the people
of Puerto Rico decide, it seems to me that I would be, as one Member,
prepared to honor.
I am hopeful that today, after 111 years that Mr. Serrano spoke about
and that Mr. Pierluisi has talked about, that we do in fact give to the
Puerto Rican people the option that they deserve to have and that our
principles demand they have.
I hope my colleagues will support this rule. I hope they will support
the bill, and I hope they will oppose amendments that will undermine
this opportunity that can be a historic opportunity, not just for the
people of Puerto Rico, but for the people of the United States of
America to live out its pledge to peoples that have an association with
us and, indeed, the principle that we ask other nations to honor as
well of self-determination.
I thank the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Polis) for yielding.
Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to
yield 2 minutes to my friend from Georgia, Dr. Broun.
Mr. BROUN of Georgia. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, this legislation is the first step in a process that
offers the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico an invitation to become a full
member as a State in the greatest Nation in the world. It is neither
onerous nor unfair to require that English be the only official
language as a precondition for its admission. I introduced an amendment
that would accomplish this on two separate occasions. Unfortunately,
the Democrats in this body rejected my amendment on both occasions,
both in the committee as well as in this rule. Without this commonsense
amendment, this legislation is fundamentally flawed.
Throughout our Nation's history, the common thread that has united
individuals of diverse backgrounds has been the common use of the
English language. It is the glue that holds us together as a Nation.
This amendment would help unite the island with the rest of the other
50 States if it is admitted as a State. President Ronald Reagan once
said, ``By emphasizing the importance of a common language, we
safeguard a proud legacy and help to ensure that America's future will
be as great as her past.''
No territory with an official language other than English has ever
been admitted to the Union. In fact, there are a number of former
territories that had to comply with English preconditions before they
were admitted to the Union, including Louisiana, Oklahoma, Arizona, and
New Mexico. All of these States agreed to the condition that their
schools shall always be conducted in English, and Puerto Rico should be
no exception.
My amendment does not prevent the Puerto Ricans from speaking Spanish
in their home, church, business, or on the streets in San Juan.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. I yield the gentleman 1
additional minute.
Mr. BROUN of Georgia. I thank the gentleman.
It simply requires English to be the official language in public
schools, local and State courts, State government agencies, and the
Puerto Rican legislature. This should not be a huge problem because
since 1900 English has been taught from kindergarten to the 12th grade
in Puerto Rico. Without this amendment, children in Puerto Rico will
never have the opportunity--never have the opportunity--to participate
fully and equally with their fellow citizens.
It is my firm belief that insisting on Puerto Rico's adoption of
English as its only official language must serve as a minimal
requirement for consideration of its inclusion into our sacred Union.
Since the Democrat leadership of this body rejected my amendment on two
separate occasions, I urge this body to vote ``no'' on the rule and
``no'' on H.R. 2499.
Mr. POLIS. In response to the gentleman from Georgia, we live in a
Federalist system. States have the ability to determine what languages
are recognized in an official capacity. I think it would be misleading
to the people of Puerto Rico in the context of a vote to insinuate that
there is a Federal tyranny with regard to language.
We live in an affiliation of States, a Federalist system that
reserves power for the States. I know that the gentleman from Georgia
has generally been a standard bearer of the rights of States and the
prerogatives of States and, in fact, the ongoing battle against the
overreach of Federal powers, and this is certainly an example of that.
States have the ability to decide what languages to print things in--
language or languages--certainly the ability to set the language that
their own State legislature meets in. This would be an example of an
overreach of the Federal Government were they to dictate that.
Mr. BROUN of Georgia. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. POLIS. I will yield briefly.
Mr. BROUN of Georgia. I thank the gentleman from Colorado for
yielding.
I believe very firmly that the only way that we are going to
incorporate people into this country--and we have been a Nation of
immigrants, and I believe very fully that we should continue to allow
responsible immigration into this Nation--but English has been the
common thread that has bound us all together. It should be the official
language of America.
We have required Oklahoma, Louisiana, Arizona, and New Mexico to
accept English as the official language to be admitted, and I don't
think----
Mr. POLIS. Reclaiming my time, I think it's a very appropriate
discussion to have. It's a discussion at the State level; and I know
that some States have done precisely that. But, again, this would be an
example of an overreach of the Federal Government where they would
actually be involved with dictating to States that here you must speak
Spanish, here you must speak
[[Page H3025]]
French, here you must speak English, although certainly the gentleman
has argued there are many at the local and State level that have
advocated those policies on behalf of particular States.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, as I said before, I
would have opposed amendments like Dr. Broun's on the floor, but I
think that everyone should have an opportunity to be heard, even with
ideas that I think are premature, because I don't know how the people
of Puerto Rico are going to vote. So it's premature to say at this
stage, okay, you have to speak this language or the other language
because you're going to vote this way or the other way. No. No. All
this does is start a process that will allow the people of Puerto Rico
to speak. And it's the first time that there has been a federally
authorized referendum for the people of Puerto Rico, and I think it's
fair.
At this time, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from
California (Mr. Rohrabacher).
Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the rule and to
the underlying bill, but it could have been otherwise, I might add.
The major flaw in H.R. 2499 is that it never allows an up-and-down
vote, a yes-or-no vote on statehood or on any of the other status
options presented to the people of Puerto Rico. It is a skewed process.
It is designed to have a poll that will have a predetermined outcome.
I submitted an amendment to the Rules Committee that would have fixed
this fundamental flaw. Unfortunately, the rule now before us does not
make my amendment in order. So now, if this bill becomes law, it will
not find out whether the people of Puerto Rico support statehood. All
the plebiscite will tell us is whether the people of Puerto Rico prefer
statehood to independence.
I can save us all a lot of trouble to that point. I concede--and most
of my friends will concede, pretty much everyone involved in this issue
will concede--that the Puerto Rican people would prefer statehood to
independence or free association. So if everyone is willing to concede
the only point that will be established in this bill, then why bother
passing this bill and having two separate plebiscites just so we can
find out what we already know?
We also know that when people have had a chance just to vote on
statehood, they voted against it. Well, the answer is that the
proponents want to get the results of this system that's been set up
this way so they can paint the people's opinion of Puerto Rico in a
different way. They want to try to convince Congress and the American
people the vote will really mean that the Puerto Rican people want
statehood, but they're not being given the chance to vote up and down
on statehood. It's only statehood in relationship to the other options,
the other options that are offered on the ballot, I might add.
{time} 1115
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. I yield the gentleman an
additional 30 seconds.
Mr. ROHRABACHER. So, if the people of Puerto Rico really wanted
statehood, that could be demonstrated by a ``yes'' or ``no'' vote on
statehood, for which my amendment would have provided; but the sponsors
of this legislation don't want an up-or-down vote on statehood,
apparently because they don't think they can get that outcome in a fair
vote. So they want to set up the scenario, the only scenario by which
they can win--a popularity contest between statehood, independence, and
free association.
The people of Puerto Rico have a right to have an up-or-down vote on
whether they want statehood right now as compared to their own status.
This is a skewed poll, and it is stacking the deck. We should vote
against this attempt to misrepresent the people of Puerto Rico.
Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to
yield 3 minutes to my friend, the distinguished ranking member of the
Rules Committee, the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier).
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, ``Who's on first?'' is the natural question
that comes to mind on this issue.
As we sat in the Rules Committee last night, we saw Luis Gutierrez,
Charlie Rangel, and Nydia Velazquez join up with Virginia Foxx. We have
here on the floor concerns raised by Dana Rohrabacher and Doc Hastings,
and we have Lincoln Diaz-Balart; Mr. Pierluisi; our former colleague,
Governor Fortuno; and a number of members of the Republican leadership
joining in support of this.
The bottom line is that we should do exactly what Mr. Gutierrez
argued both in the Rules Committee and here on the floor last night.
Now, I have stood in this well repeatedly, saying that I could have
done a better job when I'd had the privilege of serving as chairman of
the House Rules Committee. I could have had more open rules. I could
have had more free-flowing debate. In fact, as this new majority was
attempting to emerge to that majority status, I was criticized, and it
was justified in some ways.
We were promised, though, as I and others were being criticized, Mr.
Speaker, that we would have an entirely new direction for America and
that there would be an open, freewheeling debate. Well, there is no
issue on which it is more apparent that we should be having a
freewheeling debate, an open amendment process, than on this issue
before us today.
As we look at where it is we are going, I will say that I was
troubled by the arrogance, the arrogance that was exhibited in the
Rules Committee last night. There were attempts made by people like Mr.
Gutierrez, who submitted 16 amendments, and two of those 16 amendments
were made in order. Ms. Velazquez submitted six amendments, and three
of hers were made in order. There were attempts made to make more
amendments in order, and they were denied.
In 1998, as has been pointed out, we had a completely open amendment
process. Let me say that, last night, in the Rules Committee, Mr.
Speaker, when we made an attempt to put together a bipartisan
amendment, we saw the arrogance of the Rules Committee demonstrated
when there was a complete denial of even the chance to recess for 10
minutes so that the Democrats and Republicans could come together and
offer a proposal.
I will make a pledge that, if I am fortunate enough to hold the gavel
again and if a request is made by the minority to cobble together a
bipartisan amendment to deal with an issue that is before us, I will
assure the Members I will recess the committee and will allow Members
to come together and work on that package.
We are going to have an opportunity in just a few minutes to defeat
the previous question. If we do that, Mr. Diaz-Balart will offer an
open rule. Democrats and Republicans alike have been arguing for an
open amendment process on this, Mr. Speaker.
So I ask my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous question so
that we can have the free-flowing debate that this institution and the
American people deserve.
Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I support the
historic underlying legislation being brought to the floor today.
Again, I commend Mr. Pierluisi and Governor Fortuno.
In order to rightly return, however, to the open rule precedent set
by the Republicans in 1998, I will be asking for a ``no'' vote on the
previous question so that we can amend this rule and allow the House to
consider the Puerto Rico Democracy Act under an open rule.
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the
amendment and extraneous materials immediately prior to the vote on the
previous question.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Florida?
There was no objection.
Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. I yield back the balance of my
time.
Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to emphasize that this bill is
revenue neutral for the Federal Government and that all costs of the
plebiscite will be paid by the Puerto Rican government.
The United States is committed to democracy, and this bill gives us
the opportunity to respect the democratically arrived-upon decision of
the people of Puerto Rico. I join the number of
[[Page H3026]]
sentiments that have been expressed today, including those from my
friend and colleague from Florida, which are that, should Puerto Rico
decide to seek independence, as an individual Member of Congress, I
will support that. Should they decide to seek status as an associated
republic, I will support that, and should they choose to join us as a
State, I will support that.
This recent health care debate, I think, helped to show the people of
Puerto Rico some of the advantages that might be attained were they a
State. Their Resident Commissioner, Pedro Pierluisi, did an excellent
job in trying to advocate for the interests of Puerto Rico in this
health care debate, but he was but one vote. The people of Puerto Rico,
counted and apportioned under a census, should have six Members of
Congress, probably Members on both sides of the aisle, advocating for
their interests alongside Members of Congress, representing other parts
of our country. The current territorial status of Puerto Rico would end
under any of the three options. No options would be subject to the
territorial clause of the U.S. Constitution. As my colleague from New
York has mentioned, this is a topic that is discussed constantly around
dinner tables in Puerto Rico.
As a Member of Congress from Colorado, I respect the voice of the
Puerto Rican people and of the Resident Commissioner, Pedro Pierluisi,
who has been elected with this as part of his platform.
Given the current hyperpartisan environment under which Congress
works, it is very good to see a bill with such strong bipartisan
support. It is important to point out that this bill has over 180
cosponsors and that it was voted out of committee with a strong
bipartisan majority. In addition, the highest of Puerto Rico's elected
officials from both parties, including its Representative to Congress
and Governor Luis Fortuno, along with a sizable majority of both
chambers of its legislature, also support this bill. The reason is they
understand that this bill upholds the most basic democratic tradition
on which our country was founded.
Today, we can offer millions of people the right to self-
determination. For too long, we have denied our fellow citizens this
right, and we are now faced with an opportunity to fix this grievous
injustice and to give the people of Puerto Rico the ability to self-
determine. Therefore, I urge my colleagues to uphold this country's
commitment to democracy and to vote for the underlying rule, which is a
fair rule, and the legislation.
I urge a ``yes'' vote on the previous question and on the rule.
The material previously referred to by Mr. Lincoln Diaz-Balart of
Florida is as follows:
Amendment to H. Res. 1305 Offered by Mr. Lincoln Diaz-Balart of Florida
Strike all after the resolved clause and insert:
That at any time after the adoption of this resolution the
Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule XVIII, declare
the House resolved into the Committee of the Whole House on
the state of the Union for consideration of the bill (H.R.
2499) to provide for a federally sanctioned self-
determination process for the people of Puerto Rico. The
first reading of the bill shall be dispensed with. All points
of order against consideration of the bill are waived except
those arising under clause 9 or 10 of rule XXI. General
debate shall be confined to the bill and shall not exceed one
hour and 30 minutes, with one hour equally divided and
controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the
Committee on Natural Resources and 30 minutes controlled by
Representative Velazquez of New York or her designee. After
general debate the bill shall be considered for amendment
under the five-minute rule. It shall be in order to consider
as an original bill for the purpose of amendment under the
five-minute rule the amendment in the nature of a substitute
recommended by the Committee on Natural Resources now printed
in the bill. Each section of the committee amendment in the
nature of a substitute shall be considered as read. During
consideration of the bill for amendment, the Chairman of the
Committee of the Whole may accord priority in recognition on
the basis of whether the Member offering an amendment has
caused it to be printed in the portion of the Congressional
Record designated for that purpose in clause 8 of rule XVIII.
Amendments so printed shall be considered as read. At the
conclusion of consideration of the bill for amendment the
Committee shall rise and report the bill to the House with
such amendments as may have been adopted. Any Member may
demand a separate vote in the House on any amendment adopted
in the Committee of the Whole to the bill or to the committee
amendment in the nature of a substitute. The previous
question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and
amendments thereto to final passage without intervening
motion except one motion to recommit with or without
instructions.
____
(The information contained herein was provided by
Democratic Minority on multiple occasions throughout the
109th Congress.)
The Vote on the Previous Question: What It Really Means
This vote, the vote on whether to order the previous
question on a special rule, is not merely a procedural vote.
A vote against ordering the previous question is a vote
against the Democratic majority agenda and a vote to allow
the opposition, at least for the moment, to offer an
alternative plan. It is a vote about what the House should be
debating.
Mr. Clarence Cannon's Precedents of the House of
Representatives, (VI, 308-311) describes the vote on the
previous question on the rule as ``a motion to direct or
control the consideration of the subject before the House
being made by the Member in charge.'' To defeat the previous
question is to give the opposition a chance to decide the
subject before the House. Cannon cites the Speaker's ruling
of January 13, 1920, to the effect that ``the refusal of the
House to sustain the demand for the previous question passes
the control of the resolution to the opposition'' in order to
offer an amendment. On March 15, 1909, a member of the
majority party offered a rule resolution. The House defeated
the previous question and a member of the opposition rose to
a parliamentary inquiry, asking who was entitled to
recognition. Speaker Joseph G. Cannon (R-Illinois) said:
``The previous question having been refused, the gentleman
from New York, Mr. Fitzgerald, who had asked the gentleman to
yield to him for an amendment, is entitled to the first
recognition.''
Because the vote today may look bad for the Democratic
majority they will say ``the vote on the previous question is
simply a vote on whether to proceed to an immediate vote on
adopting the resolution . . . [and] has no substantive
legislative or policy implications whatsoever.'' But that is
not what they have always said. Listen to the definition of
the previous question used in the Floor Procedures Manual
published by the Rules Committee in the 109th Congress, (page
56). Here's how the Rules Committee described the rule using
information from Congressional Quarterly's ``American
Congressional Dictionary'': ``If the previous question is
defeated, control of debate shifts to the leading opposition
member (usually the minority Floor Manager) who then manages
an hour of debate and may offer a germane amendment to the
pending business.''
Deschler's Procedure in the U.S. House of Representatives,
the subchapter titled ``Amending Special Rules'' states: ``a
refusal to order the previous question on such a rule [a
special rule reported from the Committee on Rules] opens the
resolution to amendment and further debate.'' (Chapter 21,
section 21.2) Section 21.3 continues: ``Upon rejection of the
motion for the previous question on a resolution reported
from the Committee on Rules, control shifts to the Member
leading the opposition to the previous question, who may
offer a proper amendment or motion and who controls the time
for debate thereon.''
Clearly, the vote on the previous question on a rule does
have substantive policy implications. It is one of the only
available tools for those who oppose the Democratic
majority's agenda and allows those with alternative views the
opportunity to offer an alternative plan.
Mr. POLIS. I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the
previous question on the resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous
question.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the
yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further
proceedings on this question will be postponed.
____________________