[Congressional Record Volume 156, Number 62 (Thursday, April 29, 2010)]
[House]
[Pages H3029-H3059]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
PUERTO RICO DEMOCRACY ACT OF 2009
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 1305 and rule
XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House
on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill, H.R. 2499.
{time} 1334
In the Committee of the Whole
Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the
Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill
(H.R. 2499) to provide for a federally sanctioned self-determination
process for the people of Puerto Rico, with Mr. Schiff in the chair.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The CHAIR. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered read the
first time.
General debate shall not exceed 1 hour and 30 minutes, with 1 hour
equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member
of the Committee on Natural Resources and 30 minutes controlled by the
gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Velazquez) or her designee.
The gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Rahall) and the gentleman from
Washington (Mr. Hastings) each will control 30 minutes. The gentlewoman
from New York (Ms. Velazquez) will control 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from West Virginia.
Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I have the privilege of representing the great State of
West Virginia in this body, a State that was born amidst civil conflict
in the middle of a war. It is said that West Virginia is the only State
to be formed by seceding from a Confederate State during the Civil War.
In fact, the western counties stayed loyal to the Union, while
Tidewater seceded from it.
Puerto Rico also joined the American family as a result of war. In
1898, during the Spanish-American War, the island was invaded by the
United States and was ceded by Spain to our country under the Treaty of
Paris. The island's century-long history within the American family has
been significant. Puerto Rico was one of the first areas outside the
continental United States where the American flag was raised.
To the United States, it marked a milestone in our own political
development. When once our Union of States was comprised of renegade
English colonies, we then stepped into a role that we previously had
fought against. Given our own experience, would anyone have imagined
that our new colony would be disenfranchised and kept unequal in our
own political framework? Our commitment to Puerto Rico's advancement
under the 1898 Treaty of Paris should be our judge.
If our measure of success is today's Puerto Rico, then I state Puerto
Rico has done well by the United States. It is a showcase of democracy
in the Caribbean. Having some of the highest voter turnout rates in our
Nation, Puerto Rico shames many of our own States with its energy and
enthusiasm in electing its leaders. Economically, it is a powerhouse in
the Caribbean and considered a home away from home for many mainland
Fortune 500 companies.
Equal in importance to Puerto Rico's political and economic prowess
is the island's contributions to our own social fabric. Every aspect of
American art, music, theater, and sport has been influenced by Puerto
Rico's own culture and its people. And beyond such contributions, there
remains Puerto Rico's patriotism, beginning in World War I when
thousands of Puerto Ricans served in the U.S. military. There is no
doubt that many more thousands are currently serving in our Armed
Forces, fighting our wars, and dying for our country.
To the families who have lost a husband, a father, a daughter or son
in our wars, I take this moment, as we all do, to salute you. We can
debate political status, but what is not subject of debate is the
patriotism of the people of Puerto Rico.
We are here today on the floor of the U.S. House of Representatives
because, in spite of what we have gained from each other, there has
been no ultimate achievement in Puerto Rico's political status, which
really is the greatest commitment the U.S. has to all of our
territories.
Since the establishment of the current Commonwealth status in 1952,
four popular votes have been held on the status of Puerto Rico in three
plebiscites and one referendum, but none of them were sanctioned by
this body, the Congress of the United States.
Going back just to the 1970s, at least 40 separate measures have been
introduced in Congress to resolve or clarify Puerto Rico political
status. In addition, Congress has held at least 12 hearings, and four
measures have received either House or Senate action.
During the last Congress, the Bush administration issued the
President's Task Force Report on Puerto Rico's Status which served as
the basis for the legislation before us today; a task force, I would
point out, that was initiated by the Clinton administration and
concluded by the Bush administration.
Indeed, the entire exercise has been bipartisan. The measure before
us today is sponsored by the Resident Commissioner from Puerto Rico,
Pedro Pierluisi, a Democrat. It is strongly supported by a former
colleague and current Governor of Puerto Rico, the Honorable Luis
Fortuno, a Republican. And it was reported out of our Natural Resources
Committee by a vote of 30-8.
With this history before us, I join those who say it is time for
Congress to provide the people of Puerto Rico with an unambiguous path
toward permanently resolving its political status that is consistent
with the U.S. Constitution.
When our Committee on Natural Resources considered similar
legislation in the last Congress, we exhaustively examined the question
of the constitutionality of the various status options available under
the Constitution. And we continued that process during the current
Congress. What emerged from that process was a clear consensus that
settled on the permanent status options that are reflected in the bill
before this body today.
The Resident Commissioner from Puerto Rico is to be congratulated for
carefully crafting a bill which seeks to authorize a fair, impartial,
and democratic process for self-determination for the people of Puerto
Rico. The pending measure is straightforward. It authorizes a
plebiscite in which the two voting options are presented: number one,
present political status; or number two, a different political status.
If option two prevails, then a second plebiscite would be conducted in
which three options are presented: independence, free association with
the United States, or statehood. Puerto Rico would then certify the
results to the President and the Congress.
[[Page H3030]]
Let me be very clear on this point. Nothing in this legislation
prejudges the result of these plebiscites. Nothing in this legislation
prejudges the result of these plebiscites. And voting for this
legislation does not constitute a vote for the status quo, statehood,
independence, or free association.
The bill is about a process, and depending upon what occurs during
that process, it will be up to a future Congress to ultimately decide
Puerto Rico's status.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself as much time
as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, before I begin my remarks, I am getting requests for
time on the floor from a number of Members, and there simply is not
enough time allocated by the rule. So, Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous
consent that each person that is allocated time get an additional 15
minutes.
The CHAIR. The Chair cannot entertain that request in the Committee
of the Whole.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Chairman, I rise today in opposition to this bill. It strongly
deviates from the procedures followed by other States to seek
statehood, and it leaves numerous questions about the implications of
statehood unanswered in this particular case.
H.R. 2499 is the wrong way to go about achieving statehood and breaks
from the precedents set, as I mentioned, of other States and, most
recently, those States that we entered into the Union in the last
century, Alaska and Hawaii. Both of these States conducted their own
vote on the question of statehood. When a strong majority voted in
favor of statehood in each of these cases, it was only then that they
went to Congress asking them to respond to that vote.
This bill has the process entirely backwards. This bill is a bill
asking Puerto Rico if it wants to be a State, not the other way around.
This is a dramatic departure from the long-established precedent of how
other States sought admission to the Union.
{time} 1345
This bill has Congress, as a result, blessing statehood before Puerto
Rico even votes to express their will. Rather than receiving the
request of statehood from a strong majority of the people of Puerto
Rico, expressed through a locally initiated vote, this bill has
Congressmen soliciting Puerto Ricans on the question of statehood.
Now, Mr. Chair, let me be very clear. I'm sympathetic to the people
of Puerto Rico having the right and ability to vote on their own
political future. But this bill is not--I want to repeat--not the only
way that this can happen. In fact, this bill is not necessary for
Puerto Rico to hold a self-determination vote. Puerto Rico can hold
such a vote right now, today, without any action of Congress. And they
have done it three times in the past.
Furthermore, Congress is asking Puerto Rico if it wishes to be a
State without a clear understanding of the implications of statehood
and the conditions that would be required to join the Union. First,
there is the question of what statehood would cost the U.S. taxpayers
in increased Federal spending. We really don't know the answer to that,
but we do think it is higher. And the reason for that is we asked CBO,
the Congressional Budget Office, for information on that. And they have
not provided an up-to-date analysis of the cost of statehood. So in an
effort to somehow quantify the costs, my committee staff reviewed
information by the Congressional Research Service. The spending on just
10 Federal programs, Mr. Chairman, would cost an estimated $4.5 billion
to $7.7 billion per year. Now, that's only 10 programs. We put all of
the other costs together, you can only imagine that it may be higher
than that.
So before voting on this bill, I think that Members ought to know if
there is a cost and what that cost would be. This information could be
calculated, but it is not being done. Without this information, in my
view, H.R. 2499 should not be passed.
Second, Mr. Chairman, there's a question of reapportioning House
seats. According to CRS, based on a population of approximately 4
million people, if Puerto Rico were to become a State, it would be
entitled, rightfully, to two Senate seats and six seats in the U.S.
House of Representatives. Without increasing the size--435 Members of
the House--States could lose an existing seat or not receive an
additional seat after the 2010 Census. Again, this is according to CRS.
Those States, by the way, Mr. Chairman, include Arizona, Missouri, New
York, South Carolina, Texas, and my home State of Washington. The
public deserves to know whether their State would lose representation
to provide six of 435 House seats to Puerto Rico, or whether their
proposed solution is that the Nation needs more Members of Congress. In
other words, increase the number of Members from 435 to 440 or 441.
Finally, Mr. Chairman, there is the question of whether English
should be the official language of Puerto Rico. When a similar bill was
debated in the House in 1998, an amendment on the issue of English as
the official language was allowed to be offered on the floor of this
House and allowed to be debated. Unfortunately, this time the Democrat
majority has blocked direct amendments on this issue. Currently, both
Spanish and English are the official languages of Puerto Rico. However,
as a practical matter, Puerto Rico is predominantly Spanish-speaking.
Spanish is used in the state legislature, local courts, businesses, and
in schools.
Now, during our history, the matter of the English language was
addressed during the admission of other States into the Union. And
those States include Arizona, Louisiana, Oklahoma, and New Mexico. So I
think it's only fair and appropriate to address and debate English as
the official language in regard to statehood for Puerto Rico.
So, Mr. Chairman, we should not move forward with this bill until
there are answers to those three issues, at least, that I have brought
up. I think it would be more fair and more responsible to the residents
and the 50 States and the people if we had answers to those questions
before, and the conditions of statehood, rather than doing it before we
have even gotten to that point.
So for those reasons, Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to vote
``no'' on this bill.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Let me just say that the gentleman from West Virginia, my colleague
and friend, the chairman of the Natural Resources, is right. This is,
Mr. Chairman, about process. It's about the fact that this is a flawed
process. Not only was this bill drafted unilaterally, but it was
prepared in a biased manner, with a predetermined outcome in mind.
Let us be clear. This legislation is designed to push the statehood
agenda, regardless of whether that agenda is the best solution for the
island or even among the people. The chairman of the Natural Resources
Committee also mentioned that four plebiscites have been held in Puerto
Rico. Yes, he is correct. In the past three plebiscites, the men and
women of Puerto Rico have consistently voted in favor of Commonwealth
status and against statehood.
I tell you that this legislation has no business being on the floor
today. It raises a host of questions. It has zero probability of
becoming law. However, it does place Members in the awkward position of
explaining why they are meddling in Puerto Rico when a request from
Puerto Rico has not even been made.
There are economic issues that we must address first. The President
has ordered his White House Task Force on Puerto Rico to advise him and
Congress on policies and initiatives that promote job creation,
education, clean energy, and health care. Instead of dealing first with
the very real concerns of how the people of Puerto Rico survive day by
day, we are telling them our priority is to debate a status bill that
will not become law. This is a disgrace. It is baffling that the
statehood question, which lost in 1967, 1993, and again in 1998, is now
allowed to scheme its way to victory. It is at the urging of this
losing side that House Members have cosponsored a bill that would push
for yet another electoral process. Except this time, the proposal that
was previously rejected has been put in a privileged position. Those
who drafted
[[Page H3031]]
this legislation will exclude Commonwealth status in the planned
plebiscite by developing a shell game--with a first-round process to
legitimize it.
The process that enabled the creation of the Commonwealth was adopted
by Congress. The Puerto Rico Constitution was ratified by Congress.
This form of government has been upheld by our U.S. courts. That is why
it's so appalling, deceitful, and shameful that the people of Puerto
Rico will be denied this option. No matter how much statehood
supporters complain about Commonwealth, it's the law of the land.
Congress should not be in the business of picking winners and losers
for this kind of referendum. It is not our job to create artificial
conditions that will enable statehood to win a popular vote in Puerto
Rico. Becoming a State of the Union is something that people must
embrace knowingly, voluntarily, and openly. If the people of Puerto
Rico want to become a State, the statehood option should stand on its
own. Why are you so afraid? There should be no need to hide behind
process or petty politics.
In a matter so fundamentally important to over 4 million Puerto
Ricans, you would think that a public hearing could have been convened
to listen to their views. But, no. The Committee on Natural Resources
and this Congress know better than the people of Puerto Rico. It is,
after all, their future that it is at stake. It is an outrage that a
congressional hearing on the status issue has not been held in Puerto
Rico since the 1990s. As many know, I have advocated for a
constitutional convention to begin the process of determining Puerto
Rico's status. Certainly, this is not the only option for going
forward. But a sham of a process is definitely not a valid democratic
option for choosing Puerto Rico's future.
Mr. Chairman, the concept of self-determination is fundamental to
democracy. Sadly, H.R. 2499 turns its back on this very principle. We
must not allow politics to undermine our democratic values nor be
swayed by arguments that make no sense. If you truly want to honor the
contributions of Puerto Ricans and the fabric of the Puerto Rican
community, vote ``no'' on this bill. Stand up for what is truly right.
Choose principles over politics. Let Puerto Ricans decide their own
destiny without undue--undue--congressional demands. Vote ``no'' on
H.R. 2499.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes.
Mr. Chairman, a couple of claims have been made by previous speakers
about why not have a direct vote on statehood, yes or no, like Hawaii
and Alaska did. I think it's worth clarifying here that those States
were already incorporated territories--and the Representative from
Alaska can speak to this better than I can--meaning that it was
constitutionally clear that they would eventually become States. Puerto
Rico is unincorporated, meaning it can become a nation as well as a
State.
The plebiscites would determine if Puerto Ricans wanted to pursue
nationhood or statehood. A number of Puerto Ricans, as we all know,
want statehood; some, independence; some, free association with the
U.S., such as the U.S. has with Palau and two other areas. It is
unclear what the second largest group of Puerto Ricans, those who vote
for the Commonwealth Party, want among the real options of continued
territory status, free association, independence, and statehood.
Another claim that my ranking member and good friend Mr. Hastings
made was that the Congress of the United States would be reduced in
seats if Puerto Rico were granted statehood. I'm going to quote
directly from a CRS report that was done on this issue when it said
that, New States usually resulted in additions to the size of the House
of Representatives in the 19th and early 20th century. The exceptions
to this general rule occurred when States were formed from other
States--Maine, Kentucky, and my home State of West Virginia, as I have
referenced already. These State Representatives came from the
allocation of Representatives of the States from which the new ones had
been formed.
So I don't think the assertion that the number of Members of Congress
in its totality would be reduced, with the addition, if that were to be
the outcome of Puerto Rico being a State were to occur.
{time} 1400
Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Puerto Rico
(Mr. Pierluisi), the sponsor of this legislation and truly the driving
force.
Mr. PIERLUISI. Mr. Chairman, I rise in representation of the people
of Puerto Rico. In fact, I am the only elected representative of the
people of Puerto Rico in this Congress. In such capacity, I introduced
H.R. 2499.
I have heard some complaints about process. Let's address the
complaints about process, both the process here in this Congress as
well as the process that this bill provides for to happen in Puerto
Rico.
The process in this Congress, crystal clear. I introduced the bill
along with a record number of original cosponsors. When we compared it
with any previous bill relating to the status of Puerto Rico, about a
month later the committee of jurisdiction, the Committee on Natural
Resources, held a public hearing in which all political leaders of
Puerto Rico were able to attend and testify before this Congress. A
month later, the bill was marked up, like it should have been, and it
was amended, it was improved upon by the committee of jurisdiction.
Briefings have been held. It has been discussed widely in this Congress
as well as elsewhere. So the process in this Congress has been a fair
process, and it's about time we get a vote on it.
Talking about the bill itself, H.R. 2499 is simple, and it is fair.
It identifies the valid political status options for Puerto Rico and
authorizes a congressionally sanctioned plebiscite process among those
options. It shows the highest respect for the people of Puerto Rico by
being candid with them about their real status choices.
I have heard the word ``meddling.'' We're not meddling. We're
assuming a responsibility. The relationship between Puerto Rico and the
United States is bilateral in nature. For any change in the status of
Puerto Rico to happen, two things must happen: the people of Puerto
Rico must request it, the 4 million American citizens strong who live
in Puerto Rico, and Congress must grant it. Congress is vested.
It's incredible, indeed, that in the 110 years that Puerto Rico has
been a territory, Congress has not even asked the 4 million American
citizens living in Puerto Rico whether they want to remain under the
current relationship, whether they want to continue having Puerto Rico
as a territory of the United States. That is a fair question. It is the
threshold question.
The bedrock principle of our system is government by consent, and the
first plebiscite provided in this bill informs Congress whether a
majority consents to an arrangement that denies the 4 million U.S.
citizens the right to have a meaningful voice in making the laws that
govern their lives. The latest example was health care reform. I worked
harder than anybody else in this Congress to get fair treatment for my
people in Puerto Rico, and I got the support of my colleagues from New
York of Puerto Rican origin, among others. But you know what? It wasn't
good enough. We were not treated like our fellow American citizens. The
treatment we got fell far short of that.
If a majority of the people of Puerto Rico, though, do wish to
continue living under these conditions, we will abide by that, and
that's the first consultation that this bill provides for. However, if
a majority of the people of Puerto Rico say to this Congress that they
do not wish to continue being a territory, then the bill provides the
only three nonterritorial options that we can offer or include in this
plebiscite in accordance with both U.S. law and international law.
Those options are crystal clear. We don't need studies. We don't need
to define them further than necessary. Statehood, independence, and
free association. And for anybody who is concerned about the concept of
free association, we've done it before. Marshall Islands, Micronesia,
the Republic of Palau, those are free associated states with a
relationship with the U.S. Let's hear from the people of Puerto Rico.
I want to speak plainly now. This bill has been unfairly
characterized as a statehood bill. I am a strong proponent of statehood
for Puerto Rico; yes, that's so. But this bill is not a statehood bill.
That's one of the options.
[[Page H3032]]
And it is not binding on this Congress. Once we have the results, we
will act accordingly. We will have discretion to deal with these
results. Residents of Puerto Rico have contributed so much to this
country. Our sons and daughters have served alongside their fellow
citizens from the States on countless battlefields in Europe, Asia, and
the Middle East.
The CHAIR. The time of the gentleman from Puerto Rico has expired.
Mr. PIERLUISI. I yield myself 1 additional minute.
As I was saying, during a late night patrol behind enemy lines,
soldiers from Puerto Rico, Utah, Georgia watch each others' backs. Any
differences in culture or language mean nothing. I went to Afghanistan
recently to visit our troops in Afghanistan. I know what we're talking
about. What matters is that the flag on their uniform is the same.
As I have said many times before, I support statehood because I
believe the people of Puerto Rico have earned that right, should they
choose to exercise it, to become full and equal citizens of the United
States. But this is not a statehood bill. And that's why, with all due
respect to the gentleman from Washington State, we will cross that
bridge when we get to it.
The time and the day that Puerto Rico, the majority of the people
request for statehood, you will have ample time to debate it, to deal
with it, to impose a transitional period, whatever this Congress or a
future Congress might want to do.
I was elected to represent all of the people of Puerto Rico,
including those whose vision for the island's future differs from my
own.
The CHAIR. The time of the gentleman from Puerto Rico has again
expired.
Mr. PIERLUISI. I yield myself 15 additional seconds.
The intention of H.R. 2499 is to sponsor a fair process of self-
determination in Puerto Rico, not to predetermine the outcome of that
process. I have to say, in the 21st century, it is about time that this
Congress, at the very least, ask the 4 million American citizens if
they want to continue having the second-class citizenship they're
earning and they're having today.
Vote in support of H.R. 4599.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2
minutes to the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young).
(Mr. YOUNG of Alaska asked and was given permission to revise and
extend his remarks.)
Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, this is a rehash of 12 years ago.
I want to compliment the Delegate from Puerto Rico for representing his
people.
The Governor supports this legislation, the Senate supports this
legislation, and the House supports this legislation. Strongly, the
Puerto Ricans that represent their people support this legislation. I
think it's inappropriate for those that do not represent those people
to speak out against this legislation. I think it's wrong not to
recognize that this is long overdue.
Mr. Chairman, 112 years ago, 112 years ago Puerto Rico became Puerto
Rico. They were supposed to be a State. And I am the only Member of
this House that has gone through the statehood battles. This is not a
statehood bill. As the Delegate has said, this is an opportunity to
make that decision. Puerto Rico is not a territory. They're a
Commonwealth. We were a territory. There is a great deal of difference.
We did make that decision with the help of Congress, and we became a
State. And I am proud of that, and I was proud of this body.
I am a little disappointed in some of the arguments that I hear
against this bill: This is a statehood bill. This is a sneak attack. It
was brought on us unexpectedly.
This bill has been before this Congress for 18 months, and we have
discussed this issue for 12 years and longer. My bill, as I call it,
the Young bill, was a statehood bill. That is a bill I would have
preferred, but this is not. But this is what the Governor wants, the
Delegate wants, the Senate wants, the House wants, and the people of
Puerto Rico want. I think that's what we have to consider in this
House. We are not the body as a whole. We are the body of the
individual that represents the people, and I've argued this for many
years because I am one, as the Delegate is.
The CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. PIERLUISI. I yield the gentleman from Alaska 1 additional minute.
Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. It is time that we act on this legislation. Let
it go forward. Let us do what is fair.
And the arguments against this legislation, some of them are very
frivolous. The English language. We were not required to have English
when we became a State. We had many different languages, and we became
a State. We do speak English, and we speak other languages within my
State. That doesn't hold us back or make us any less.
But the idea that we have 4 million people that have waited for an
opportunity to become a State, an independent nation, or whatever they
wish, a free association, it is time we give them that opportunity. To
have a body that is supposed to represent all the people but
individually represent an area, we should recognize that right, as we
did when we became a State.
I am proud that the Congress made us a State. We worked for that, and
I think it's time we give an opportunity for the Puerto Ricans to make
a decision as to whether they are a State again or whether they're a
territory, or whatever they want to be, but to give them the
opportunity.
And again, when that bridge comes--and again, I can talk about
bridges, ladies and gentlemen--when that bridge happens, we will cross
it, as far as cost goes. But it's time we recognize the great people,
the warriors of Puerto Rico as they serve this country, but yet they
cannot vote for their Commander in Chief. It's time we pass this
legislation.
Mr. Chairman, as an original co-sponsor of H.R. 2499, I am pleased
that the House of Representatives is now considering this important
legislation. I want to compliment the author of the bill, Resident
Commissioner Pedro Pierluisi and my good friend the Governor of Puerto
Rico, Luis Fortuno for their tireless commitment on behalf of democracy
in Puerto Rico.
I have been involved in Puerto Rico democracy for most of my
Congressional career. In fact, it was my bill, H.R. 856 that was
approved by the House of Representatives on March 4, 1998. Prior to
passage, I conducted two public hearings in Puerto Rico and literally
heard from hundreds of Puerto Ricans who passionately love this country
and thirst for the opportunity to determine their own political future.
The Puerto Rican people are warm, hard-working, passionate and
patriotic. In fact, only one state has proportionately sent more of
their sons and daughters to fight for this nation than Puerto Rico.
Yet, for over a century, we continue to deny these brave warriors, who
proudly wear the uniform of this nation, the chance to vote for their
Commander in Chief. This is fundamentally wrong and must be changed
prior to our next Presidential election.
As someone who arrived in Alaska 50 years ago, I can certainly relate
to the pleas of those of my good friend former Governor and Resident
Commissioner Carlos Romero Barcelo who reminds us that: ``We are now
being ruled by the President and Congress without the consent of the
people of Puerto Rico.''
I still vividly remember the words of our Former Territorial Governor
and U.S. Senator, Ernest Gruening, who would shout to anyone who cared
to listen that: ``Let us end American colonialism.'' While he was
talking about Alaska, similar statements have been made by Puerto Rican
elected officials for decades.
H.R. 2499 may not be a perfect bill. It is, however, a fair bill
which does not exclude or favor any status option.
It is frankly hard to believe that it has been 12 years since the
House last voted on a Puerto Rico status bill and 112 years since
Puerto Rico became a U.S. territory. It is far past time to allow the 4
million people of Puerto Rico to vote in a federally sanctioned
plebiscite and it would be appropriate if this the 111th Congress were
to make that vote a reality.
I urge an ``aye'' vote on H.R. 2499. We should no longer deny the
people of Puerto Rico their right to determine their own political
future.
Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Chairman, I would like to inquire as to how much
time is remaining on each side.
The CHAIR. The gentlewoman from New York has 24 minutes remaining,
the gentleman from Puerto Rico has 14\1/4\ minutes remaining, and the
gentleman from Washington State has 22 minutes remaining.
Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from
New York (Mr. Rangel).
[[Page H3033]]
(Mr. RANGEL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. RANGEL. Let me thank the chairlady from New York for allowing me
this time, and let me share the great respect and admiration that I
have for the gentleman from Puerto Rico, a hardworking man. There is no
question in my mind that in his heart, he wants what is best for Puerto
Rico and what is best for the United States of America. And I can say
the same about his predecessor who has now moved on to become the
Governor.
The only question that I have--since I have been a friend of Puerto
Rico for 39 years, not just legislatively but in my heart, I have felt
the unfairness it is to call people citizens and yet to have to
acknowledge that when it comes to health care, education, jobs, the
only time that you can really know that Puerto Ricans are treated as
Americans are treated is when they are drafted or when they volunteer
to serve this great country of ours and when it ends up, you will find,
that per capita more people from Puerto Rico have died and been wounded
defending our flag than from any State or any territory. So it just
seems to me that something has to be done. It is so truly unfair to
respect our flag and respect our citizens and to tell them that they
can fight a war when they can't even vote for the President.
And, quite frankly, as far as the status is concerned, it has hurt me
as an American that this has consumed the island. And for the first
time in a couple of months, I have heard about free association. I have
more Puerto Ricans in my district in New York than probably in San
Juan. I have never heard anyone talk about free association. I don't
even know whether Members of the Congress know what free association
is. As a matter of fact, a couple of people have asked me, since I've
been here, who is our Ambassador to Puerto Rico anyway and what is the
exchange of currency.
And to see what was happening on the rule, it is clear to me on both
sides of the aisle, they want to know, What is this all about? It's
about the lives of 4 million people, that's what it's about. We should
at least know what we are doing before we superimpose some ideas that
we have on other people.
I had an amendment--the Rules Committee rejected it--and all it did
was adopt everything except, what do the people have to choose from,
statehood? You bet your life. They would be entitled to it. And no
matter which way they work out the number of votes--even though Tom
Foley once told me when I thought that statehood was really going to
pass in Puerto Rico, I said, Mr. Chairman, how are we going to handle
this question with the Members? How are we going to handle the question
of what parties these people are going to belong to? He said, Forget
it, Charlie. The only time we're going to have statehood is when there
is a mandate. We're not going to have a divided territory become a
State. That was a guy who told me that from his background in history
that he was an expert in this type of thing.
So it just seems to me that if we all accept anyone who's known,
visited, read about Puerto Rico, that their biggest argument has been,
majorly, those who want statehood, those who want a Commonwealth, and a
smaller number who would like to have independence, which sounds great
politically, but somehow internationally it doesn't make a lot of
sense.
So what did my amendment do? It said, Go to the polls. Say if you
want Commonwealth. Say if you want statehood. Say if you want
independence. Or say, Not at this time. Let me breathe and try to
figure this out. Because if we don't know what statehood is, how do we
expect them to know?
{time} 1415
When I asked these questions, someone said: Oh, no, they would have
already rejected Commonwealth.
Well, I think some of us on this floor, if asked if we like the
status we have in the Congress, we might say, especially some of my
friends on the other side, that they don't like the status. Well, if I
was in the minority, I wouldn't like the status either. But the truth
of the matter is it doesn't mean that you want to get rid of it all. It
may mean I don't like the status as it is. I would like to change it. I
would like to have it improved. I would like to improve education and I
would like to make certain that the expenses that Mr. Hastings talks
about in terms of programs that are designed to help American citizens,
that they would get them.
What price does it take to give your life for your flag and then find
out how much it is going to cost to give them the things that Americans
would want. So my problem is that Commonwealth doesn't get a chance.
They call the existing government, which I don't really think means
rejection of status, because there is a lot of romance and emotion that
is involved in Puerto Rico. So give them the opportunity to say
Commonwealth, but we don't need free association when hardly anyone
here knows, especially the people in Puerto Rico, what does it mean.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 1
minute to the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Chaffetz), and I understand that
he also gets 1 minute from the gentlelady from New York.
Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Chairman, that is correct.
The CHAIR. The gentleman from Utah is recognized for 2 minutes.
Mr. CHAFFETZ. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for the time.
Isn't it ironic that a bill about self-determination has got to have
the heavy hand of the United States Congress dictating to the people of
Puerto Rico about this vote. I find that terribly ironic.
There is no need for the United States Congress to pass this bill. No
need. Four times, in 1952, in 1967, in 1993 and in 1998, the people of
Puerto Rico were able to vote on this. They didn't need the approval of
the United States Congress to do it; they don't need it today. But it
is a manipulation of the process to try to get a desired outcome.
If you want to vote on statehood, take a straight vote. Do the people
of Puerto Rico, yes or no, do the people of Puerto Rico want statehood?
Simple, straightforward, to the point, and let's understand if that is
truly what they want.
I am a conservative person. I do not believe that I should be trying
to manipulate what is happening in Puerto Rico and what they want.
Finally, I will end with this. Please, as you consider this bill,
understand that you are empowering people to vote in this election that
have no business voting in this election. If you were born in Puerto
Rico, you lived there 2 months and then you suddenly moved to the
United States and you've lived here for the last 30, 40 years, you get
to vote in this election. Why should a resident of Utah or Indiana vote
in an election in Puerto Rico? That is fundamentally wrong and it is
there because they want to manipulate the end result.
This is about Puerto Rico and the vote should be taken in Puerto Rico
by the people of Puerto Rico if the people of Puerto Rico choose to do
so, and not because of the heavy hand of the United States Congress. I
urge my colleagues to vote ``no.''
Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Chairman, I yield 10 minutes to the gentleman from
Illinois (Mr. Gutierrez).
Mr. GUTIERREZ. I thank the gentlelady.
Look, this is the Puerto Rico 51st State bill. It is the only result
you can possibly expect. The deck is stacked. We all know. I was
talking to my friends on the other side, and you know what they keep
saying to me: Why are you against statehood? Everywhere I go: Why are
you against statehood? They don't say: Why are you against the people
of Puerto Rico having a free vote in determining their future and in
exercising their right to self-determination?
Why do we come here and try to like hoodwink one another, fool one
another. I mean, you know what I would like to see on the House floor,
the same depth of honesty, sincerity and clarity and transparency that
exists when people come up to me and ask why I am against statehood for
Puerto Rico.
That is not why I am up here. I am against a process that does not
allow the people of Puerto Rico to exercise their sovereign right to
determine their future in a free manner.
Now, what does that mean? Everybody says well, there are 4 million
American citizens in Puerto Rico. Have you ever considered one thing,
that the
[[Page H3034]]
proponents of statehood, the proponents of statehood have never said
that the Puerto Rican team must be part of the U.S. Olympic team? Have
you ever thought about that contradiction that exists? I am happy to
have statehood with a Puerto Rican Olympic team, and would support such
a statehood; but does the Congress support such a statehood?
The fact is that the gentleman from Puerto Rico is doing a wonderful
job on this bill, knows and understands that the language that is used
in Puerto Rico is the Spanish language. It is the language of
government. It is the language of commerce. It is the language of
industry. It is the language of the courts. It is the common language
of the people of Puerto Rico. And you know what, I would love to see
the 51st State have Spanish as their primary language.
But do you not think the Congress of the United States should
consider such a fact? And the reason I put this to you is because they
keep saying, remember those words, ``mandated by the Congress.'' This
is plebiscite mandated by the Congress. So what they are going to do is
have a plebiscite mandated by the Congress where the statehooders get
to define what statehood is during their plebiscite. They are going to
have a Congress where independence gets to be defined, and the only one
that we define is the relevant current status in Puerto Rico. That is
the only one that we define.
I want to take a minute so that we can see how absurd, it says here,
and this is the definition, sovereignty in association with the United
States, a political relationship between sovereign nations not subject
to the territorial clause of the United States Constitution.
You don't think that's going to confuse some people? Just think about
it a moment. What does that mean? Okay, so I guess at this point what
the Congress of the United States is saying, if this is the winner,
this is the winner, Puerto Rico is sovereign. It means Puerto Rico is
independent.
Does the FBI got to go? Does the IRS go that day? No, seriously, who
controls immigration in and out of Puerto Rico? Who controls the ports?
The Federal Government is gone, do we stop sending Social Security
checks? Medicare and Medicaid, are they suspended? I mean, think about
it one moment. What is it that occurs at that moment?
I would love to see a relationship between the United States and
Puerto Rico where Puerto Rico is an independent sovereign nation. That
is my belief. But ladies and gentlemen, I will not impose my beliefs on
the people of Puerto Rico. The people of Puerto Rico, as the gentleman
from Utah referred to earlier, they said, No. They said, No. They said,
No. How many times do we have to say ``no''? Do not impose a result
that the people of Puerto Rico have rejected freely and which they can
constitute.
As a matter of fact, the last time there was a plebiscite in Puerto
Rico in 1998, do you know which option won? This option beat statehood:
none of the above, received over 50 percent of the vote.
I yield to the gentleman from Washington.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
In my opening remarks, I stated the reasons why I had a problem with
this procedure, and I did not mention the option that you talked about,
association.
I just wonder if the gentleman knows or maybe can help me, where did
that come from?
Mr. GUTIERREZ. You know, I am kind of like Mr. Rangel. I mean, this
definition is a new definition. Now I will tell you this, the gentleman
from Puerto Rico represents the Statehood Party in Puerto Rico. He came
down here and he defined his own status or a lack of definition of his
status. But you know what the next thing he did was, he defined the
opposition status.
You know, that reminds me of kind of like Barack Obama going to John
McCain during the election and saying: Tell you what, why don't you
tell me what my platform is, write it for me, and that's what I'm going
to run on later on.
You cannot allow this to happen because it is not a democratic
process. The result is already. Let me just share with the gentleman
that Senator Wicker, and I am going to ask that his statement be
included in the Record at the appropriate moment, just issued a
statement straight over from the other body, saying he's going to
oppose this measure. It hasn't even been adopted and they are already
going to oppose it, so we all know what the end result and futility is
of what we do here today. They are already telling us that they are
going to oppose this, and there is no companion bill.
Does the gentleman have another question?
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. If the gentleman would yield, this is a
point because my argument was, and I stated three other issues, we
ought to know what we are doing because it has been suggested that this
is not a statehood bill. But I have responded to at least that remark
by saying it may not be a strict statehood bill, but it certainly gives
blessing to an outcome on which we don't know what that outcome is. If
it becomes association, then what do we do?
I just want to say that I think the gentleman makes a good point
because the bottom line in all of this is there are too many unanswered
questions on a process where we are blessing an outcome to make a
determination whether we should have another, add to our Union the 51st
State. I think that is serious, and I appreciate the gentleman for
yielding.
Mr. GUTIERREZ. Thank you. This is what I think we genuinely need. But
let me just add further, there has been much said about the importance
of American citizenship and there are many Puerto Ricans who cherish
their American citizenship and have fought for their American
citizenship. But if you have 4 million American citizens and they don't
want to incorporate as a State, shouldn't we respect that? Here's the
logic, they were American citizens; therefore, they deserve statehood.
The finality of it all, the justice of it all, right, the correct
course of it all is to grant them statehood.
I think if they wanted independence tomorrow and they are citizens of
the United States, and let me just say, it seems to me that George
Washington and Thomas Jefferson were subjects of the king, and one day
they got up and said we want to be free. They didn't quite agree with
them, but that also is an option for American citizens.
You know what, maybe these 4 million American citizens don't want to
become a State because they love their language; because they love
their culture; because they love their idiosyncrasies; because they
love applauding for their Olympic team when it goes out there on the
international stage; because so many Miss Universes come from Puerto
Rico. What if that is what they want, should we not respect that
decision?
Mr. SMITH of Texas. Would the gentleman yield?
Mr. GUTIERREZ. I yield.
Mr. SMITH of Texas. I thank you for yielding.
It seems to me that this bill is almost the exact opposite of self-
determination. Self-determination would be allowing the people in
Puerto Rico to determine whether or not to have a referendum, a
plebiscite, and what the questions would be. Hopefully it would be a
straightforward question, as they have had three or four times in the
past, but to have Congress mandate what the people of Puerto Rico have
to do, that they have to have a plebiscite, have to have these
questions on the ballot, it seems to me that is the opposite of self-
determination and it is as you said, a congressional mandate. Is that
how you see it as well?
{time} 1430
Mr. GUTIERREZ. You know, I do, I see this as a congressional mandate.
And you know what? We should not mandate statehood. Citizens organized
of the United States of America, in incorporated or unincorporated
territory, under or outside the territorial clause of the Constitution
of the United States, should, together, in a vast majority, I believe--
because, listen, this is like me going to my wife, and I ask her, Will
you marry me? And she kind of hesitates and she says, How about if I'm
loyal 50 percent of the time? How about 60 percent of the time? How
about if we condition this relationship? Come on. That's what we're
talking about here. We had a civil war to decide this. Once a State,
always a State. Be careful what you wish for.
[[Page H3035]]
Mr. PIERLUISI. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlelady from
Guam (Ms. Bordallo).
Ms. BORDALLO. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 2499, the
Puerto Rico Democracy Act of 2009, introduced by my colleague,
Congressman Pedro Pierluisi.
As the chairwoman of the Subcommittee on Insular Affairs, Oceans and
Wildlife, I fully support this bill which the full Natural Resources
Committee reported out favorably on July 22 last year.
H.R. 2499 is an important bill for Puerto Rico and the other U.S.
territories. As the delegate from Guam, I understand the desire of
residents in the territories to decide their future and make a
determination about their political future. Unlike other speakers here
this afternoon, we on Guam are also in this same process of trying to
determine our status. H.R. 2499 will provide the people of Puerto Rico
a congressionally sanctioned process to express their preference
regarding their political status.
Each territory, Mr. Chairman, is on a different path towards self-
determination, and what is appropriate for Puerto Rico may not be
suitable for other territories. But I firmly believe that the process
established by H.R. 2499 is the best way, and I urge my colleagues to
vote ``yes.''
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 1
minute to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton), and I understand the
gentleman from Puerto Rico will yield him 1 minute as well.
Mr. PIERLUISI. That is correct.
The CHAIR. The gentleman from Indiana is recognized for 2 minutes.
Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, this is so muddied up I don't
know if anybody that's paying attention really understands what's going
on.
This is just a process, that's all it is. The people who are going to
decide whether or not any territory becomes a State is this body and
the Senate. What we are asking for is a recommendation from the people
of Puerto Rico. They're dying for this country; more have died
percentage-wise in conflicts than any State in the Union. Their
Governor wants this plebiscite, their Representative wants this
plebiscite, their state senate wants this plebiscite, and the state
house of representatives want this plebiscite. They know what this bill
is. They've come and they've testified before the Resources Committee.
They know, and they represent the people of Puerto Rico.
So these people coming down here from New York and everyplace else,
they don't know; they don't know what they're talking about.
Announcement by the Chair
The CHAIR. The gentleman will suspend.
The Chair will remind all persons in the gallery that they are here
as guests of the House and that any manifestations of approval or
disapproval of proceedings or other audible conversation is in
violation of the rules of the House.
Mr. BURTON of Indiana. The people who want to have this determination
made are the people of Puerto Rico, and their elected representatives
altogether say let's have this bill passed. And yet people from New
York and from Washington--I mean, I don't know how close the State of
Washington is to Puerto Rico, but it's about 4,000 miles, maybe 5,000,
and New York is quite a ways away. Why don't we listen to what the
elected representatives of Puerto Rico want.
And it's Democrat and Republican. This is not a partisan issue. So my
view is, let's let them have the plebiscite. Let's come up with a
process that will work. We've tried this before, and it has been split
up all over the place. This process will work. It will boil it down to
what the people of Puerto Rico really want. I believe they want
statehood, and we ought to let them determine that. If their
representatives want it, if their Governor wants it, if everybody else
wants it, and if they are sacrificing their lives for this country,
then by gosh we ought to give them a chance to be a State.
Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire as to how much time
remains on every side.
The CHAIR. The gentlewoman from New York has 8\1/2\ minutes
remaining; the gentleman from Puerto Rico has 12\1/4\ minutes
remaining; and the gentleman from Washington State has 20 minutes
remaining.
Ms. VELAZQUEZ. I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. PIERLUISI. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
California (Mr. George Miller).
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 2499, the Puerto Rico
Democracy Act, introduced by our colleague, Mr. Pierluisi.
Many of us on the Natural Resources Committee, including myself, Mr.
Rahall, and Mr. Young, have been grappling with this issue of political
status for Puerto Rico for decades, and we each have the scars to prove
it. We have held numerous hearings over the years in Washington and in
Puerto Rico. We have listened to the representatives of not only the
political parties, but the citizens of Puerto Rico, and we've heard
testimony from across the spectrum, including the representatives of
each of the political parties in Puerto Rico. In light of all that
experience, I am convinced that Congress must provide the people of
Puerto Rico the opportunity to voice their preferences. That is what
today's legislation would do, a fair opportunity for a self-
determination process.
Puerto Rico has been a territory for 112 years, and it has been an
important part of this country in peacetime and in war. Four million
residents of Puerto Rico are American citizens and they are bound by
Federal law, and yet Congress has never asked Puerto Ricans to
officially express their views on the island's political status.
This legislation does not bind future Congresses. H.R. 2499 doesn't
require the Federal Government to create a Puerto Rican state, nor does
it force us to work toward Puerto Rican independence. This bill simply
asks the citizens of Puerto Rico whether they want to remain a U.S.
territory in their current status or whether they would prefer another
political status. And if it turns out they favor another political
status, another vote would then be authorized to determine which status
option they prefer.
Considering the context and the history wrapped up in this issue,
this legislation is as fair as you can possibly expect. I would hope
that this House would respond by passing this legislation and sending
the message to the people of Puerto Rico that Congress would welcome
their telling us what they prefer their status to be. That is a choice
that they will make in a free and open process, and they can proceed to
the second question or not. But we will have asked them, instead of
what we've seen in the past is people scrambling, depending upon
political advantage in Puerto Rico, one particular time trying to rush
to get a vote or get a statement or get a plebiscite. This is a process
that's set out, it's fair, and we should support it.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 1
minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. McClintock).
Mr. McCLINTOCK. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Chairman, the proponents have a problem. They want statehood for
Puerto Rico, but the people of Puerto Rico keep voting ``no.'' Well,
what to do. Well, they replace a straightforward up-or-down vote with a
very clever two-step process. If 40 percent support the Commonwealth
and only 20 percent favor each of three alternatives, the overwhelming
plurality is defeated on the first ballot, and they're left only to
choose among three options, none of which they support. And then, just
to be sure, proponents stuff the ballot box by letting non-Puerto
Ricans vote just as long as they were born there. Well, that means
that, as a Californian, I should be entitled to vote in New York's
elections because I was born there.
This bill isn't needed for a referendum. Puerto Rico can do that on
its own. The purpose of this bill is to imply congressional support of
this rigged election process that has no legal effect, that has
surrendered any moral validity, and that promises only to set off
bitter divisions within the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2
minutes to the gentlelady from Florida (Ms. Ros-Lehtinen).
[[Page H3036]]
Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. I thank my good friend from Washington for the
time.
I rise in strong support of H.R. 2499, the Puerto Rico Democracy Act.
This bill will provide a congressionally sanctioned process by which
U.S. citizens of Puerto Rico can determine their preferences regarding
the territory's political status.
This is not a bill to admit Puerto Rico as the 51st State. This bill,
instead, would enable Puerto Ricans to determine their status
preference by presenting all of the options possible under the law.
They would be presented through a series of votes.
In the first plebiscite, voters will decide if they want a
continuation of the current status or to change status. If voters
decide to change status, a second plebiscite will be held on the three
viable options for change: independence, statehood, or free association
with the U.S.
The Puerto Rico Democracy Act does not include the misguided
``enhanced Commonwealth option.'' An enhanced Commonwealth, as
envisioned by the bill's critics, perpetuates the false hope that
Puerto Ricans can have the best of both worlds: they can have U.S.
citizenship and national sovereignty; they can receive generous Federal
funding and have the power to veto those laws with which it disagrees.
If included as a viable option, an enhanced Commonwealth proposal would
permanently empower Puerto Rico to nullify Federal laws and court
jurisdiction. An enhanced Commonwealth option would also set the stage
for Puerto Rico to enter into international organizations and trade
agreements, all while being under the military and financial protection
of the United States.
It is no surprise that this proposal has been soundly rejected as a
viable option by the U.S. Department of Justice, the State Department,
the Clinton administration, and the Bush administration. It is time
that the people of Puerto Rico are given real options for the future
political status of their homeland and not false promises.
Therefore, Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to join me in
supporting this bill before us today.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased to yield
2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Smith).
Mr. SMITH of Texas. First of all, I thank the ranking member of the
committee and the gentleman from Washington State for yielding.
Mr. Chairman, there are at least three reasons to oppose this bill,
any one of which should be persuasive.
First, it rigs a proposed new referendum to force Puerto Ricans to
choose what they have voted against four times in the past, statehood.
It does not provide Puerto Ricans with a fair, straightforward way to
choose among statehood, independence, and remaining a Commonwealth. The
bill also allows U.S. citizens who are natives of Puerto Rico to vote
in the referendum even if they now live in the United States.
Second, the poverty rate in Puerto Rico is almost 45 percent, twice
that of our poorest State, Mississippi. The Congressional Budget Office
estimated in 1990 that if Puerto Rico were to become a State, Federal
entitlement and welfare costs for Puerto Rico would jump by 143
percent. That was 20 years ago. If Puerto Rico does become a State, the
additional cost to American taxpayers of government benefits are likely
to be in the tens of billions of dollars, but no cost analyses have
been released. One can only guess why.
Third, let's acknowledge that to some this bill is a Democratic power
play. The Pew Hispanic Center reported in 2008 that 61 percent of
Puerto Rican registered voters were Democrats, 11 percent were
Republicans, and 24 percent were independents.
Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to oppose this bill for any or all
of these reasons.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 3
minutes to the Republican Conference chairman, Mr. Pence.
(Mr. PENCE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. PENCE. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
I rise in support of the Puerto Rico Democracy Act, which simply
grants the people of Puerto Rico a say in their future.
First, a little history lesson. The American flag has flown over
Puerto Rico for more than a century. It has been a U.S. territory since
1898. The people of Puerto Rico have been citizens of the United States
since 1917. Citizens born in Puerto Rico are natural-born U.S. citizens
bound by Federal law. They pay Federal payroll taxes, and they are even
eligible to be elected President.
American citizens from Puerto Rico have been drafted into military
service during World War II and every war ever since--five Medal of
Honor winners from Puerto Rico--65,034 Puerto Ricans served in World
War II alone.
{time} 1445
It has been an enormous contribution to the life of this Nation by
these American citizens.
As a conservative who believes in the power of self-determination and
of individual liberty, I believe the 4 million American citizens in the
Commonwealth of Puerto Rico should be able to voice their opinions
about Puerto Rico's relationship to the United States, although the
ultimate determination of that fate rests with this Congress, and I am
pleased to stand in a long line of Republicans who have taken that
view. Every Republican President for the last 50 years has been
committed to self-determination and democracy for the American citizens
in Puerto Rico.
In 1982, President Ronald Reagan said, ``Puerto Ricans have borne the
responsibilities of U.S. citizenship with honor and courage for more
than 64 years. They have fought beside us for decades and have worked
beside us for generations.'' He also added Puerto Rico's ``strong
tradition of democracy provides leadership and stability'' in the
Caribbean. I agree.
If the American citizens of Puerto Rico choose independence, I will
support that vote. If the American citizens of Puerto Rico choose
statehood, I will support that vote. I am equally confident that this
Congress will be able to resolve any difficult issues about taxation,
obligations of individuals and, most importantly, about the need for
English to be the official language prior to any offering of
citizenship to that territory.
The American citizens of Puerto Rico have fought, have bled, and have
died in our military, on virtually every continent, in order to spread
democracy and the right of self-determination. It seems to me it would
be the height of hypocrisy for this Congress to deny the very same
rights for which Americans have fought all over this world to the
American citizens of Puerto Rico.
I know this is a difficult and a contentious debate, and I hold in
the highest regard my colleagues who take a different view; but for me,
for President Ronald Reagan, and for all freedom-loving Americans, I
believe with all of my heart the time has come to adopt the Puerto Rico
Democracy Act and to begin the process of allowing the American
citizens of Puerto Rico to determine what will be their destiny, and we
will determine it as well.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2
minutes to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Duncan).
Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 additional minutes to the
gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Duncan).
The CHAIR. The gentleman from Tennessee is recognized for 4 minutes.
Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this bill.
First of all, I would like to thank the gentleman from Washington
State and the gentlewoman from New York for yielding me this time.
I have been to Puerto Rico three times. The people there have treated
me in a very kind way, as kind as any place I have ever been, and I
think Puerto Rico is a wonderful place.
I served with Governor Fortuno, who is the main proponent of this
bill, and Governor Anibal Acevedo Vila before him. I have great respect
for and, I hope, friendship with both of those men, but I oppose this
bill.
The Washington Times said in an editorial yesterday that this is a
bad bill, written ``to stack the deck in favor of statehood for Puerto
Rico'' and that it ``actually tramples self-determination in favor of
an underhanded political power grab.''
Those aren't my words. Those are the words of the Washington Times.
[[Page H3037]]
The Times' editorial went on to read, ``The bill is deliberately
designed to unfairly make it harder for Puerto Rico to keep its current
status as a territory with special benefits rather than as a State.''
The fairest way to have a vote on this issue would have been to have
a simple, straightforward ballot with three choices--statehood,
Commonwealth, or independence. However, the proponents of this bill
seem to know that the statehood option would not receive over half of
the vote in a fair, simple, straightforward ballot. Each time Puerto
Rico has voted on this issue, less than half the people have voted for
statehood.
When Alaska and Hawaii were admitted to the Union, some 80 or 85
percent of the people in those States voted for and wanted statehood.
This is not the case in Puerto Rico.
I have serious reservations about making a territory a State with
less than half the people who really want that status. In addition, the
last time this issue came up, it was estimated that it would have an
immediate impact of several billions of dollars on the Federal budget.
With the economy the way it is now, statehood for Puerto Rico would be
even more expensive today. As one previous speaker pointed out, Puerto
Rico could set up a vote on this any time they want, but the statehood
proponents want Congress to rig the election in favor of statehood.
That is not the right way to do this, Mr. Chairman, so I oppose this
bill. For all of these reasons, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on
this bill and to defeat the gimmick process that we are dealing with
here today.
Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from New
York (Mr. Serrano).
(Mr. SERRANO asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. SERRANO. I thank the gentleman.
So much has been said today about what this bill does. Yet so little
is understood, perhaps, about what this bill really does. The bill
continues to be a bill I support strongly because, if nothing else, the
strength of it is that it begins a process.
When I have told many Members of what the bill doesn't do, they ask
me, Then why do you support it?
I support it because it begins a process. I support it because, for
the first time in 112 years, the people of Puerto Rico will have an
opportunity to express themselves, to say what they wish. Then we don't
have to act on it. I suspect that we will, but we won't be imposing
anything on anyone.
Another argument is that this bill forces statehood on Puerto Rico,
but that argument is made by people who say there is no majority in
support of statehood in Puerto Rico. Therefore, people would be voting
out of--what?--ignorance. Well, I'll repeat what I have been saying all
week.
I grew up in New York. I don't live in Puerto Rico, but I know one
thing for a fact, not an opinion, which is that Puerto Ricans, from the
age of about 10 or 12, know the status issue, discuss the status issue,
and debate the status issue on a daily basis. It is the number one
concern on the island. Therefore, no one will vote for statehood who
does not believe in statehood. No one will vote for independence who is
forced to vote for independence. No one will vote for free association
who is forced to vote. They will do it because they believe in it and
because they believe it is the right thing to do.
Some in Congress have asked, Why don't they do it on their own?
Because, when they have done it on their own, we have ignored it.
Then there is another reason, one that may offend people if you don't
present it properly: Puerto Rico did not invade the United States. The
United States invaded Puerto Rico in 1898, and it has held it.
According to the Constitution, it is up to the United States Congress
to dispose of, if you will, the territory or to adjust the territorial
status. If we tell them to do whatever they please, we will ignore what
they do. If we tell them to do something, then it will be part of a
process--again, that word ``process.'' So it is our responsibility to
tell them to hold this vote.
Now, if they hold the vote and determine that they wish to become an
independent nation, we will then be able to say, Well, you asked for
that with 45 percent of the vote. Can you go back and take another vote
and come back with 80 percent? Similarly, if they vote for statehood,
we could say, No, you didn't come here, asking us for a certain amount.
You have to go back.
So my point is that this bill does not end the process. With all due
respect to my colleagues on both sides who oppose the bill, do you
honestly believe that Congress would give anybody statehood just based
on the first simple vote? I can assure you that, if statehood is ever
to come to Puerto Rico, there will be a vote to accept the results of
Puerto Rico's vote. There will be a vote to grant statehood to Puerto
Rico. Then there will be a vote asking the Puerto Ricans ``yes'' or
``no'' if they accept statehood. It is just not going to happen. The
process will take years. We are not doing what people think we are
doing.
What we are doing is being honest to the comments we make on a daily
basis, which are that we go overseas to fight for freedom and
independence, for the ability to be free people and to make free
choices. Yet we're going to say today that we won't allow 4 million
American citizens to simply advise us on this choice? That is a
mistake. That truly is un-American. What do we have to fear--that the
territory may ask for a change in its status? It might choose not to do
so.
One very important point: People say that the Commonwealth is
defeated. No. In the first vote, you can choose to remain a
Commonwealth. In the second vote, you stop being a colony.
Vote for this bill.
Mr. RAHALL. I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2
minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Daniel E. Lungren).
Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Mr. Chairman, as an original
cosponsor of H.R. 2499, the Puerto Rico Democracy Act, I stand here
proudly in support of this bill. I am somewhat surprised by some of the
criticism registered here. I understand how we can have differences of
opinion, but to suggest that somehow this undermines the authority of
the Congress of the United States or that it is somehow contrary to the
Constitution is just beyond the pale as far as I can see.
As the gentleman who just spoke before me said, this is an attempt to
get an idea of how the people of Puerto Rico feel about this very
important issue. They are American citizens. People have raised all
sorts of scenarios about what may or may not happen. Go back and look
at how other States have been admitted to the Union. Ultimately, the
decision is made by this Congress.
I remember reading about Utah. When they were a territory, Utah
wasn't accepted in the Union until they changed a certain policy on
marriage. It was an extraordinary change that was required, but that
was what happened. Congress didn't supinely stand here or lay down
there and say, Oh, yes. You've said you want to be a State. Therefore,
we take no action.
This is a way of our getting a measure of the sentiment of the people
of Puerto Rico. I don't see why we should be upset about that. I know
there are some outside observers who have suggested that somehow this
undermines the Constitution and that somehow there is the Tennessee's
plot. Examine the history of Tennessee. Examine the history of the
response of Congress. It is absolutely historically factual that
Congress decides under what terms a new State will be formed, when and
if we will accept a new State.
So all I am saying is allow this to go forward. Allow us to find out
what the sentiment is here. Our good friend Luis Fortuno is not someone
who shows little respect for the Constitution.
Pass this bill.
Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
I just want to ask the gentleman from California a question: So,
basically, in listening to your argument, you are clearly stating that
this is a pro-statehood bill, aren't you?
Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. If the gentlewoman would yield,
No.
Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, I would like to
inquire how much time remains.
[[Page H3038]]
The CHAIR. The gentlewoman from New York has 7\1/2\ minutes
remaining. The gentleman from Puerto Rico has 6\1/4\ minutes remaining.
The gentleman from Washington State has 8\1/2\ minutes remaining.
Ms. VELAZQUEZ. I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. PIERLUISI. I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from the Northern
Mariana Islands.
Mr. SABLAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 2499.
As the newest member of the American family just 35 years ago, on a
plebiscite called an act of free political self-determination, we went
to the ballot and had one choice only--Commonwealth.
For us to say that Congress can give Puerto Rico the options it has
in H.R. 2499, because it appears as if it's only statehood, we do this
all the time, Mr. Chairman. We're not doing it now. We go to war. We
are trying to give people free will and freedom. Yet we tell them it is
freedom in association with the United States. It took Puerto Rico 100
years of being part of the United States. Only in the past 12 years has
this discussion started.
{time} 1500
It's about time. Let's put the question to the people of Puerto Rico.
Give them an option. They could choose statehood; they could choose to
remain a Commonwealth. Let's pass H.R. 2499. I urge my colleagues to
support it.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2
minutes to the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. King).
Mr. KING of Iowa. I thank the gentleman from Washington for yielding
and for leading on this issue.
Mr. Chairman, I want to just add to this discussion and deliberation
that what really happens here is that if this should pass today, and I
rise in opposition to H.R. 2499, Mr. Chairman, but it sets up a
momentum, it sets up a level of expectations, and the sequence of
events being the question that would go before Puerto Ricans and those
who were born in Puerto Rico that would live in any of the other 50
States presumably, do you want to stay the same or do you want to
change? And once that decision is made, then there is no going back.
The momentum then washes over the dam. And the next question that
comes back is, now you can't be what you were before. Now you have to
decide between being an independent country or a free association,
whatever that might be, or statehood. And when we get to this question
of statehood and I look at the standards that have been there in the
past, I disagree with the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young). I can go
up there and English is the language that is used in government and
business and everywhere you go.
Yes, every language you can imagine is spoken of in every State, but
the practice in Puerto Rico is Spanish, not English. Eighty-five
percent of Puerto Ricans will self-profess that they are not proficient
in English. They have very little understanding of English.
In fact, I will introduce into the Record the Latin American Herald
Tribune, dated April 26, where the Secretary of Education in Puerto
Rico, the Governor's Secretary, said, English is taught in Puerto Rico
as if it were a foreign language and 85 percent aren't proficient in
it.
I will also introduce into the Record a letter from U.S. English,
Incorporated. Among it is a statement I think that's very important to
consider here in this body, which says: ``No State has ever been
allowed to come into the Union when its core organs of government
operate in a foreign language, and Puerto Rico must not be an
exception.'' And, Mr. Chairman, it points out that Arizona, New Mexico,
and Oklahoma had those conditions as conditions coming into statehood.
I just would make this point, that I wouldn't rise here today and
take this position here today, since 1917 or even the last 50 years. If
the practice of education and government in Puerto Rico had been the
unifying common language, we would be unified as a people. Let's start
that path and have this discussion in a generation.
Congressman Doc Hastings,
Ranking Member, House Natural Resources Committee, Longworth
House Office Building, Washington, DC.
Dear Congressman Hastings: On behalf of 1.8 million members
of U.S. English, we oppose the current version of H.R. 2499,
the Puerto Rico Democracy Act. H.R. 2499 fails to address the
serious language questions pertaining to Puerto Rico's
status, and compounds this error by pretending to address
these issues. This vote will be featured prominently in the
legislative scorecard we distribute to our members.
As you are aware, Puerto Rico's current policies with
respect to language have never been allowed for any incoming
state.
While English is mandatory in Puerto Rico's public schools,
it is taught as a foreign language, and instruction rarely
exceeds one hour per day. Unsurprisingly, just 20 percent of
Puerto Rico's residents speak English fluently. California
has the lowest proficiency rate among the 50 states, and its
rate is 80 percent.
Puerto Rico's local courts and legislature operate entirely
in Spanish, with English translations available only upon
request.
No state has ever been allowed to come into the Union when
its core organs of government operate in a foreign language,
and Puerto Rico must not be an exception.
Yesterday, the Rules committee defeated amendments offered
by Rep. Paul Broun that would have brought Puerto Rico's
policies in line with the other 50 states as a condition for
statehood. Instead, the committee reported an ``alternative''
English amendment by Rep. Dan Burton.
The Burton amendment, while purportedly offering a Puerto
Rican state equal treatment, actually offers special
treatment by allowing statehood with these historically
unprecedented policies intact. Burton's insistence that
Puerto Rico will be subject to federal official language
policies is meaningless, since the United States has no
official language. Further, Burton's ``sense of Congress that
English be promoted'' has no legal force.
The Burton language is contrary to Congress' uniform
historical practice when the language of government of a
potential state was in genuine doubt. Congress required--not
``promoted''--English to be the language of instruction for
public schools in Arizona, New Mexico, and Oklahoma as a
condition for statehood.
I urge any member who cares about English's role in our
national unity to oppose this version of the legislation.
Sincerely,
Mauro E. Mujica,
Chairman of the Board, U.S. English, Inc.
____
[From the Latin American Herald Tribune, Apr. 26, 2010]
Puerto Rican Government Wants Bilingual Nation
San Juan.--The Puerto Rican government wants to establish
programs for teaching English to make the younger generations
bilingual on an island where 85 percent of the population
admits to having only a very basic idea of the language.
Education Secretary Odette Pineiro said Tuesday in an
interview with Efe that the department supports the
initiative of Puerto Rico's resident commissioner in
Washington, Pedro Pierluisi, to ask for more federal funding
for teaching English in the public schools of this U.S.
commonwealth.
``Spanish and English are the official languages of Puerto
Rico, that is established,'' Pineiro said, adding that the
point of the proposal is to give public school students on
the island the same opportunities as those who go to private
schools.
Pineiro also said that the measure will make sure that when
young people on the island finish their studies they will be
able to perform correctly both in Spanish and in English,
which she said was something Puerto Rican society was asking
for.
She was referring to an initiative announced by Pierluisi
to ask that Title III funds be quadrupled for Puerto Rico,
which would bring to $14 million per year the amount the
Caribbean island would get for that purpose.
Pineiro said that preceding administrations lost their
chance to access those funds by not presenting the
corresponding application the right way.
The secretary said that the measure ``will improve
employment opportunities'' for the Caribbean island's young
people, after commenting that ``English is taught in Puerto
Rico as if it were a foreign language.''
``The idea is to give the necessary resources to kids in
public schools so they have the same opportunities,'' she
said.
For her part, the director of the Linguistics Program at
the University of Puerto Rico, Yolanda Rivera, told Efe she
is in favor of free choice in learning languages.
Rivera said, nonetheless, that ``English is a foreign
language in Puerto Rico,'' and there are political criteria
for making that language more prevalent here as sought by the
administration of Gov. Luis Fortuno, whose party favors U.S.
statehood for the island.
``Deciding which language to teach is based on political
criteria,'' Rivera said, adding that if commercial interests
were the most important thing, Chinese would be the ideal
language given the heights the Asian nation has reached
internationally in that area.
The professor also said that she is concerned about
Pierluisi's announcement of the hypothetical arrival of U.S.
English teachers on the island.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 3
minutes to the distinguished Republican whip, Mr. Cantor.
[[Page H3039]]
Mr. CANTOR. I thank the gentleman from Washington for yielding.
Mr. Chairman, for 93 years individuals born in Puerto Rico have been
U.S. citizens, but Puerto Rico itself has been a Commonwealth. And as
neither State nor an independent political entity, it has, as Ronald
Reagan once said, an unnatural status. It is part of our country, but
not entirely. Separate from our country, but not really.
Ronald Reagan was motivated to support possible statehood for Puerto
Rico in part because our communist enemies were at the time exploiting
Puerto Rico's status to sow unrest in Latin America by calling for an
end to ``Yankee imperialism.'' While the Soviet Union may no longer be
with us, Hugo Chavez is attempting to sow the same unrest, calling for
an end to U.S. imperialism in Puerto Rico.
Reagan said back in 1980 that we must be ready to demonstrate that
``the American idea can work in Puerto Rico.'' Over the past 2 years,
my friend, Governor Luis Fortuno, has worked to do just that. The
Governor and others are actively working to increase economic
opportunity by reducing the burden the government places on the people,
introducing competition and choice to education, lowering taxes,
restoring law and order, and defending traditional values.
Listening to these achievements, I am reminded that the great
experiment begun by our Founding Fathers is not in its last days, but
instead is being constantly renewed as we work to expand what it means
to live in a land of opportunity.
Our best export has always been our ideas. And first and foremost
amongst those ideas is the promise that limited government based on the
consent of the governed that respects the inalienable rights granted by
God is the best hope for mankind on Earth. These ideas have also served
as a magnet drawing all those who wish for a better life to our shores.
The citizens of Puerto Rico share in this American inheritance. They
share in our values and in their belief in the American Dream. The
citizens of Puerto Rico deserve the opportunity to speak to their
aspirations for the future in a sanctioned plebiscite.
If I were drafting this bill, Mr. Chairman, I would draft it
differently. And while this legislation is far from perfect, I am
motivated at the end of the day to support it by the belief that
America's promise is not finite in terms of space or time.
Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from
Illinois (Mr. Gutierrez).
Mr. GUTIERREZ. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.
Look, let's take another look at it. Mr. Lungren came before us, and
on numerous occasions, what did he say? Allow Puerto Rico to become a
State. Just check his words. Before that it was Mr. Burton from
Indiana. In other words, they equate American citizenship with a
fundamental, inalienable right to statehood.
There's no one right, inalienable right, that the people of Puerto
Rico have. It's to their independence. And the Founding Fathers that we
like to talk so much about would agree with us here today. If Thomas
Jefferson were here today, he would say one thing: There is one and
only one inalienable right of the people of Puerto Rico, something that
could never be taken away from them, and that's to their independence.
And why do I bring this issue up today? I bring the issue up today so
that we can understand that Puerto Rico is not just 4 million American
citizens on an island; it is a culturally, it is a psychologically,
constituted geographically, linguistically constituted nation of
people, Puerto Ricans. Go to that nation of people today, and while
they may love and cherish America, which is actually a good thing if
you think about it today, a nation of people who love and cherish
America, they still are fundamentally Puerto Rican. Ask them.
Has anybody been to a Puerto Rican parade in New York? Go out there
with American flags on the day of a Puerto Rican parade. See how much
money you make at the Puerto Rican day parade in New York or Chicago.
No, it's an affirmation of who we are. Very different than the Italian
day parade, than the Irish parade, than the Polish parade, in which you
see many American flags.
Why is it that we continue to affirm this? Why is it that even those
proponents of statehood for Puerto Rico have not been able to banish
the Olympic team? They dare not. Why is it they have not been able to
banish the language of Spanish? They dare not. Because those are things
that are intrinsic to the people of Puerto Rico.
Look, let's stop kidding ourselves. Let's stop kidding ourselves.
This is an attempt to do one thing and one thing only. Everybody talks
about the American citizens and their right to statehood. What about
the American citizens, and I say the only inalienable right that they
have, to their independence? What about the 1.8 million pages that were
sent to Congressman Serrano on the backs of the FBI and intelligence
agency for those of us that fought for Puerto Rican independence? What
about those that have been jailed? What about those poets? What about
those great Puerto Rican patriots who believe and will continue to
believe in independence for Puerto Rico? That is a reality that we need
to deal with.
So when Mr. Cantor was speaking about the inalienable right, he was
speaking about the inalienable right that the Founding Fathers bestowed
upon those to be free from colonialism.
The current situation in Puerto Rico is deplorable. The current
status of Puerto Rico is a colonial status. And we should move forward
to eliminate that stain in our relationship with the people of Puerto
Rico. But they have just as much right to independence, they have just
as much right to independence as they do to statehood. And as a matter
of fact, they have asserted that right.
Let me end with this: We keep saying let them, congressionally
sanction. Ladies and gentlemen, they have come together on numerous
occasions, and on each and every occasion, they have said, We don't
want to be a State. They would like something different. Why are we
imposing?
And really, look, everybody talks about the Founding Fathers. You
know how the Founding Fathers did it? They had a Constitutional
Convention. They got together and they had delegates from different
States come together so they could have a Declaration of Independence,
so they could build a Constitution. You know what? Let not the Congress
of the United States say that this is democracy. Do you know what true
democracy is? This Congress saying to the people of Puerto Rico get
together in a constitutional convention, assemble yourselves, decide
among yourselves, and we the Congress of the United States will respect
that decision. We will not impose a process. We will not impose
definitions upon you.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my
time.
Mr. PIERLUISI. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Florida (Mr. Grayson).
Mr. GRAYSON. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the opportunity to speak on
this important matter. This legislation is about what is right and what
is fair.
Since 1898 residents of Puerto Rico have been deprived of full and
equal political representation. Though its residents are American
citizens, the island is not a State and its residents have no equal
voting representation in Congress. Given a choice, Puerto Ricans might
opt to change this situation. Some in Puerto Rico might opt for a
statehood for the island, some might opt for independence, and some
might opt for sovereign association. But Puerto Ricans have never been
invited by Congress to make that choice. They are American citizens,
but they are deprived of equal voting rights.
If Puerto Rico were a State, it would have six or seven
representatives in Congress instead of one who cannot vote on the floor
of the House. If Puerto Rico were a State, it would have two Senators
instead of none. If Puerto Rico were a State, the people there would
help to choose our President. Puerto Rico is, in fact, one of the
largest populations in the entire world that has no say in choosing the
leadership of its country, a democratic country. Now they cannot do
anything like that. A host of policy decisions are made in Puerto
Rico's name by us, by Congress and by the President, on behalf of
Puerto Rico's people without their full or equal input or consent, and
that is deeply, deeply unfair.
[[Page H3040]]
Whether Puerto Ricans decide in favor of statehood or not, there is
an existing inequality that needs to be addressed. The people of Puerto
Rico could have more representatives in Congress than they have today
with or without statehood.
While I do not represent Puerto Rico, there is a very large Puerto
Rican population in central Florida. But I am also here because people
on the island of Puerto Rico have the right to full and equal
representation. Under this legislation, voters will be asked by
Congress whether they wish to maintain Puerto Rico's present form. If
the majority of voters cast their ballots in favor of a different
political status, the Government of Puerto Rico will be authorized to
conduct a second vote among three options: independence, statehood, or
sovereignty in association with the United States.
Residents of Puerto Rico have laid down their lives in defense of
American democratic values for more than nine decades. In that time,
they have never been given a chance to express their views about their
political relationship with the United States by means of a fair,
neutral, and democratic process. This must change. Therefore, I support
this act.
{time} 1515
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2
minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gohmert).
Mr. GOHMERT. Mr. Chairman, having been elected in 2004 to come to
Congress, I got here and met someone else who was elected to come to
Congress at the same time named Luis Fortuno. The Fortunos were a
couple of the most wonderful, lovely people I have ever met, and it's a
real privilege to have gotten to know them. So my initial feeling is
that I would want to support whatever they supported, especially to
have a Republican governor in Puerto Rico. The things that he is doing
are wonderful. Cutting government, working to reduce spending in Puerto
Rico, those are the things that we need leaders to help with in
Washington.
But we are a people who came into being through a belief in self-
determination. And so on initially hearing that Puerto Rico would have
a vote that would allow them to decide whether they wanted to be part
of the United States as a State, my initial impression was this would
be a good thing. But on seeing that it has been divided into two votes
and finding that there are three choices in the second vote, I am very
concerned.
If Puerto Rico wants to be a State, then they should decide to do so
unequivocally and tell this body to do so unequivocally. It ought to be
one question, ``Do you want to be a State?'' ``Yes'' or ``no.'' And if
the answer is loud and clear we do, then that's what we should take up.
So regretfully, I will be voting ``no'' on this because I am concerned
this is not the way to decide a statehood's future. I will be voting
``no.''
Ms. VELAZQUEZ. I yield myself the balance of my time.
The CHAIR. The gentlewoman from New York is recognized for 3 minutes.
Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Chairman, there is a reason why two of the three
main political parties in Puerto Rico are opposed to this bill. They
have been shut out of the legislative process. That is the reason. Here
we are facing one of the largest deficits in the history of this
country because we have been paying for two wars where we are committed
to promote democracy, and yet in our own backyard we are denying 8
million Puerto Rican Americans the right to self-determination.
As I stated before and I state it again, this is shameful and it is a
disgrace. So let me just say that this bill is not ready for prime
time. Let's treat Puerto Ricans with the same respect as we did to
Alaskans, Hawaii, and other States. They decided by themselves what was
better for them. This bill doesn't do that. For all these reasons, I
ask my colleagues to vote ``no.''
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Chairman, as we conclude general debate, I want to make one point
very, very clear. And that point is that we in Congress on a bipartisan
basis welcomed the citizens of Puerto Rico to communicate to us their
wishes. But, Mr. Chairman, this is not the right process for that.
I recognize this is not a vote on statehood. I never alluded to that.
But, Mr. Chairman, we are setting, I think, a precedent where we are
asking a territory of the United States if they want statehood. Looking
back in the history, I found it pretty murky whether that even
happened. What happened generally, and certainly in a vast majority of
the 50 States that make up this great Union, is that they had a
plebiscite and they decided they wanted to join this country, and then
they asked the Congress to respond. We are doing this backwards.
There have been three votes in the history of this last century of
Puerto Ricans, and in every case, in every case they did not choose
statehood. So I don't know why we should be part of a process that from
my point of view tilts the playing field in favor of statehood when in
the past that hasn't been the case. The citizens of Puerto Rico right
now, as I made in my opening remarks, can have a plebiscite. They can
decide. They can decide by a statewide vote, they can have a
constitutional convention, as my good friend from Illinois pointed out.
There are a variety of ways for them to do that. We should allow them
to do that.
Now, it's difficult. It's a difficult process. We all know that.
Self-government is hard. But for goodness sakes, we shouldn't be party
to what I believe is a process that is cinched in one way.
So for that reason, Mr. Chairman, I am going to vote ``no'' on this
legislation, and I would urge my colleagues to do the same.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, I am honored to yield the balance of my
time to the people's representative from Puerto Rico, Mr. Pedro
Pierluisi.
Mr. PIERLUISI. It is time. It is time for this Congress to hear from
the people of Puerto Rico. A lot has been said about this process of
self-determination. And what is self-determination? It is to allow the
people of Puerto Rico to express their wishes on their political
destiny. H.R. 2499 does exactly that. The only possible options that
the people of Puerto Rico have concerning the subject matter are the
following: remaining as a territory, which is called a Commonwealth,
but the label does not change the status. The Commonwealth of
Pennsylvania is a Commonwealth, yet it is a State. Puerto Rico is a
territory. And there is a clause in the United States Constitution that
provides and has so been interpreted by the Supreme Court, the United
States Supreme Court, that this Congress has plenary powers over the
territories, including Puerto Rico. And we do not fail to exercise them
on a daily basis, for better or worse, to the people of Puerto Rico,
who do not have voting representation in this Congress, who do not vote
for the President, and who do not participate in Federal programs on an
equal basis with their fellow citizens in the States. That is one of
the choices. And this bill, this plebiscite, the plebiscite in H.R.
2499, provides for that. If the people want to remain under the current
status, they can, like they should be.
Now if the people of Puerto Rico say we no longer want to be a
territory of the United States, we should know that, all Members of
Congress. This bill then asks them their choice among the only three
options that are accepted under U.S. and international law: statehood,
independence, and there has been some talk about free association.
Let me tell you something. I agree with Congressman Serrano. Libre
asociacion is that term in Spanish. In Puerto Rico everybody knows what
libre asociacion is. In fact, there is a faction within one of our main
parties that advocates for that. And what is that? Simple; what
Micronesia, the Marshall Islands, Palau already have--an association
between Puerto Rico and the U.S. as sovereign nations that is not a
territory of the United States. That option is included. So all the
options are there. It is only fair to ask the people of Puerto Rico to
express themselves in a way that is not binding on this Congress.
We will always have, the Congress will always have the last word on
this topic, as it should be. So that's why I have put forth this bill
before this Congress on behalf of the people of Puerto Rico as the only
elected Representative
[[Page H3041]]
of the people of Puerto Rico, and I ask for your support. Vote for H.R.
2499.
Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Chair, I rise in strong support of H.R. 2499, the
Puerto Rico Democracy Act.
Puerto Rico is home to nearly 4 million Americans.
It has been a U.S. territory for 112 years and its residents have
been U.S. citizens since 1917.
Puerto Ricans have contributed much to the basic fabric of this
country in times of peace and war.
Its residents have served as high government officials and leaders
from all walks of life.
More than one million Puerto Ricans live in my home state of New
York, and according to the latest numbers, more than 60,000 live in my
congressional district.
I am, therefore, proud to call myself a cosponsor of the bipartisan
Puerto Rico Democracy Act.
I know that the question of the status of Puerto Rico has been
difficult for many years, but that is precisely why we must address it
today.
Under the current status, residents of Puerto Rico are bound by
federal law, but cannot vote for president and do not have voting
representation in Congress.
Since joining the American family over a century ago, the Island's
residents have never been given the opportunity to express their
views--in the context of a fair and orderly vote sponsored by
Congress--as to whether Puerto Rico should remain a U.S. territory or
should seek a non-territorial status.
H.R. 2499 allows the government of Puerto Rico to conduct plebiscites
to ask voters if they wish to maintain the current status or have a
different status.
I support this bill because it finally creates a fair process to
allow the people of Puerto Rico to decide their own future for
themselves.
Self-determination is a basic principle of the United States, and
Puerto Ricans deserve no less.
Finally, I would like to congratulate the sponsor of this bill, Mr.
Pierluisi, for his excellent work, and I appreciate the efforts of
members on both sides of the aisle who helped bring the Puerto Rico
Democracy Act to the floor today.
I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 2499.
Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas, Mr. Chair, I rise today as a cosponsor and
to speak in strong support of H.R. 2499, The Puerto Rico Democracy Act
of 2009, which establishes a just and fair way for Puerto Ricans to
decide their relationship with the United States.
Puerto Rico has been a U.S. territory for 111 years and its residents
have been U.S. citizens since 1917. Puerto Ricans have contributed
immeasurably to the life of this nation in times of peace and war and
have served as U.S. government officials, ambassadors, federal judges
and military officers.
The island is home to nearly 4 million Americans who are subject to
federal taxes as determined by law, pay income taxes on income from
outside the island, as well as other taxes such as Social Security and
Medicare.
Yet Puerto Ricans today still cannot vote for President of the United
States and do not have full voting representation in Congress. I
believe it is time for the people of Puerto Rico to decide their fate
after over 100 years of political uncertainty.
H.R. 2499 would identify Puerto Rico's political status options and
authorize a plebiscite process in which voters could express their
preferences among those options. This bill will finally give them the
opportunity to determine their relationship with the U.S. in the
context of a fair, neutral and democratic process sponsored by
Congress.
We must ensure that the views of all Puerto Ricans are heard on this
fundamental question without excluding or favoring any status option.
As a cosponsor of this bipartisan legislation, I support a fair and
impartial process of self-determination for the people of Puerto Rico.
Mr. CULBERSON. Mr. Chair, I share Thomas Jefferson's belief that
majority rule is ``the vita principle of republics,'' therefore I am
opposed to passage of H.R. 2499: and respectfully request that my name
be withdrawn as a co-sponsor. I was mistaken in co-sponsoring this bill
because it is not apparent from the language of the bill that it allows
Puerto Rico to decide its future by less than a majority vote. I have
also learned that current law enables Puerto Rico to hold an election
to determine their future at any time, so this law is redundant--and we
already have far too many redundant unnecessary laws on the books. For
these reasons I would ask that my name be withdrawn as a cosponsor of
this bill.
The CHAIR. All time for general debate has expired.
Pursuant to the rule, the amendment in the nature of a substitute
printed in the bill shall be considered as an original bill for the
purpose of amendment under the 5-minute rule and shall be considered
read.
The text of the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute is
as follows:
H.R. 2499
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Puerto Rico Democracy Act of
2009''.
SEC. 2. FEDERALLY SANCTIONED PROCESS FOR PUERTO RICO'S SELF-
DETERMINATION.
(a) First Plebiscite.--The Government of Puerto Rico is
authorized to conduct a plebiscite in Puerto Rico. The 2
options set forth on the ballot shall be preceded by the
following statement: ``Instructions: Mark one of the
following 2 options:
``(1) Puerto Rico should continue to have its present form
of political status. If you agree, mark here __.
``(2) Puerto Rico should have a different political status.
If you agree, mark here __.''.
(b) Procedure if Majority in First Plebiscite Favors Option
1.--If a majority of the ballots in the plebiscite are cast
in favor of Option 1, the Government of Puerto Rico is
authorized to conduct additional plebiscites under subsection
(a) at intervals of every 8 years from the date that the
results of the prior plebiscite are certified under section
3(d).
(c) Procedure if Majority in First Plebiscite Favors Option
2.--If a majority of the ballots in a plebiscite conducted
pursuant to subsection (a) or (b) are cast in favor of Option
2, the Government of Puerto Rico is authorized to conduct a
plebiscite on the following 3 options:
(1) Independence: Puerto Rico should become fully
independent from the United States. If you agree, mark here
__.
(2) Sovereignty in Association with the United States:
Puerto Rico and the United States should form a political
association between sovereign nations that will not be
subject to the Territorial Clause of the United States
Constitution. If you agree, mark here __.
(3) Statehood: Puerto Rico should be admitted as a State of
the Union. If you agree, mark here __.
SEC. 3. APPLICABLE LAWS AND OTHER REQUIREMENTS.
(a) Applicable Laws.--All Federal laws applicable to the
election of the Resident Commissioner shall, as appropriate
and consistent with this Act, also apply to any plebiscites
held pursuant to this Act. Any reference in such Federal laws
to elections shall be considered, as appropriate, to be a
reference to the plebiscites, unless it would frustrate the
purposes of this Act.
(b) Rules and Regulations.--The Puerto Rico State Elections
Commission shall issue all rules and regulations necessary to
carry out the plebiscites under this Act.
(c) Eligibility To Vote.--Each of the following shall be
eligible to vote in any plebiscite held under this Act:
(1) All eligible voters under the electoral laws in effect
in Puerto Rico at the time the plebiscite is held.
(2) All United States citizens born in Puerto Rico who
comply, to the satisfaction of the Puerto Rico State
Elections Commission, with all Commission requirements (other
than the residency requirement) applicable to eligibility to
vote in a general election in Puerto Rico. Persons eligible
to vote under this subsection shall, upon timely request
submitted to the Commission in compliance with any terms
imposed by the Electoral Law of Puerto Rico, be entitled to
receive an absentee ballot for the plebiscite.
(d) Certification of Plebiscite Results.--The Puerto Rico
State Elections Commission shall certify the results of any
plebiscite held under this Act to the President of the United
States and to the Members of the Senate and House of
Representatives of the United States.
(e) English Ballots.--The Puerto Rico State Elections
Commission shall ensure that all ballots used for any
plebiscite held under this Act include the full content of
the ballot printed in English.
(f) Plebiscite Costs.--All costs associated with any
plebiscite held under this Act (including the printing,
distribution, transportation, collection, and counting of all
ballots) shall be paid for by the Commonwealth of Puerto
Rico.
The CHAIR. No amendment to the committee amendment is in order except
those printed in House Report 111-468. Each amendment may be offered
only in the order printed in the report, by a Member designated in the
report, shall be considered 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.
Amendment No. 1 Offered by Ms. Foxx
The CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 1 printed in
House Report 111-468.
Ms. FOXX. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment No. 1 offered by Ms. Foxx:
Page 4, line 5, strike ``3'' and insert ``4''.
Page 4, after line 16, insert the following:
(4) Commonwealth: Puerto Rico should continue to have its
present form of political status. If you agree, mark here
___.
The CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 1305, the gentlewoman from
[[Page H3042]]
North Carolina (Ms. Foxx) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from North Carolina.
Ms. FOXX. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentlelady from the Virgin
Islands for the purposes of a unanimous consent request.
(Mrs. CHRISTENSEN asked and was given permission to revise and extend
her remarks.)
Mrs. CHRISTENSEN. I thank my colleague from North Carolina for
yielding.
Mr. Chair, I rise in support of this amendment because it corrects
the chief concern I have had about this bill--that Commonwealth is not
given fair treatment in the base bill, H.R. 2499.
A cleaner process would have allowed all of the possible options to
be on the ballot in one vote, with Commonwealth included.
In the first vote where one is asked to choose the status quo or
change, first of all the deck is stacked against commonwealth, by those
who support statehood, independence or free association.
I have reason to believe that most Puerto Ricans want Commonwealth
with new enhancements, which is not the status quo. Therefore someone
even voting for change in the first ballot might still have
Commonwealth as their preference. But they would have no opportunity to
vote for it. This is grossly unfair to what I think is the majority of
the population.
H.R. 2499 is slanted toward statehood. For every option to have a
level playing field Commonwealth must be added in the second vote.
I urge my colleagues to support the Foxx amendment.
Ms. FOXX. Mr. Chairman, I would like to yield 15 seconds to the
gentlelady from New York (Ms. Velazquez).
Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment.
Ms. FOXX. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
After being engaged in the spirited debate surrounding this bill, I
am pleased to report that both supporters and opponents of the
underlying bill, regardless of partisanship, can support the amendment
I am offering. It's my belief that Congress has no business considering
this bill at this time.
Puerto Ricans have voted on statehood three times without
congressional action. Although congressional action is not needed,
statehood advocates have defined this bill as necessary to providing a
``congressionally sanctioned'' vote process for Puerto Rico to
determine its political status. However, if we are going to do this, we
need to pass a bill that ensures fair consideration of all points of
view.
Although the bill is being touted as one to allow Puerto Ricans the
opportunity to exercise political self-determination, as it's currently
written it denies commonwealth status quo supporters freedom to vote
for their preferred option in the second stage of the plebiscite.
In the first stage of the plebiscite, Puerto Ricans are given two
choices: the status quo or change. It's easy to see how anyone, even
Commonwealth status quo supporters, would support some sort of change
in their political processes. However, consensus on this question would
move to a second stage, where Puerto Ricans choose only from three
options: statehood, independence, or sovereignty in association with
the United States. These three options deny supporters of continuing
the Commonwealth status quo the freedom to vote for their preferred
political status. Whether they support statehood, independence, or the
Commonwealth status quo, Puerto Ricans' views should be given equal and
fair consideration.
My amendment very simply adds a fourth option: ``Commonwealth: Puerto
Rico should continue to have its present form of political status to
the available voting options for the second stage of the plebiscite.''
{time} 1530
This amendment takes nothing from the bill, but adds an option to
reflect the views held by a significant portion of Puerto Ricans who
should not be disenfranchised by this bill. This is an amendment
Members of all persuasions can support. Opponents of the bill can
remain opposed, but take comfort in knowing the bill was made a little
better. Supporters, or even cosponsors, can take comfort in knowing
their bill was made even better.
With that, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
The CHAIR. The gentleman from West Virginia is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, this bill was carefully crafted to give the
people of Puerto Rico the opportunity to inform Congress for the first
time ever whether they want to continue with their current temporary
status, Commonwealth, or move to a permanent status: statehood,
independence, or free association. This amendment would subvert this
effort by including a choice to continue the island's present status
among the options provided for in the bill's second plebiscite.
Adoption of this amendment will contradict the bill's intent and make
it less likely that the people of Puerto Rico would seek a permanent
nonterritorial status.
Debate over Puerto Rico's status continues to be the central issue in
politics on the island. The fairest and simplest way, we believe, to
address this concern is to let Puerto Ricans choose to either retain
their present status, as the underlying bill does; or, if they don't
want to, allow them to elect to become a state, an independent country,
or a free nation with association with the U.S. Allowing the choice of
retaining their current status after it was rejected in the first
plebiscite, as this amendment would do, only serves to confuse the
process and would likely cause an inconclusive outcome.
I, therefore, urge defeat of the amendment and reserve the balance of
my time.
Ms. FOXX. Mr. Chairman, my colleague says this bill has been
carefully crafted. Yes, it's been carefully crafted to keep the people
who want the present status from being a choice. That is wrong. That
should not be the way this bill is done. If they want to keep the
present status, they should be able to vote for it.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, I believe I have the right to close, and I
reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. FOXX. Could I inquire, Mr. Chairman, as to how much time I have
left.
The CHAIR. The gentlewoman from North Carolina has 2\1/2\ minutes
remaining.
Ms. FOXX. Mr. Chairman, I think this bill as it is crafted is not the
right way to go for the people of Puerto Rico. I don't have a dog in
this fight. I have not taken a position on whether they should have
statehood or not have statehood, but I don't like the Congress of the
United States being used to create a situation that disenfranchises
people. And that's what's happening.
We are wasting our time doing this. We don't need to do it. The
people of Puerto Rico can vote on this without our doing this. We
should be dealing with what is important to the American people--jobs
and other issues. This is not necessary for us to do.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to my colleague, the gentleman from
Utah (Mr. Chaffetz).
Mr. CHAFFETZ. Mr. Chairman, I'd just encourage my colleagues to
listen to the argument on the other side. They don't want the status
quo to be one of the options. This is supposed to be a bill about self-
determination, yet it's this Congress that's going to force its will to
determine what is even going to be on the ballot. This is fundamentally
wrong. I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this amendment.
Mr. RAHALL. I continue to reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. FOXX. Mr. Chairman, can I inquire again as to how much time is
left on my side.
The CHAIR. The gentlewoman has 1\1/2\ minutes remaining.
Ms. FOXX. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/4\ minutes to the gentlewoman
from New York (Ms. Velazquez).
Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Chairman, this amendment is a commendable effort
to try and improve a deeply flawed piece of legislation, and I really
thank the gentlewoman for being so committed to providing for a process
of self-determination for the people of Puerto Rico. Elections are only
democratic if the people are not blocked from choosing between all the
options potentially available to them. One of the many shortcomings of
this bill is that under the scheme it establishes, the second ballot
will not include commonwealth as an option for voters.
[[Page H3043]]
Again, because what they want is for the people of Puerto Rico to vote
for statehood instead of providing a fair, democratic process. That is
undemocratic. It is un-American. That defies imagination. That is
essentially telling the people of Puerto Rico that the system of
government under which they currently live is not even an option for
them to consider.
This approach ignores the fact that the Commonwealth is what the
majority of the people of Puerto Rico have selected in the last three
previous popular votes. The amendment offered by the gentlelady will
take a good first step forward, and I am wholeheartedly in support of
that amendment.
Ms. FOXX. Mr. Chairman, again, I want to say that I think the
Congress of the United States is being used unfairly in this process.
We do not need to be doing this. What the proponents of statehood are
doing is rigging the process in favor of a vote for statehood and
they're using the Congress of the United States to establish the
process for them. We don't need to be passing this bill. The people of
Puerto Rico can vote without this bill.
Mr. RAHALL. Before I yield to the gentleman from Puerto Rico to close
on our side, let me just address one issue the gentlelady from North
Carolina raised about us having other issues that she alluded to which
are more important than this issue to address in Congress, like jobs,
the economy, et cetera; therefore, why are we considering this
legislation. That may be true.
Certainly, jobs and the economy are very important to every one of
our districts. But I think it should be worth pointing out here that
it's most unfortunate that we can't get the type of bipartisan
support--as much bipartisan support from the other side on those issues
of jobs and the economy as we do on this particular piece of
legislation.
I would yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Puerto
Rico (Mr. Pierluisi).
Mr. PIERLUISI. I rise in opposition to this amendment. The reason is
rather straightforward. In a democracy, the majority rules. The
threshold question, the first question that H.R. 2499 poses, is
precisely to determine whether the majority of the people residing in
Puerto Rico, the American citizens residing in Puerto Rico, want to
remain as a territory. Once the majority speaks, we will abide by that.
If the majority says they want change, they do not want to continue
being a territory, called a commonwealth as it is, then it is only fair
to ask a second question. Choose among the only available alternatives.
The results will speak for themselves.
Some here seem to be convinced that the result will be that the
people of Puerto Rico will choose statehood. It remains to be seen. We
don't know the percentage. We don't know what other percentages we will
have on the first vote, on the second vote. Let's allow the people of
Puerto Rico to express themselves. It is only fair. And the Congress
will have the last word.
The CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentlewoman from North Carolina (Ms. Foxx).
The question was taken; and the Chair announced that the ayes
appeared to have it.
Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.
The CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings on
the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from North Carolina will be
postponed.
Amendment No. 2 Offered by Mr. Gutierrez
The CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 2 printed in
House Report 111-468.
Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Chairman, I rise to offer my amendment.
The CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment No. 2 offered by Mr. Gutierrez:
On page 4, line 5, strike ``on the following 3 options:''
and insert ``on the following 4 options:''.
On page 4, after line 16, insert the following:
``(4) None of the Above. If you agree, mark here ___.''.
The CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 1305, the gentleman from
Illinois (Mr. Gutierrez) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Illinois.
Mr. GUTIERREZ. Well, here we go again. They say this is a bill. The
chairman of Natural Resources says this is a bill to make sure that the
people of Puerto Rico are able to define their future and do it in a
free, objective manner. Really? Well, the last time they had a
plebiscite in Puerto Rico, guess which option won? None of the above.
Guess which option they exclude? The winning option in the last
plebiscite. So who's kidding who in this place?
They have this thing rigged from the beginning to the end. If not, if
they were so faithful to the wishes, to the will, to the passion of the
self-determination of the people of Puerto Rico, why aren't they
including the very option that won? They say they respect the decision
of American citizens on the island of Puerto Rico and we should give
them an opportunity to express themselves freely in a referendum. Guess
what? They did. And yet we reject the very option that they chose for
themselves.
What kind of democracy is that? I don't know what kind of democracy
that is in other States, but I know how I feel about it. None-of-the-
above, for me, offers this wonderful opportunity to the people of
Puerto Rico.
Just so that we understand, because everybody says things, I want to
read this. This is what the Democrats say about my amendment--my own
party: you mislead voters into thinking there is a legally better
alternative to Puerto Rico's political status other than an independent
state or a sovereignty. Me? Me? I'm misleading people? What is the last
option that won, adopted by the government of Puerto Rico, and voted on
in Puerto Rico?
Announcement by the Chair
The CHAIR. The Chair notes a disturbance in the gallery in
contravention of the law and rules of the House.
The Sergeant at Arms will remove those persons responsible for the
disturbance and restore order to the gallery.
Mr. GUTIERREZ. I know it's hard, but the truth is the truth.
Announcement by the Chair
The CHAIR. The Chair will remind all persons in the gallery that they
are here as guests of the House and that any manifestation of approval
or disapproval of proceedings or other audible conversation is in
violation of the rules of the House.
Mr. GUTIERREZ. The truth is that the last time one of the
alternatives was exactly what I offer. If you really believe and you
really trust and you really respect the judgment of the people of
Puerto Rico, then include it as they included it when they were able to
do it. If you say you're not imposing your will on them, then give them
the option when they had the ability to choose the different options.
I'm not asking for anything else other than that because I think that
it is important and fundamental that we check into the history books.
Notice, no one, no one will contradict the fact that ``none of the
above'' was the one that won, that that was one of the offers. And then
they say that I mislead. I don't mislead anybody. The fact is, people
say I'm doing this and that. That's okay. People like me, who defend
the sovereign rights of the people of Puerto Rico, you know what
happens to them in Puerto Rico? They get files on them by the
Government of Puerto Rico. They get jailed. They are made sure they
lose their jobs. They get sanctioned.
Everybody always says, Oh, why aren't there more people that believe
in Puerto Rican independence? There's a lot of people that believe in
Puerto Rican independence. More of them don't show themselves because
when they do, you know what happens? Those that support other
alternatives lock them up. Let me tell you something. Careful.
{time} 1545
Mr. RAHALL. I rise in opposition to the amendment, Mr. Chairman.
The CHAIR. The gentleman from West Virginia is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, as was the case with the Foxx amendment,
this amendment would also add a fourth option to the second ballot in
the two-stage plebiscite process. I urge defeat of this amendment as
well,
[[Page H3044]]
largely along the same lines as the earlier amendment.
``None of the above'' is the ultimate and unnecessary escape clause.
The proposal for its inclusion on the ballot suggests that there exists
some other option for permanently resolving Puerto Rico's status in a
manner compatible with the U.S. Constitution beyond the three options
of independence, sovereignty in association with the United States, or
statehood. Such a belief defies the conclusions of the international
community, the courts, and the executive branch.
There is no other viable option than the three to be presented on the
second ballot as provided for in the underlying bill. Thus, this ``none
of the above'' amendment is not about progress, but rather
inconclusiveness. Self-determination for the people of Puerto Rico
should no longer be thwarted by inconclusiveness nor held captive to
any pursuit for a status change not deemed viable under the U.S.
Constitution or international law.
I urge defeat of the amendment.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. GUTIERREZ. How much time do I have, Mr. Chairman?
The CHAIR. The gentleman from Illinois has 2 minutes remaining.
Mr. GUTIERREZ. I thank the Chair.
I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Utah.
Mr. CHAFFETZ. I thank the gentleman.
Mr. Chair and my colleagues, this amendment should pass unanimously.
I don't care where you are on this issue. If you fundamentally believe
that the people of Puerto Rico should be given a voice, then the voice
that they should be able to allow, one of the boxes they should be
allowed to check is ``none of the above.'' Last time, 50.3 percent of
the residents there voted in favor of this. It is not right for us to
deny them the opportunity to check the box that says, ``none of the
above.'' This should pass unanimously.
I urge all of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to vote for
this.
Mr. RAHALL. I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. GUTIERREZ. I yield myself 1 additional minute, Mr. Chair.
I just want to make this abundantly clear to everyone, and I know
that Mr. Pierluisi, the Resident Commissioner of Puerto Rico who used
to be the attorney general in Puerto Rico, understands this to be true.
And if not, I would like him to step up and just say, Luis, you've got
it wrong. Please tell me that.
This is what happened in 1998: ``None of the above'' was the option
included in the 1998 plebiscite by the very sponsor, by the very party
that the proponent of the legislation that comes before us today, Mr.
Pierluisi's party. They controlled the Governorship. They controlled
the House. They controlled the Senate. They set up the parameters, and
they included it. Yesterday they come and say to me that I am being
misleading about what is going on. And more than that, it's the option
that won.
I also say fundamentally that one of the reasons I thought it was a
good option was because I thought that it wasn't fair the way it was
designed and the way it was construed. So I said, You know, I don't
like the construction, so you should always give the people--especially
people seeking self-determination--the option to say to us, the
Congress, We didn't like the way you designed it, so we reject your
proposal.
So let me use the last 30 seconds with this: I want you to look at
this bill, and you are going to find a section that says that over 1
million Puerto Ricans born on the island of Puerto Rico that live in
the United States--not in Puerto Rico--that live in the United States
are guaranteed a ballot. What does that say to you?
There is a reason they speak Spanish, ladies and gentlemen. There's a
reason they love the Puerto Rican flag. There's a reason they go to the
Puerto Rican Day--there's a reason. It's okay. They have a passion for
their culture, for their language, for who they are and their identity.
And it is affirmed by the very proponent of this legislation, who
understands that they are nationals--not of Puerto Rico, which you do
not represent. But you are allowing them to participate in this process
because you recognize they have an inherent right to participate in the
future of Puerto Rico.
Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the
people's representative from Puerto Rico (Mr. Pierluisi).
The CHAIR. The gentleman from Puerto Rico is recognized for 4
minutes.
Mr. PIERLUISI. I rise in opposition to this amendment, and I rise in
opposition because some of my colleagues here have been talking about
one term, ``free association,'' being an ambiguous term. Well, there
cannot be anything more ambiguous than ``none of the above'' when you
know that all the options that are available are the four options that
we have been talking about.
The first option is for Puerto Rico to continue being a territory,
and we all know what a territory is. Our Constitution provides for
such. Puerto Rico is an unincorporated territory. That is an option.
And there are only three other possible options as a matter of settled
U.S. law and international law: independence, statehood, and free
association. It serves no purpose, no real purpose to include a ``none
of the above'' option when those are the options that we all know exist
for the people of Puerto Rico.
If we want to effectuate self-determination, if we want to facilitate
self-determination, if we want to give a voice to Puerto Rico, to the
people of Puerto Rico, with a meaningful purpose, we cannot include a
``none of the above'' option. That was, indeed, the result of the last
plebiscite that was done in Puerto Rico, which did not follow the bill
that this House approved or the Senate failed to act upon. It added
this ``none of the above'' option, and what happened is, to this day,
nobody can understand what that means. It served no purpose. That's why
I rise in opposition to this amendment.
The CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman
from Illinois (Mr. Gutierrez).
The question was taken; and the Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.
The CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings on
the amendment offered by the gentleman from Illinois will be postponed.
Amendment No. 3 Offered by Mr. Gutierrez
The CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 3 printed in
House Report 111-468.
Mr. GUTIERREZ. I have an amendment at the desk.
The CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment No. 3 offered by Mr. Gutierrez:
In the header of section 3(e), strike ``English Ballots''
and insert ``Language of Ballots''.
In section 3(e), strike ``printed in English'' and insert
``printed in Spanish. Upon request by an eligible voter, the
Puerto Rico State Elections Commission shall provide said
eligible voter with a ballot printed in English''.
The CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 1305, the gentleman from
Illinois (Mr. Gutierrez) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Illinois.
Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Chair, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlelady
from New York, Congresswoman Velazquez.
Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Chairman, this is a straightforward amendment, and
it is very important that Congress needs to be certain that the people
of Puerto Rico understand what is at stake and the options before them.
This amendment will make sure that the ballots for these processes are
available in both Spanish and English. Through this amendment, Puerto
Rico's overwhelmingly Spanish-speaking population will be able to
understand the ballot and exercise their vote. Those who reside on the
island but are not fluent in Spanish will still have the opportunity to
cast their ballot. They simply need to request one in English.
Mr. Chairman, this is a simple amendment, and it will provide for
everyone to understand such an important process that is going to have
such an incredible impact on the many people who live in Puerto Rico
and those who do not live in Puerto Rico. So I urge its adoption.
Mr. GUTIERREZ. I reserve the balance of my time.
[[Page H3045]]
Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
The CHAIR. The gentleman from West Virginia is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, the pending amendment would strike the
requirement from the bill that a ballot include the full content of the
ballot printed in English. Instead, the amendment requires ballots to
be printed in Spanish. An English ballot could be obtained only by the
request of a voter.
The underlying bill strikes the right balance. We did address this
issue during our full committee consideration of this legislation, and
the underlying bill gives rise to the printing of a unified ballot. The
amendment before us undoes that balance that we struck in the full
committee in consideration of this issue, and it puts the onus on an
English-proficient or otherwise English ballot-preferring voter to
request such a ballot.
In my opinion, this would add tremendously to the administrative
processing of the ballots; it would complicate the process, and it
would add cost. It would be a tremendous cost addition to the process
as well, and I would, therefore, urge the defeat of the amendment.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Utah.
Mr. CHAFFETZ. Mr. Chair, I rise in support of this amendment. I
believe that English should be the official language of the United
States of America, but that's a different issue. Let's be realistic.
The people in Puerto Rico predominantly speak Spanish. Let's provide a
ballot to them in Spanish so that they can know what they're voting
for. And the amendment provides that if anybody wants an English
ballot, they can get an English ballot. I think that's fair. I think
that's reasonable. It just allows the people of Puerto Rico to know
what they're voting on. I think that's a simple request.
And there is no additional cost to the people of the United States of
America, because I was able to pass an amendment in the committee that
said that there will be no cost to the United States taxpayers here in
the continental United States.
So again, I think it's reasonable. I rise in support of this and urge
its support.
Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. GUTIERREZ. I yield myself 1\1/2\ minutes of my time.
I thank Mr. Chaffetz and I thank the gentlelady from New York for
their comments.
Why do I propose this? Because we're getting hoodwinked again. That's
all that's happening here. You know what they're going to do? I'm
telling you, this is just like those derivatives that they've got at
Goldman Sachs. You don't know what's in it. Look into it, because it's
going to blow up on you later on.
Let me tell you why. Here's what it says on page 5. It says,
``English ballots--the Puerto Rico State Elections Commission shall
ensure that all ballots used for any plebiscite held under this act
include the full content of the ballot printed in English.'' That's all
it says.
Now, you know why they do that; to give you the misunderstanding,
right, the false sense of confidence that people are actually going to
go, and there's going to be a campaign, and it's going to be conducted
in English, and the people can go and take an English ballot. The fact
is that the ballots in Puerto Rico are printed in Spanish. The fact
is--okay, let me give you another one.
There are, like, four big newspapers--well, there were four, but the
one in English went bankrupt. The ones that thrive are the ones in
Spanish. Did you ever turn the TV on in Puerto Rico? Go down there.
There are, like, three or four really Puerto Rican stations. As a
matter of fact, public TV in Puerto Rico is in Spanish. The news is in
Spanish, and we help provide some of the funding through our
contributions--not the Congress of the United States necessarily.
The fact is that I am here to affirm, to affirm, and I hope that this
Congress recognizes that the people of Puerto Rico are a nation. They
have a language. We should respect that language, and that language is
Spanish. And as we move forward, the ballots, in order for them to
understand this process, should be in Spanish.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. GUTIERREZ. How many more speakers does the gentleman have
remaining?
Mr. RAHALL. I just have one concluding speaker.
Mr. GUTIERREZ. Well, it's very clear that every time we have an
amendment, they want to, like, finish it up. But that's okay. It's been
unfair from the very beginning, so what's a little more unfairness.
The fact is, I was a schoolteacher there. I was an elementary
schoolteacher for 2 years in Puerto Rico. Do you know how much time the
children in the public school system--which we support, taxpayers of
the United States support. Do you know how much time during the day
they speak in English? One class out of six. You know how I know? I
spent 50 minutes a day teaching them English for almost 2 years. And
you know what, the students used to walk in, and they used to say,
``Oh, Mr. Ingles.'' It was like the math class. It was like the biology
class. It was like the class they didn't want to take.
But you know something, that doesn't mean that they necessarily don't
love this country. It's just that they affirm who they are, and we
should respect that. They're Puerto Ricans, a colony of Spain, and have
Spanish as their predominant language. Let's respect that cultural
linguistic integrity in Puerto Rico.
I yield back the balance of my time.
{time} 1600
Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the
people's representative from Puerto Rico (Mr. Pierluisi).
Mr. PIERLUISI. Mr. Chairman, I have heard here, and it is
unfortunate, some colleagues talk about this being rigged, using terms
of that nature. And I can take it because I know that this is a fair
bill.
Now I just heard that somehow we are opposing this amendment because
of the way that this bill is drafted. Let me say for the record of this
House that the language that provides for having the ballots in both
Spanish and English was offered in committee, in the Committee of
Natural Resources at the markup by Mr. Henry Brown from South Carolina
who belongs to the Republican Party. And we voted on it.
The reason I am opposing this amendment is it is totally unnecessary.
As a matter of local law in Puerto Rico, we need to provide the ballots
in both English and Spanish, and that is what we are doing. We are just
being fair. This amendment requires as an alternative that now we need
to print separate ballots in English and force those who feel more
comfortable with the English language to request them. It is not
necessary. We oppose it. I oppose it. And that's all I'll say. I
needn't say anymore.
The CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman
from Illinois (Mr. Gutierrez).
The question was taken; and the Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.
The CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings on
the amendment offered by the gentleman from Illinois will be postponed.
Amendment No. 4 Offered by Mr. Burton of Indiana
The CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 4 printed in
House Report 111-468.
Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Young and I have an
amendment at the desk.
The CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment No. 4 offered by Mr. Burton of Indiana:
Amend section 3(e) to read as follows:
(e) English Language Requirements.--The Puerto Rico State
Elections Commission shall--
(1) ensure that all ballots used for any plebiscite held
under this Act include the full content of the ballot printed
in English;
(2) inform persons voting in any plebiscite held under this
Act that, if Puerto Rico retains its current political status
or is admitted as a State of the United States, the official
language requirements of the Federal Government shall apply
to Puerto Rico in
[[Page H3046]]
the same manner and to the same extent as throughout the
United States; and
(3) inform persons voting in any plebiscite held under this
Act that, if Puerto Rico retains its current political status
or is admitted as a State of the United States, it is the
Sense of Congress that it is in the best interest of the
United States for the teaching of English to be promoted in
Puerto Rico as the language of opportunity and empowerment in
the United States in order to enable students in public
schools to achieve English language proficiency.
The CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 1305, the gentleman from
Indiana (Mr. Burton) and a Member opposed will each control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Indiana.
Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I
may consume.
This is an amendment I think that everybody will embrace, at least I
hope so, because it clarifies what was just discussed. I will read it
to you real quickly. It says this amendment would retain the
requirement that all ballots used for authorized plebiscites include
the full content of the ballot printed in English as well as Spanish.
It would also require the Puerto Rico State Elections Commission to
inform voters in all authorized plebiscites that if Puerto Rico retains
its current status or is admitted as a State that: (1) any official
language requirements of the Federal Government shall apply to Puerto
Rico to the same extent as throughout the United States; and (2) it is
the sense of Congress that the teaching of English be promoted, not
demanded or anything, but be promoted in Puerto Rico in order for
English-language proficiency to be achieved.
So we are talking about making sure that everybody who votes,
everybody who is involved in any kind of an official thing like a
plebiscite, that they will see it in both English and Spanish. We are
also pushing to promote English more than it has been in the past. I
think this is an amendment that everybody should agree with.
I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Alaska (Mr.
Young).
Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I strongly support this amendment.
This is the same amendment we had 12 years ago. It does promote Spanish
and it does promote English. This is nothing new. Right now in my State
we are printing our ballots in my State in different languages within
the State. This is an amendment everybody should accept, except if you
are just adamantly opposed to the legislation, as some people are.
I have spent some time in Puerto Rico, not as much time as some
others, but I find an awful lot of Puerto Ricans who do use English. I
think that is a blessing. I am one who thinks everybody should speak
two or three languages if they can. This amendment is the right way to
go, and all of the plebiscites will be in both languages, not one
language, so those who speak English and Spanish and those who speak
Spanish and English, both of them have a right to read and understand
what they are voting on. It is the right bill. It is the right
amendment. Let's vote on both things.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim the time in
opposition to the amendment.
The CHAIR. The gentleman from Washington is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I want to say that this
amendment is unnecessary, and really it masquerades a whole debate on
English, and let me explain why. This amendment has essentially three
components, and I will paraphrase what those components are. They talk
about all ballots used in the plebiscite must be in English, number
one. Number two, prospective voters are informed that the official
language requirements of the Federal Government shall apply to Puerto
Rico. And number three, it has a sense of Congress that it is in the
best interest to promote English.
Now let me address each of those issues but let me suggest that I
believe this amendment is offered to only deny a straight up-or-down
vote on the issue of English as the official language.
First of all, the language that my good friend from Indiana read in
support of this amendment is already in the bill. It is on page 5. It
says that the plebiscite will be carried out in English. So we don't
need that because it is already in the bill.
The second provision is really meaningless. That is the one that
talks about Federal language requirements. We know there is no Federal
requirement in this country as to English, even though 30 States have
adopted that. There is no official one from the United States. There
should be, but there isn't.
Finally, I will concede at least a little point. The sense of
Congress language really has no statutory effect, but I will concede
this: It is at least timely. Why do I say that, because just 3 days ago
the Secretary of Education in Puerto Rico said: ``English is taught in
Puerto Rico as if it were a foreign language.''
In the 2005 Census, 85 percent of Puerto Ricans said they had very
little knowledge of English. As a practical matter, in the Commonwealth
legislature, and in its courts and classes in public schools, Spanish
is the primary language. So there is nothing in this amendment that
will change that. What should have happened and didn't happen is the
Rules Committee denied a straight up-or-down vote on English as
official language. That was embodied in Mr. Broun of Georgia's
amendment. But unfortunately we were denied the opportunity because
this is a structured rule to at least have a debate on that. If the
intent of the Rules Committee is to say this is the one we should have,
I totally disagree with that. So for that reason, I urge my colleagues
to vote ``no'' on the amendment.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. BURTON of Indiana. I think the amendment speaks for itself. I
think the amendment, Mr. Chairman, says very clearly that we want to
make sure that everyone who casts a ballot in an election or on a
plebiscite has before them the ability to understand what the ballot is
about and be able to cast it intelligently. This is done in all kinds
of States. As a matter of fact, many States have as many as 11
different languages, which is really out of control, on one ballot. To
say you can't have two on this ballot in Puerto Rico so they can cast
their ballot intelligently really doesn't make much sense.
I am a very strong advocate for making sure that everyone in this
country speaks English, and I understand what my colleague just said,
but in this particular case we are talking about a plebiscite that is
going to be advisory for the Congress of the United States. This is
just to help this process along and to make sure that it is understood
by everybody.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Gutierrez).
Mr. GUTIERREZ. I am happy the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton)
brought this amendment up. I think it should be soundly defeated, but I
am happy he brought it because it just demonstrates the imperialist
nature. Here we are in the empire, the Congress of the United States,
plenary powers over Puerto Rico, dictating what language they have to
use.
You know what, it's amazing, but I'm not surprised, Mr. Burton,
because I understand the people of Indiana are still a little angry at
the people of Puerto Rico when they arrested Bobby Knight. Bobby Knight
got arrested in Puerto Rico. I think this is an important story to tell
you. He got arrested in Puerto Rico. There were Pan American games, and
the basketball team from the United States was competing against the
basketball team from Cuba, and Bobby Knight went into a rage because
all of the fans in the stadium in Puerto Rico, all American citizens,
were clapping and cheering for the Cuban team and not the American
team. So he said to himself: What's wrong with these people? And he
threw a chair, as he likes to do, and he got arrested. There is an
arrest warrant, and I don't know, maybe Mr. Pierluisi can tell us if
the arrest warrant is still valid and out there since he was the
attorney general. It just tells you they're a nation, they're a people,
and they affirm who they are in every instance.
Mr. BURTON of Indiana. I don't know what that has to do with
anything, but I yield to Mr. Pierluisi for 1 minute.
Mr. PIERLUISI. I rise in support of this amendment. It is a sensible
[[Page H3047]]
amendment. It basically provides that whatever legal requirements apply
in the States will apply in Puerto Rico on this issue.
At the same time, it expresses a sense of Congress that we should
improve the teaching of English in Puerto Rico. I am all for that.
Ninety percent of the parents in Puerto Rico want to improve the
teaching of English in Puerto Rico to their children. I have two bills
pending before this Congress seeking additional funding, one, and the
other creating a teacher exchange program so that we have more English
teachers in Puerto Rico.
This is not an issue. We have two official languages in Puerto Rico,
English and Spanish, the same way Hawaii has two official languages. We
want all of our children to be fluent in English and to facilitate the
government processes in Puerto Rico to the extent necessary so any
English speakers will be well served.
So I support the amendment that has been offered by the gentleman
from Indiana as well as the gentleman from Alaska.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I have 1 minute left and I
have the right to close; is that correct?
The CHAIR. The gentleman is correct.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I yield 45 seconds to the
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Broun).
Mr. BROUN of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to
this amendment because it is a hollow amendment. No territory with an
official language other than English has ever been admitted to the
Union. Why this time?
Instead of reporting the English amendment I offered as a condition
of statehood, the Rules Committee reported out a much watered down
alternative English amendment which is opposed by every major pro-
English group in the country. Unlike my amendment which required
English as a condition of statehood, the Burton-Young amendment only
encourages English to be taught without any enforcement.
Further, this amendment states that if Puerto Rico is admitted to the
United States, the official language requirements of the Federal
Government shall apply to Puerto Rico to the extent as throughout the
United States. We don't have anything. That's totally useless.
This would be a great provision if the United States had an official
language. Unfortunately, we do not. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no''
on this amendment.
Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, I will take my last 30 seconds
to say that the gentleman from Georgia has a very strong accent, but I
understand him.
I would just like to say that this is a clarifying amendment to make
sure that everybody who votes down there in a plebiscite or in an
election has before them the ability to understand and cast the vote
intelligently. I can't understand why anybody would be opposed to this.
It makes common sense, and I hope everybody will support it.
I yield back the balance of my time.
{time} 1615
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I yield myself the balance of my time,
which is 15 seconds.
Mr. Chairman, as I mentioned in my opening remarks, the pertinent
part of this amendment is already in the bill, and that speaks to the
ballot; the other two are really meaningless. Frankly, this amendment
does not even need to be considered today; but if it's a cover, then
it's a cover, and let's call it what it is.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman
from Indiana (Mr. Burton).
The question was taken; and the Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.
The CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings on
the amendment offered by the gentleman from Indiana will be postponed.
Amendment No. 5 Offered by Ms. Velazquez
The CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 5 printed in
House Report 111-468.
Ms. VELAZQUEZ. I have an amendment at the desk, Mr. Chairman.
The CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment No. 5 offered by Ms. Velazquez:
Page 5, strike line 8 and all that follows through
``Persons eligible'' on line 13 and insert the following:
(2) An individual residing outside of Puerto Rico, if the
individual--
(A)(i) is a resident of the United States, including a
resident of any territory, possession, or military or
civilian installation of the United States, at the time the
plebiscite is held; and
(ii) would be eligible to vote in the plebiscite but for
the individual's residency outside of Puerto Rico;
(B) was born in Puerto Rico; or
(C) has at least one parent who was born in Puerto Rico.
This paragraph shall apply notwithstanding any rule or
regulation issued under subsection (b). Persons eligible
Page 6, after line 7, add the following:
(g) Recognition of Right to Vote.--Congress recognizes the
right of Puerto Ricans residing outside of Puerto Rico to
vote in any plebiscite held under this Act and requests the
Commonwealth Elections Commission of Puerto Rico to devise
methods and procedures for such Puerto Ricans, including
those born in, or having at least one parent born in, Puerto
Rico, to register for and vote in absentia.
The CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 1305, the gentlewoman from
New York (Ms. Velazquez) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from New York.
Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Chairman, today the nation of Puerto Rico is 8
million people strong; 4 million reside on islands of Puerto Rico and 4
million live in the United States.
From Florida to New York City to Chicago to California, and
everywhere in between, there are Puerto Rican communities across our
Nation. Those Puerto Ricans who have been born in the United States are
no less Puerto Rican than the ones that reside on the island. All of
us, regardless of where we were born or raised, have a deep and abiding
connection with our cultural home.
Puerto Ricans raised on the mainland often speak Spanish. They are
taught about their culture, history, and where they come from. There
are Puerto Rico Day parades in New York City, Chicago, Orlando,
Hartford, and cities across this land. Regardless of where they were
born, all Puerto Ricans are deeply vested in the political future of
the island. I was born and raised in Puerto Rico, but that does not
make me more Puerto Rican than Mr. Gutierrez.
Clearly, there is an air bridge between the United States and Puerto
Rico. Puerto Ricans have relatives and family members living in Puerto
Rico. And those Puerto Ricans living in the States possess their own
sense of identity, which is shaped by and tied to Puerto Rico.
This amendment would allow Puerto Ricans living on the mainland to
participate in the plebiscite that is called for under the bill.
Importantly, the amendment requires that those wishing to vote be able
to prove, by birth certificate, that they have at least one parent born
in Puerto Rico. This will provide a safeguard against voter fraud while
ensuring that we do not disenfranchise Puerto Ricans living in the
States from this process.
Mr. Chairman, Puerto Ricans living on the mainland are no less Puerto
Rican than those born and raised on the islands. We should not deny
them a voice or a vote as this process, which is so important to the
Puerto Rican nation, moves forward. These Puerto Ricans cannot be
denied their right of self-determination.
I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on this amendment, and I reserve
the balance of my time.
Mr. PIERLUISI. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment.
The CHAIR. The gentleman from Puerto Rico is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. PIERLUISI. The bill before us is a product of careful
deliberation. We worked hard in reaching the right and correct balance
in terms of determining who should be eligible to vote in the
plebiscites provided for in the bill.
Before reporting it, the committee considered, as we had in previous
Puerto Rico status bills, which voters should be participating, and we
had to strike a balance. The bill makes both
[[Page H3048]]
residents of Puerto Rico who are otherwise eligible to vote under
Puerto Rico electoral law and U.S. citizens who were born in Puerto
Rico but who may not reside in the territory at the time of the
plebiscite eligible to vote.
The committee recognized that a substantial number of individuals
born in Puerto Rico but not currently residing there hope to return to
live in Puerto Rico one day. Accordingly, they can be said to have a
practical stake in helping to determine Puerto Rico's future political
status. Such argument does not hold, though, for those who are of
Puerto Rican descent but who were born outside of the territory, which
the pending amendment would allow. The bill chooses place of birth
rather than ethnic identity as the eligibility criteria. I urge this
criterion to be maintained and that this amendment be rejected.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire as to how much time I have
remaining.
The CHAIR. The gentlewoman has 2\1/2\ minutes remaining, and the
gentleman from Puerto Rico has 3\1/2\ minutes remaining.
Ms. VELAZQUEZ. I yield to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Gutierrez)
such time as he may consume.
Mr. GUTIERREZ. I thank the gentlelady.
Well, let's have a little talk here. There's a difference: here's
citizenship, here's nationality, here's citizenship, here's
nationality. They should not be confused. Ask the people in Ireland;
they were subjects of the Queen; therefore, they were citizens. But
they were always Irish. Ask the people of Ukraine. They may have been
subjects of the Soviet Union and citizens of the Soviet Union and have
a passport, but they never stopped being Ukrainian, they never stopped
being Lithuanian. Look what happened in Yugoslavia once you got rid of
Tito. We all saw everybody engage in their national pride. That's what
we do, too: we assert it.
As a matter of fact, the very proponents of this legislation affirm
that I'm right, they recognize it; otherwise, why would you allow
people outside of the jurisdiction of Puerto Rico to vote and to
determine its future unless you invested in them, unless they
inherently had in themselves the nationality of Puerto Rican?
The gentleman from Puerto Rico says separation from ethnicity. I'm
not an ethnic Puerto Rican. I might be a lot more Puerto Rican than
some Puerto Ricans are. I suggest the gentleman come to my city of
Chicago. In the Puerto Rican community there are many American flags,
but there are two huge Puerto Rican flags. Don't divide the Puerto
Rican nation; it is a nation of people. It may decide that it wants to
incorporate itself into the United States of America, but it always is
a nation of people with the inalienable right to independence. Don't
divide our community.
If you look at my birth certificate, it says Puerto Rico twice on
it--mom born in Puerto Rico, dad born in Puerto Rico. Then it says
Chicago, Illinois. Nine months earlier, I would have been in Puerto
Rico, so I'm separated by 9 months. And yet every fabric of who I am
has a relationship to that wonderful, beautiful island: its music, its
artistry, its poetry, its patriots. As a matter of fact, one of the
most beautiful songs ever written about Puerto Rico was written in the
United States of America and the longing for returning to that island.
Just think a moment, just think, think of the exodus of Puerto Ricans
that left Puerto Rico in the 1950s during Operation Bootstrap. What did
they do? Did they come to the United States and say, oh, great, we're
in the United States; we're going to stay here forever and die here?
No. The longing was to return one day to that island. Allow them the
vote on the future of that island.
Mr. PIERLUISI. May I inquire as to how much time I have remaining.
The CHAIR. The gentleman has 3\1/2\ minutes remaining.
Mr. PIERLUISI. In listening to the gentleman from Illinois, I keep
hearing that he wants Puerto Rico to become independent, that he sees
Puerto Rico as a nation. So be it. That's a dignified status, and that
is one of the options that this bill provides for.
In crafting the bill, we tried to be as inclusive as we could,
recognizing that Puerto Ricans, people born in Puerto Rico, might be
interested in participating in this plebiscite, might want to return to
Puerto Rico; and for the purpose of being as fair and as democratic as
we could, we drew the line on requiring birth in Puerto Rico. More than
that, we think it would be too encompassing and not necessary.
So I oppose this amendment. I believe that the current bill is fair;
it might not be perfect, like any piece of legislation. You draw lines
when you're legislating, but this is a reasonable line.
I oppose this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Velazquez).
The question was taken; and the Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.
The CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings on
the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from New York will be
postponed.
Amendment No. 6 Offered by Ms. Velazquez
The CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 6 printed in
House Report 111-468.
Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment No. 6 offered by Ms. Velazquez:
Page 3, strike line 8 and all that follows through line 5
on page 4 and insert the following:
(a) Authority to Conduct Plebiscite.--The Government of
Puerto Rico is authorized to conduct a plebiscite on the
following 4 options:
Page 4, after line 16, insert the following:
(4) Commonwealth: Puerto Rico should continue to have its
present form of political status. If you agree, mark here __.
(b) Runoff Process.--
(1) In general.--If no option receives votes on more than
50 percent of the ballots cast, the Government of Puerto Rico
shall conduct a runoff process to permit voters to select
among the 2 options that received the most votes.
(2) Option to select none of the above.--In a runoff
process conducted under this subsection, voters shall be
permitted to vote for--
(A) the option that received the most votes;
(B) the option that received the second most votes; or
(C) neither of those options.
The CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 1305, the gentlewoman from
New York (Ms. Velazquez) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from New York.
Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Chairman, I am a strong believer that the people
are smart enough to make tough decisions if they are presented with all
the facts clearly and objectively. This legislation does not provide a
transparent process of the choices available to Puerto Rico. That is
not democracy by any definition.
A true system of democracy does not preclude certain options from a
ballot, nor does it structure votes in a way to manipulate an
electorate. Unfortunately, as we all know, this legislation structures
the votes in a way that will prevent a commonwealth option from
receiving fair consideration.
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.
Mr. Chairman, joining our Union as a new State is not a step that
should result from electoral tricks or engineering. Joining the United
States of America must be a decision that a people undertake
deliberately, knowingly, and voluntarily. If the people of Puerto Rico
wish to become a State, that option should be able to prevail against
all other choices. The people should affirm, in a single vote, that
they wish to move in that direction. They should not be presented with
a series of false choices that are rigged to force the electorate into
choosing statehood.
Under this amendment, there would be an opportunity for a real vote,
with all the options on the table. This
[[Page H3049]]
amendment eliminates the first round vote and adds commonwealth as a
choice for voters. It also provides for a runoff process if no option
receives a majority of votes.
If the supporters of statehood and the authors of this bill truly
believe that they have the will of the people on their side, then this
amendment should cause them no concern. All this amendment will do is
provide a chance for the people to vote on the future of the island
with all the options before them, including commonwealth. To
effectively preclude commonwealth from this process is to deny the
Puerto Rican people a true right to self-determination.
I urge you to vote ``yes'' on this amendment, and I reserve the
balance of my time.
{time} 1630
Mr. PIERLUISI. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
The CHAIR. The gentleman from Puerto Rico is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. PIERLUISI. I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms.
Wasserman Schultz).
Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in opposition to
the amendment because I believe it will muddy the waters of an
otherwise clear choice that would be presented to the voters of Puerto
Rico.
I also rise with tremendous respect for my colleagues and friends,
Congresswoman Nydia Velazquez and Congressman Luis Gutierrez, while at
the same time rising in strong support of H.R. 2499, the Puerto Rico
Democracy Act.
Puerto Rico has been a U.S. territory for 111 years, and its
residents have been U.S. citizens since 1917. Puerto Ricans have a rich
history of service to our Nation. They have served honorably in our
military as Federal officials and as ambassadors. Our newest member of
the Supreme Court, Justice Sonia Sotomayor, is of Puerto Rican descent.
Yet, in all of this time, the people of Puerto Rico have never been
given the chance to express their views about the island's political
relationship with the United States in a meaningful vote sponsored by
Congress.
Because H.R. 2499 embodies the commitment to democracy that defines
our Nation, I urge my colleagues to join me in voting ``yes.''
I am proud that 20 of the bill's cosponsors hail from my State of
Florida. The bill has received overwhelming bipartisan support from my
State's delegation because of the close relationship between Florida
and Puerto Rico. My district alone is home to more than 30,000
individuals of Puerto Rican descent, many of whom travel frequently to
the island to visit family members. Companies in my district and across
Florida regularly conduct business with those located in Puerto Rico.
Despite the close family and business ties that bind many in my
district with Puerto Rico, our two peoples are different in one
critical respect: The residents of Puerto Rico, despite being citizens
of the United States, cannot vote for President and do not have voting
representation in Congress. They also cannot access all Federal
programs to the same extent as can the residents of the States.
H.R. 2499 would at long last give the people of Puerto Rico this
opportunity. The bill authorizes the government of Puerto Rico to
conduct an initial plebiscite. Voters would be asked whether they
wished to maintain the current status or to choose a different status.
The rationale for this plebiscite is simple.
Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Will the gentlewoman yield?
Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. I yield to the gentlewoman from New York.
Ms. VELAZQUEZ. The issue here is not if the people of Puerto Rico can
vote or not in Presidential elections. The issue here is a true,
transparent, democratic process for the Puerto Rican people to
participate in a referendum without imposing statehood.
Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Mr. Chairman, in reclaiming my time, I believe
that this legislation would at long last give the people of Puerto Rico
the opportunity that they have not been given before. It authorizes the
government of Puerto Rico to conduct an initial plebiscite. It gives
the people of Puerto Rico a chance to weigh in on whether they wish to
keep their status the same or to change their status.
Congress needs to give the people of Puerto Rico access to
participatory democracy, and this legislation does exactly that. It
will create a process for the citizens of Puerto Rico to decide their
own political status. If the majority of voters cast their ballots in
favor of a different political status, the government of Puerto Rico
would be authorized to conduct a second plebiscite which would include
independence or statehood.
I urge my colleagues to join me in voting ``yes'' on H.R. 2499.
Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire as to how much time
remains?
The CHAIR. The gentlewoman from New York has 2\1/4\ minutes
remaining.
Ms. VELAZQUEZ. I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from the Virgin
Islands (Mrs. Christensen).
Mrs. CHRISTENSEN. Thank you for yielding.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment.
I agree that the people of Puerto Rico deserve the opportunity to
have a process whereby they can indicate their status preference, but I
also agree that the way the vote is set up in the base bill is slanted
towards a statehood outcome. This is the third Puerto Rico status bill
that has been introduced since I've been in Congress, and while I
consider H.R. 2499 to come closest to providing a plebiscite in which
all options would be equally treated, it is not quite there yet.
Whether one supports commonwealth or improvements of the current
commonwealth or not, I think everyone would agree that the process
should be fair and that it should enable the people of Puerto Rico to
express their preference for clear, equally treated options. This
amendment does that, and I think the runoff with the two receiving the
most votes and none of the above provides an additional level that
ensures that no one is forced to choose between options, neither of
which they support.
I look forward to supporting the status option that the people of
Puerto Rico select, but I would have reservations in doing so if it
were arrived at through a flawed process. This amendment is an attempt
to fix that flaw, and I urge my colleagues to support it.
Mr. PIERLUISI. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Chairman, in closing, I will simply say that the
authors of this bill are not afraid of having the people of Puerto Rico
freely express themselves in a process that is democratic and that is
transparent. They should support this amendment. Yet, if they are
afraid that the only way they can get a simple majority that supports
statehood is by denying the people of Puerto Rico the choice to vote
for commonwealth, they know that history is on the side of the people
of Puerto Rico. Repeatedly, every time plebiscites have been conducted
in Puerto Rico, the commonwealth status has won, and statehood has been
defeated. That is why they are so afraid, and that is why they are
denying the right of the people of Puerto Rico to true self-
determination.
I urge my colleagues to support and to vote for this amendment, and I
yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. PIERLUISI. Mr. Chairman, I am in opposition to the amendment
offered by the gentlewoman from New York.
This amendment would replace the plebiscite process authorized by the
bill with an entirely new process, including a runoff with a
problematic none-of-the-above option, which is unsound, confusing, and
unlikely to produce a clear expression of the voters' views on the
status question.
I urge my colleagues to reject this amendment. The amendment would
delete the two-step process authorized by the bill, and it would
replace it with a one-step process that uses the term ``commonwealth''
to denote Puerto Rico's current status.
As I said before, the term ``commonwealth'' is the legal name. It is
the title given to the territory of Puerto Rico. Including the term
when giving the people of Puerto Rico an option is confusing in and of
itself, particularly because it could imply that it is more than what
it is. This has been debated long enough. A territory is a territory is
a territory. Call it whatever you may.
By limiting the plebiscites I authorize to one, the amendment fails
to accomplish one of the primary purposes
[[Page H3050]]
of the bill: to determine whether the people of Puerto Rico consent to
an arrangement that, whatever its other merits, does not provide them
with self-government at the national level. The amendment includes a
runoff process that provides for a none-of-the-above option. By
including this option, the amendment undermines the purpose of the
legislation, which is to enable a fair and informed process of self-
determination for the people of Puerto Rico. ``None of the above'' is
not a valid status. The last plebiscite provided that, and to this day,
we cannot even interpret it. Including it on any ballot misleads voters
into thinking that there is a possible alternative to the three
available options.
I urge Members to vote ``no'' on this amendment, and I yield back the
balance of my time.
The CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Velazquez).
The question was taken; and the Chair announced that the ayes
appeared to have it.
Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.
The CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings on
the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from New York will be
postponed.
Amendment No. 7 Offered by Ms. Velazquez
The CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 7 printed in
House Report 111-468.
Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment No. 7 offered by Ms. Velazquez:
Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the
following:
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Puerto Rico Democracy Act of
2010''.
SEC. 2. FINDINGS.
Congress finds the following:
(1) Congress respects the self-determination right of the
people of Puerto Rico to choose their future relationship to
the United States.
(2) Congress pledges not to dissuade, influence, or dictate
a status option to the people of Puerto Rico.
(3) Congress will respectfully postpone consideration of
the Puerto Rico status question until it receives an official
proposal from the people of Puerto Rico to revise the current
relationship between Puerto Rico and the United States that
was made through a democratically held process by direct
ballot.
SEC. 3. SENSE OF CONGRESS.
It is the sense of Congress that the Government of Puerto
Rico can proceed to conduct a plebiscite in Puerto Rico. The
2 options set forth on the ballot may be preceded by the
following statement: ``Instructions: Mark one of the
following 2 options:
``(1) Puerto Rico should conduct a plebiscite to determine
a future proposal for the political status of Puerto Rico. If
you agree, mark here __.
``(2) Puerto Rico should NOT conduct a plebiscite to
determine a future proposal for the political status of
Puerto Rico. If you agree, mark here __.''.
Amend the title so as to read: ``A bill to express the
sense of Congress that the Government of Puerto Rico can
proceed to conduct a plebiscite in Puerto Rico, and for other
purposes.''.
The CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 1305, the gentlewoman from
New York (Ms. Velazquez) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from New York.
Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Chairman, self-determination is a basic concept in
a democracy. The ability of a people to choose their own national
grouping without undue influence from another country is rightly
recognized as a core element of freedom and liberty. Today, sadly, we
are debating legislation that turns its back on this principle.
Perhaps what is most unfortunate is that what we are debating today
involves imposing ideas from the outside onto the island. It seems to
me, if we wish to keep faith with the democratic tradition of self-
determination, then we will look for the guide to Puerto Rico's future,
not in the House of Congress and not in Washington, D.C., but in Puerto
Rico.
The amendment that I am offering will honor the concept of self-
determination. This amendment empowers the people of Puerto Rico to
submit their own proposal for moving forward. The amendment expresses
the sense of Congress that we should not proceed until we have heard
from those most affected by this debate, the Puerto Rican people. The
residents of Puerto Rico should exercise freely and without
congressional interference. The right to self-determination and this
amendment recognize their rights. Rather than having Congress approve a
bill that says to the Puerto Rican people that their relationship with
the United States must change, this amendment sends a different
message. It says to the Puerto Rican nation: We trust you to decide
your future.
If they envision a better alternative than the status quo, then let
them come to Congress and tell us. That is true self-determination.
That is a process that will be viewed as legitimate by all parties in
Puerto Rico, and it is a far cry from a bill that forces the Puerto
Rican people to take a series of sham votes which are aimed at
achieving a predetermined outcome.
Mr. Chairman, I ask my colleagues to honor the democratic tradition
of self-determination. I urge Members to vote ``yes'' on this
amendment.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
The CHAIR. The gentleman from West Virginia is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, this amendment does nothing to further the
goal of H.R. 2499, which is to provide the people of Puerto Rico with a
federally recognized process to allow them to freely express their
wishes regarding their future political status in a congressionally
recognized referendum.
The amendment recognizes that Puerto Rico can conduct a plebiscite on
whether to conduct a plebiscite on a status option or options, and it
calls on Congress to ``respectfully postpone consideration'' of the
issue until it receives a proposal for revision of the current U.S.-
Puerto Rican relationship voted for by Puerto Ricans.
We are all aware of the fact that Puerto Rico can conduct its own
plebiscites. There is no disputing this fact. In fact, they have done
so multiple times in the past, most recently in 1998, but because some
of those were local referenda, which included definitions of the
various status choices that were inaccurate and likely not to be
supported by Congress, the results were inclusive, which brings us to
the need of the bill pending before us.
We have an obligation to provide the people of Puerto Rico with a
process that, more likely than not, will lead to a final resolution of
the question of their political status, a question with which we have
been grappling for more than a century. The amendment of the
gentlewoman fails this test, and, for this reason, it should be
defeated.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Gutierrez).
The CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 2\1/2\ minutes.
Mr. GUTIERREZ. I thank the gentlewoman. We have been working very
closely together.
Mr. Chairman, this is a wonderfully crafted amendment, but I think
that it is very important that the Congress respects the self-
determination of the people of Puerto Rico to choose their future
relationship with the United States or without the United States but to
decide their future relationship.
This is the key pledge: Congress pledges not to dissuade, to
influence, or to dictate a status option to the people of Puerto Rico.
Look, in my first election in Puerto Rico, I represented the Puerto
Rican Independence Party. I was 19 years old in San Sebastian del
Pepino. I was a delegate for that party until the first election. There
was one vote for the Puerto Rican Independence Party in my polling
place, what they call ``Integro''--right?--just for independence. That
was mine at that point.
I went to the university. I used to sell Claridad when I was at the
university, and I would sell it to others. I've been a proponent of
Puerto Rican independence. I got a nice, little carpeta, too--right?--
and I haven't called the FBI yet to see what long list of things
they've written down about me and who I've associated with, but let me
tell you something:
The gentleman from Puerto Rico knows that everything is not all fair
and square in Puerto Rico. There is an adage in Puerto Rico--right?--
which is
[[Page H3051]]
don't get together with those people or you will be fingered. Do you
know what? 1.8 million pages. You know, my dad was right. They had
figured us out. They had said who we were. Do you know what would
happen? You couldn't get a job. You couldn't be a teacher. You couldn't
be anybody prominent in the society of Puerto Rico.
So I am here to say, for all of those who fought for the independence
of Puerto Rico and for its right to join as a sovereign nation in the
world of nations, don't do this. Don't dictate.
{time} 1645
Please note that although I have always been an advocate, I have
never come before this Congress to dictate my opinion, to dictate an
outcome which benefits me. Let me tell you something. You think you've
got a definition for the commonwealth that you can destroy? I have got
a definition for independence that I can sell also. But I think it
would be wrong to do it. I think it would be unfair to do it.
What the gentlewoman from New York is simply doing here is saying
return this process to the people of Puerto Rico.
As I come up here every time, ``Founding Fathers,'' ``Founding
Fathers,'' ``Founding Fathers.'' Then they ask you who is your favorite
Founding Father? And no one can name one.
Let me tell you something about the Founding Fathers. They had a
Constitutional Convention. Let's allow the spirit of the Founding
Fathers to act in Puerto Rico.
Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the
gentleman from Puerto Rico (Mr. Pierluisi).
The CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 3\1/2\ minutes.
Mr. PIERLUISI. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment
offered by the gentlewoman from New York.
This amendment is in the nature of a substitute and seeks to postpone
an informed self-determination process along the viable status options
in Puerto Rico. Postpone. Delay.
We've waited long enough. We have been waiting for 112 years.
In addition, it basically opts out. This is an opt-out. Congress is
basically saying I'm not going to deal with this. Easy for Congress to
do, but it is not the right thing.
Congress should be engaged in this process like it has never done
before. Why? There are 4 million American citizens living in that
territory, and they are being discriminated against every day in
legislation that is pending before the Congress. If they want to live
under those conditions, so be it. They should tell this Congress. But
if they want a different status, nonterritorial, they should be given
the chance also to express themselves along those lines. And the
options are clear.
The gentleman from Illinois, it looks like he favors one of those
options, independence for Puerto Rico. He keeps talking about Puerto
Rico's being a nation and so on. I respect that. If that's the will of
the majority of the people of Puerto Rico, I am sure this Congress will
respect it as well. But there are two other options. Yes, free
association, it has been done before, and in Puerto Rico, people know
very well what free association is all about. And the other one is
statehood. There has been lots of talk about statehood here. And what I
tell to all those who have raised concerns about the potential
admission of Puerto Rico as a State is that we're not there yet. When
we get there, then we will address it. But at least this bill allows
the people of Puerto Rico to express their will. What is more
democratic than that? What is fairer than that? Nothing. To simply say
we're not going to get involved in this, solve it among yourselves,
easy way out, but that's not fair. We've waited long enough.
I rise in opposition to this amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Velazquez).
The question was taken; and the Chair announced that the ayes
appeared to have it.
Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings on
the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from New York will be
postponed.
Amendment No. 8 Offered by Mr. Hastings of Washington
The CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 8 printed in
House Report 111-468.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment in the
nature of a substitute made in order under the rule.
The CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment No. 8 offered by Mr. Hastings of Washington:
Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the
following:
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Puerto Rico Plebiscite Act
of 2010''.
SEC. 2. PLEBISCITE.
Puerto Rico has and has had the authority to conduct a
plebiscite of its residents on its future political status
and to transmit the result to Congress.
Amend the long title so as to read: ``A bill to clarify
Puerto Rico plebiscite authority.''.
The CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 1305, the gentleman from
Washington (Mr. Hastings) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Washington.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as
I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, the debate here has centered largely on the procedure
by which citizens of Puerto Rico should, if they desire, become a
State. I am of the opinion and what this amendment does is to state
very specifically that the citizens of Puerto Rico have within their
power to make that determination. I think that is the proper way to go.
But I also believe that the amendment that just passed by a voice
vote, the Velazquez amendment, accomplishes the same thing. So I don't
want to be redundant, and in a moment, Mr. Chairman, I am going to ask
if I can have this amendment withdrawn.
But before I do that, I yield 1 minute to my colleague from Illinois
(Mr. Gutierrez).
Mr. GUTIERREZ. I thank the gentleman for yielding to me.
I just want to make a couple of comments before we end this debate,
as we will very, very soon.
I know that everybody thinks this is about self-determination. If it
were truly about self-determination, why are the other two parties in
Puerto Rico opposed to the bill? Why is it that all those who believe
in independence are opposed to the bill? Why are those that believe in
commonwealth opposed to the bill? If there is such consensus, if the
gentleman truly represents the will of the people of Puerto Rico, why
are the other two parties opposed to the bill? And that's a very
important question that we ask ourselves.
Secondly, Mr. Pierluisi acknowledged, just so that we have it all, in
the Puerto Rican media, that he didn't seek the opinions of the
opposition party with regards to this bill because it would have been,
according to him, una perdida de tiempo. That means ``a waste of
time.''
Now, all I want to say is it isn't a waste of time. It is valuable.
And that's why I am so happy that you are doing what you're doing
because I think we can all gather around the gentlewoman Velazquez and
support her amendment.
Buscar consenso no es una perdida de tiempo. To seek consensus is not
a waste of time.
Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
The CHAIR. The gentleman from West Virginia is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. RAHALL. First, Mr. Chairman, just a correction. The gentleman
from Washington stated that the previous amendment passed by voice
vote. We have a rollcall order on that; so I just wanted to correct
that.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. RAHALL. I yield to the gentleman from Washington.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I understand that. The chairman said that
the amendment passed.
Mr. RAHALL. We do have a rollcall vote scheduled on that.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. But there will be a rollcall vote.
Mr. RAHALL. Reclaiming my time, this particular amendment does
nothing to fulfill our obligation to provide
[[Page H3052]]
a process for self-determination for the people of Puerto Rico, and it
is very similar to previous amendments that have been offered today. It
was my hope that when the gentleman supported reporting the bill
from committee, when he voted for it back on July 22, 2009, when the
bill passed out of our Natural Resources Committee on a 30-8, I see the
ranking member, my good friend, the gentleman from Washington is listed
as ``aye'' vote. It's an ``aye'' vote for the pending legislation
before us today.
In addition, in looking through the report here, I see no dissenting
views. There are additional views, but there are no dissenting views to
this bill as it came out of our Committee on Natural Resources back on
July 22 of last year.
So we are where we are. Regrettably, the gentleman's substitute does
nothing to advance the goal of self-determination for the people of
Puerto Rico. It states the obvious. Puerto Rico does have the authority
to conduct a plebiscite on its own. It has done so on several
occasions, often with confusing definitions of the alternatives. But
there has never been, never been, a congressionally authorized
plebiscite, one backed by the full power of the United States Congress.
And that is what the underlying bill is all about. That is what our
efforts are here about, showing some congressionally sanctioned
approval of the Puerto Ricans' efforts at self-determination.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance
of my time.
In response to my good friend from West Virginia, the distinguished
chairman of the committee, yes, it's true, I voted for the bill, but
there is always more to the rest of the story.
In my opening remarks, I expressed doubt that this is the proper way
to go. I expressed those doubts, but I know that this issue is
something that needs to be resolved. I was hoping when it got to the
floor of the House it might have an open rule so it could be perfected,
but I wanted to find out more about this issue, and I found out more
about these issues and why now I believe I should be in opposition to
it. I called Governor Fortuno last Friday and told him of my decision
on that, and he was very gracious when we had that conversation.
Now, as to this amendment, as I had mentioned, I think the Velazquez
amendment accomplishes what I would want to accomplish in my amendment.
So, Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Velazquez amendment when we
have the rollcall.
Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to have my amendment withdrawn.
The CHAIR. Without objection, the amendment is withdrawn.
There was no objection.
Announcement by the Chair
The CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, proceedings will now
resume on those amendments printed in House Report 111-468 on which
further proceedings were postponed, in the following order:
Amendment No. 1 by Ms. Foxx of North Carolina.
Amendment No. 2 by Mr. Gutierrez of Illinois.
Amendment No. 3 by Mr. Gutierrez of Illinois.
Amendment No. 4 by Mr. Burton of Indiana.
Amendment No. 5 by Ms. Velazquez of New York.
Amendment No. 6 by Ms. Velazquez of New York.
Amendment No. 7 by Ms. Velazquez of New York.
The Chair will reduce to 5 minutes the time for any electronic vote
after the first vote in this series.
Amendment No. 1 Offered by Ms. Foxx
The CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a recorded vote
on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Ms.
Foxx) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the ayes
prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.
Recorded Vote
The CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 223,
noes 179, not voting 34, as follows:
[Roll No. 234]
AYES--223
Aderholt
Adler (NJ)
Akin
Alexander
Altmire
Austria
Bachmann
Bachus
Bartlett
Barton (TX)
Bean
Becerra
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehner
Bonner
Bono Mack
Boozman
Boren
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Bright
Broun (GA)
Buchanan
Burgess
Buyer
Calvert
Camp
Capito
Capuano
Carney
Carter
Cassidy
Chaffetz
Christensen
Cleaver
Coble
Coffman (CO)
Cole
Conaway
Cooper
Costello
Courtney
Cuellar
Culberson
Cummings
Davis (IL)
Davis (KY)
DeLauro
Dent
Dreier
Duncan
Ellison
Ellsworth
Emerson
Fattah
Flake
Fleming
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foster
Foxx
Frank (MA)
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Giffords
Gingrey (GA)
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Graves
Green, Al
Griffith
Guthrie
Gutierrez
Hall (NY)
Hall (TX)
Halvorson
Harman
Harper
Hastings (WA)
Heller
Hensarling
Herger
Herseth Sandlin
Himes
Holden
Honda
Hunter
Inglis
Issa
Jackson (IL)
Jenkins
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Jordan (OH)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kilpatrick (MI)
King (IA)
Kingston
Kirk
Kucinich
Lamborn
Lance
Latham
LaTourette
Latta
Lee (NY)
Lewis (CA)
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Lowey
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
Marshall
McCarthy (CA)
McCarthy (NY)
McCaul
McClintock
McCollum
McCotter
McHenry
McIntyre
McKeon
McMahon
McMorris Rodgers
Mica
Michaud
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Minnick
Mitchell
Moore (WI)
Moran (KS)
Murphy (NY)
Murphy, Tim
Myrick
Nadler (NY)
Neugebauer
Oberstar
Obey
Olson
Paulsen
Payne
Pence
Perriello
Peters
Petri
Pitts
Platts
Poe (TX)
Posey
Price (GA)
Quigley
Radanovich
Rangel
Rehberg
Richardson
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Rooney
Roskam
Ross
Roybal-Allard
Royce
Rush
Ryan (WI)
Sarbanes
Scalise
Schakowsky
Schmidt
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Sherman
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Souder
Space
Spratt
Stearns
Sullivan
Terry
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Tonko
Towns
Turner
Upton
Velazquez
Walden
Watt
Weiner
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Woolsey
Wu
Young (FL)
NOES--179
Ackerman
Andrews
Arcuri
Baca
Baird
Baldwin
Barrow
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boccieri
Bordallo
Boswell
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown, Corrine
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Burton (IN)
Campbell
Cantor
Cao
Capps
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carson (IN)
Castle
Chandler
Childers
Chu
Clarke
Clyburn
Connolly (VA)
Conyers
Costa
Crenshaw
Crowley
Dahlkemper
Davis (CA)
Davis (TN)
DeFazio
Deutch
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Donnelly (IN)
Doyle
Driehaus
Edwards (MD)
Edwards (TX)
Ehlers
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Farr
Filner
Fudge
Garamendi
Gonzalez
Gordon (TN)
Grayson
Grijalva
Hare
Hastings (FL)
Heinrich
Higgins
Hill
Hirono
Holt
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson Lee (TX)
Johnson (GA)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, E. B.
Kagen
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilroy
Kind
King (NY)
Kirkpatrick (AZ)
Kissell
Klein (FL)
Kline (MN)
Kosmas
Kratovil
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee (CA)
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lujan
Lungren, Daniel E.
Lynch
Maffei
Maloney
Markey (CO)
Markey (MA)
Matheson
Matsui
McDermott
McGovern
McNerney
Meek (FL)
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Moore (KS)
Moran (VA)
Murphy (CT)
Murphy, Patrick
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Norton
Nye
Olver
Ortiz
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Perlmutter
Peterson
Pierluisi
Polis (CO)
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Putnam
Rahall
Reichert
Rodriguez
Ros-Lehtinen
Rothman (NJ)
Ruppersberger
Ryan (OH)
Sablan
Salazar
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Schauer
Schiff
Schock
Schrader
Schwartz
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Sestak
Shea-Porter
Sires
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Stark
Stupak
Sutton
Tanner
Taylor
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Titus
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Visclosky
Walz
Wasserman Schultz
Watson
Welch
Yarmuth
Young (AK)
NOT VOTING--34
Barrett (SC)
Boucher
Brown (SC)
Butterfield
Castor (FL)
Clay
[[Page H3053]]
Cohen
Davis (AL)
DeGette
Delahunt
Faleomavaega
Fallin
Granger
Green, Gene
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hodes
Hoekstra
Linder
Meeks (NY)
Melancon
Mollohan
Nunes
Paul
Pingree (ME)
Reyes
Shuler
Speier
Teague
Tierney
Wamp
Waters
Waxman
Wilson (OH)
{time} 1729
Ms. SUTTON and Messrs. HARE, HILL, SNYDER, KLEIN of Florida, SKELTON,
CONYERS, GEORGE MILLER of California, and COSTA changed their vote from
``aye'' to ``no.''
Ms. KILPATRICK of Michigan, Ms. SCHAKOWSKY, Ms. HARMAN, Mrs.
HALVORSON, and Messrs. GRIFFITH, BOOZMAN, SULLIVAN, WATT, JACKSON of
Illinois, BURGESS, OLSON, AL GREEN of Texas, ELLISON, COURTNEY, and
CAPUANO changed their vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
So the amendment was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Amendment No. 2 Offered by Mr. Gutierrez
The CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a recorded vote
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Gutierrez)
on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes
prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.
Recorded Vote
The CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The CHAIR. This is a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 164,
noes 236, not voting 36, as follows:
[Roll No. 235]
AYES--164
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Austria
Bachmann
Bachus
Bartlett
Becerra
Bilbray
Blackburn
Blunt
Bonner
Bono Mack
Boozman
Boustany
Broun (GA)
Buchanan
Calvert
Camp
Capito
Carney
Carter
Cassidy
Chaffetz
Christensen
Coble
Coffman (CO)
Conaway
Costello
Culberson
Davis (IL)
Davis (KY)
Dreier
Duncan
Edwards (MD)
Ellison
Ellsworth
Flake
Fleming
Fortenberry
Foxx
Frank (MA)
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Giffords
Gingrey (GA)
Gohmert
Graves
Griffith
Grijalva
Guthrie
Gutierrez
Hall (NY)
Hall (TX)
Hastings (WA)
Heller
Hensarling
Herger
Herseth Sandlin
Holden
Honda
Hunter
Inglis
Jenkins
Johnson (IL)
Jones
Jordan (OH)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kilpatrick (MI)
King (IA)
Kingston
Kirk
Kucinich
Lamborn
Lance
Latham
Latta
Lee (CA)
Lee (NY)
Lewis (CA)
LoBiondo
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lynch
Manzullo
Marchant
Marshall
McCarthy (NY)
McCaul
McClintock
McCollum
McCotter
McIntyre
McKeon
McMahon
McMorris Rodgers
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Minnick
Mitchell
Moore (WI)
Moran (KS)
Murphy (NY)
Neal (MA)
Neugebauer
Paulsen
Perriello
Petri
Pitts
Platts
Poe (TX)
Posey
Price (GA)
Quigley
Radanovich
Rangel
Rehberg
Richardson
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Rooney
Roskam
Roybal-Allard
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Scalise
Schakowsky
Schmidt
Scott (GA)
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Souder
Space
Stearns
Sullivan
Terry
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tonko
Towns
Upton
Velazquez
Watt
Weiner
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Woolsey
Young (FL)
NOES--236
Ackerman
Adler (NJ)
Altmire
Andrews
Arcuri
Baca
Baird
Baldwin
Barrow
Barton (TX)
Bean
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Biggert
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Bishop (UT)
Blumenauer
Boccieri
Boehner
Bordallo
Boren
Boswell
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Brady (TX)
Braley (IA)
Bright
Brown, Corrine
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Buyer
Campbell
Cao
Capps
Capuano
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carson (IN)
Castle
Chandler
Childers
Chu
Clarke
Clyburn
Cole
Connolly (VA)
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Courtney
Crenshaw
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Dahlkemper
Davis (CA)
Davis (TN)
DeFazio
DeLauro
Dent
Deutch
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Donnelly (IN)
Doyle
Driehaus
Edwards (TX)
Ehlers
Emerson
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Farr
Fattah
Forbes
Foster
Fudge
Garamendi
Gerlach
Gonzalez
Goodlatte
Gordon (TN)
Grayson
Green, Al
Halvorson
Hare
Harman
Harper
Hastings (FL)
Heinrich
Higgins
Hill
Himes
Hirono
Holt
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Issa
Jackson (IL)
Jackson Lee (TX)
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnson, Sam
Kagen
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilroy
Kind
King (NY)
Kirkpatrick (AZ)
Kissell
Klein (FL)
Kline (MN)
Kosmas
Kratovil
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
LaTourette
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lujan
Lummis
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Maffei
Maloney
Markey (CO)
Markey (MA)
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (CA)
McDermott
McGovern
McHenry
McNerney
Meek (FL)
Mica
Michaud
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Moore (KS)
Moran (VA)
Murphy (CT)
Murphy, Patrick
Murphy, Tim
Myrick
Nadler (NY)
Napolitano
Norton
Nye
Oberstar
Obey
Olson
Olver
Ortiz
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Payne
Pence
Perlmutter
Peters
Peterson
Pierluisi
Polis (CO)
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Putnam
Rahall
Reichert
Rodriguez
Ros-Lehtinen
Ross
Rothman (NJ)
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sablan
Salazar
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schauer
Schiff
Schock
Schrader
Schwartz
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Sestak
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Sires
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Spratt
Stark
Stupak
Sutton
Tanner
Taylor
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Tierney
Titus
Tsongas
Turner
Van Hollen
Visclosky
Walden
Walz
Wasserman Schultz
Watson
Welch
Wittman
Wu
Yarmuth
Young (AK)
NOT VOTING--36
Barrett (SC)
Boucher
Brown (SC)
Butterfield
Cantor
Castor (FL)
Clay
Cleaver
Cohen
Davis (AL)
DeGette
Delahunt
Faleomavaega
Fallin
Filner
Granger
Green, Gene
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hodes
Hoekstra
Linder
Meeks (NY)
Melancon
Mollohan
Nunes
Paul
Pingree (ME)
Reyes
Shuler
Speier
Teague
Wamp
Waters
Waxman
Wilson (OH)
Announcement by the Chair
The CHAIR (during the vote). Members have 2 minutes remaining to
vote.
{time} 1738
Ms. DeLAURO changed her vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
Mr. DAVIS of Illinois and Mrs. BLACKBURN changed their vote from
``no'' to ``aye.''
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Stated against:
Mr. FILNER. Mr. Chair, on rollcall No. 235, I was away from the
Capitol due to commitments in my Congressional District. Had I been
present, I would have voted ``no.''
Amendment No. 3 Offered by Mr. Gutierrez
The CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a recorded vote
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Gutierrez)
on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes
prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.
Recorded Vote
The CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The CHAIR. This is a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 13,
noes 386, not voting 37, as follows:
[Roll No. 236]
AYES--13
Chaffetz
Edwards (MD)
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Honda
Jackson Lee (TX)
Kucinich
Lee (CA)
Moore (WI)
Napolitano
Quigley
Towns
Velazquez
NOES--386
Ackerman
Aderholt
Adler (NJ)
Akin
Alexander
Altmire
Andrews
Arcuri
Austria
Baca
Bachmann
Bachus
Baird
Baldwin
Barrow
Bartlett
Barton (TX)
Bean
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blumenauer
Blunt
Boccieri
Boehner
Bonner
Bono Mack
Boozman
Bordallo
Boren
Boswell
Boustany
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Brady (TX)
Braley (IA)
Bright
Broun (GA)
Brown, Corrine
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Buchanan
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Buyer
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Cantor
Cao
Capito
Capps
Capuano
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carney
Carson (IN)
Carter
Cassidy
Castle
Chandler
[[Page H3054]]
Childers
Christensen
Chu
Clarke
Cleaver
Clyburn
Coble
Coffman (CO)
Cole
Conaway
Connolly (VA)
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Courtney
Crenshaw
Crowley
Cuellar
Culberson
Cummings
Dahlkemper
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
Davis (KY)
Davis (TN)
DeFazio
DeLauro
Dent
Deutch
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Donnelly (IN)
Doyle
Dreier
Driehaus
Duncan
Edwards (TX)
Ehlers
Ellison
Ellsworth
Emerson
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Farr
Fattah
Flake
Fleming
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foster
Foxx
Frank (MA)
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Fudge
Gallegly
Garamendi
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Giffords
Gingrey (GA)
Gonzalez
Goodlatte
Gordon (TN)
Graves
Grayson
Green, Al
Griffith
Guthrie
Hall (NY)
Hall (TX)
Halvorson
Hare
Harman
Harper
Hastings (FL)
Hastings (WA)
Heinrich
Heller
Hensarling
Herger
Herseth Sandlin
Higgins
Hill
Himes
Hirono
Holden
Holt
Hoyer
Hunter
Inglis
Inslee
Israel
Issa
Jackson (IL)
Jenkins
Johnson (GA)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Jordan (OH)
Kagen
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilpatrick (MI)
Kilroy
Kind
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Kirkpatrick (AZ)
Kissell
Klein (FL)
Kline (MN)
Kosmas
Kratovil
Lamborn
Lance
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Latham
LaTourette
Latta
Lee (NY)
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lujan
Lummis
Lungren, Daniel E.
Lynch
Mack
Maffei
Maloney
Manzullo
Marchant
Markey (CO)
Markey (MA)
Marshall
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (CA)
McCarthy (NY)
McCaul
McClintock
McCollum
McCotter
McDermott
McGovern
McHenry
McIntyre
McKeon
McMahon
McMorris Rodgers
McNerney
Meek (FL)
Mica
Michaud
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller (NC)
Miller, Gary
Miller, George
Minnick
Mitchell
Moore (KS)
Moran (KS)
Moran (VA)
Murphy (CT)
Murphy (NY)
Murphy, Patrick
Murphy, Tim
Myrick
Nadler (NY)
Neal (MA)
Neugebauer
Norton
Nye
Oberstar
Obey
Olson
Olver
Ortiz
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Paulsen
Payne
Pence
Perlmutter
Perriello
Peters
Peterson
Petri
Pierluisi
Pitts
Platts
Poe (TX)
Polis (CO)
Pomeroy
Posey
Price (GA)
Price (NC)
Putnam
Radanovich
Rahall
Rangel
Rehberg
Reichert
Richardson
Rodriguez
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross
Rothman (NJ)
Roybal-Allard
Royce
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Ryan (WI)
Sablan
Salazar
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Scalise
Schakowsky
Schauer
Schiff
Schmidt
Schock
Schrader
Schwartz
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Sessions
Sestak
Shadegg
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Sires
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Souder
Space
Spratt
Stark
Stearns
Stupak
Sullivan
Sutton
Tanner
Taylor
Terry
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Tierney
Titus
Tonko
Tsongas
Turner
Upton
Van Hollen
Visclosky
Walden
Walz
Wasserman Schultz
Watson
Watt
Weiner
Welch
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Woolsey
Wu
Yarmuth
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NOT VOTING--37
Barrett (SC)
Boucher
Brown (SC)
Butterfield
Castor (FL)
Clay
Cohen
Davis (AL)
DeGette
Delahunt
Faleomavaega
Fallin
Filner
Gohmert
Granger
Green, Gene
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hodes
Hoekstra
Lewis (GA)
Linder
Meeks (NY)
Melancon
Mollohan
Nunes
Paul
Pingree (ME)
Reyes
Rooney
Shuler
Speier
Teague
Wamp
Waters
Waxman
Wilson (OH)
Announcement by the Chair
The CHAIR (during the vote). Members have 2 minutes remaining to
vote.
{time} 1744
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Stated against:
Mr. FILNER. Mr. Chair, on rollcall No. 236, I was away from the
Capitol due to commitments in my Congressional District. Had I been
present, I would have voted ``no.''
Amendment No. 4 Offered by Mr. Burton of Indiana
The CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a recorded vote
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton) on
which further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes
prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.
Recorded Vote
The CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The CHAIR. This is a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 301,
noes 100, not voting 35, as follows:
[Roll No. 237]
AYES--301
Ackerman
Aderholt
Adler (NJ)
Alexander
Altmire
Arcuri
Austria
Baca
Baird
Baldwin
Barrow
Bartlett
Barton (TX)
Bean
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Biggert
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blumenauer
Boccieri
Bono Mack
Bordallo
Boren
Boswell
Boustany
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Brady (TX)
Braley (IA)
Bright
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Buchanan
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Buyer
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Cao
Capito
Capps
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carney
Carter
Cassidy
Castle
Chaffetz
Chandler
Childers
Cleaver
Clyburn
Coble
Cole
Conaway
Connolly (VA)
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Crenshaw
Crowley
Cuellar
Culberson
Dahlkemper
Davis (CA)
Davis (KY)
Davis (TN)
DeFazio
Dent
Deutch
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Donnelly (IN)
Doyle
Dreier
Driehaus
Duncan
Edwards (TX)
Ehlers
Ellsworth
Emerson
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Farr
Flake
Foster
Frelinghuysen
Fudge
Gallegly
Garamendi
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Giffords
Gonzalez
Goodlatte
Griffith
Guthrie
Hall (NY)
Hall (TX)
Halvorson
Hare
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Heinrich
Hensarling
Herger
Herseth Sandlin
Higgins
Hill
Himes
Holden
Holt
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Issa
Johnson (GA)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Kagen
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilpatrick (MI)
Kilroy
Kind
King (NY)
Kirkpatrick (AZ)
Kissell
Klein (FL)
Kline (MN)
Kosmas
Kratovil
Lance
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Latham
LaTourette
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lujan
Lungren, Daniel E.
Lynch
Mack
Maffei
Maloney
Manzullo
Markey (CO)
Marshall
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (CA)
McCarthy (NY)
McCaul
McClintock
McCollum
McCotter
McGovern
McIntyre
McMahon
McNerney
Meek (FL)
Mica
Miller (MI)
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Minnick
Mitchell
Moore (KS)
Moran (VA)
Murphy (CT)
Murphy (NY)
Murphy, Patrick
Murphy, Tim
Nadler (NY)
Neal (MA)
Neugebauer
Norton
Nye
Obey
Olson
Olver
Ortiz
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Paulsen
Payne
Pence
Perlmutter
Perriello
Peters
Peterson
Petri
Pierluisi
Platts
Poe (TX)
Polis (CO)
Pomeroy
Posey
Price (NC)
Putnam
Radanovich
Rahall
Rehberg
Reichert
Richardson
Rodriguez
Roe (TN)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Rooney
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross
Rothman (NJ)
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Ryan (OH)
Ryan (WI)
Sablan
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Scalise
Schauer
Schiff
Schock
Schrader
Schwartz
Scott (GA)
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Sessions
Sestak
Shadegg
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Sires
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Space
Spratt
Stark
Stearns
Stupak
Sutton
Tanner
Taylor
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tierney
Titus
Tonko
Tsongas
Turner
Upton
Van Hollen
Visclosky
Walden
Walz
Wasserman Schultz
Watson
Welch
Whitfield
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Wu
Yarmuth
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NOES--100
Akin
Andrews
Bachmann
Bachus
Bilbray
Blunt
Boehner
Bonner
Boozman
Broun (GA)
Brown, Corrine
Cantor
Capuano
Carson (IN)
Christensen
Chu
Clarke
Coffman (CO)
Conyers
Courtney
Cummings
Davis (IL)
DeLauro
Edwards (MD)
Ellison
Fattah
Fleming
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Frank (MA)
Franks (AZ)
Gingrey (GA)
Gordon (TN)
Graves
Grayson
Green, Al
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Harper
Hastings (WA)
Heller
Hirono
Honda
Hunter
Inglis
Jackson (IL)
Jackson Lee (TX)
Jenkins
Jordan (OH)
King (IA)
Kingston
Kirk
Kucinich
Lamborn
Larson (CT)
Latta
Lee (CA)
Lee (NY)
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
Marchant
Markey (MA)
McDermott
[[Page H3055]]
McHenry
McKeon
McMorris Rodgers
Michaud
Miller (FL)
Miller, Gary
Moore (WI)
Moran (KS)
Myrick
Napolitano
Oberstar
Pitts
Price (GA)
Quigley
Rangel
Rogers (AL)
Royce
Rush
Salazar
Schakowsky
Schmidt
Scott (VA)
Skelton
Slaughter
Souder
Sullivan
Terry
Tiahrt
Towns
Velazquez
Watt
Weiner
Westmoreland
Wittman
Woolsey
NOT VOTING--35
Barrett (SC)
Boucher
Brown (SC)
Butterfield
Castor (FL)
Clay
Cohen
Davis (AL)
DeGette
Delahunt
Faleomavaega
Fallin
Filner
Gohmert
Granger
Green, Gene
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hodes
Hoekstra
Linder
Meeks (NY)
Melancon
Mollohan
Nunes
Paul
Pingree (ME)
Reyes
Shuler
Speier
Teague
Wamp
Waters
Waxman
Wilson (OH)
Announcement by the Chair
The CHAIR (during the vote). Members have 2 minutes remaining to
vote.
{time} 1751
Mr. SMITH of Texas changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
So the amendment was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Stated for:
Mr. FILNER. Mr. Chair, on rollcall No. 237, I was away from the
Capitol due to commitments in my Congressional District. Had I been
present, I would have voted ``yes.''
Amendment No. 5 Offered by Ms. Velazquez
The CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a recorded vote
on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from New York (Ms.
Velazquez) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the
noes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.
Recorded Vote
The CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The CHAIR. This is a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 11,
noes 387, not voting 38, as follows:
[Roll No. 238]
AYES--11
Gutierrez
Honda
Jackson Lee (TX)
Kaptur
Kilpatrick (MI)
Kucinich
Lee (CA)
Moore (WI)
Towns
Velazquez
Weiner
NOES--387
Ackerman
Aderholt
Adler (NJ)
Alexander
Altmire
Andrews
Arcuri
Austria
Baca
Bachmann
Bachus
Baird
Baldwin
Barrow
Bartlett
Barton (TX)
Bean
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blumenauer
Blunt
Boccieri
Boehner
Bonner
Bono Mack
Boozman
Bordallo
Boren
Boswell
Boustany
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Brady (TX)
Braley (IA)
Bright
Broun (GA)
Brown, Corrine
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Buchanan
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Buyer
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Cantor
Cao
Capito
Capps
Capuano
Cardoza
Carney
Carson (IN)
Carter
Cassidy
Castle
Chaffetz
Chandler
Childers
Christensen
Chu
Clarke
Cleaver
Clyburn
Coble
Coffman (CO)
Cole
Conaway
Connolly (VA)
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Courtney
Crenshaw
Crowley
Cuellar
Culberson
Cummings
Dahlkemper
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
Davis (KY)
Davis (TN)
DeFazio
DeLauro
Dent
Deutch
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Donnelly (IN)
Doyle
Dreier
Driehaus
Duncan
Edwards (MD)
Edwards (TX)
Ehlers
Ellison
Ellsworth
Emerson
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Farr
Fattah
Flake
Fleming
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foster
Foxx
Frank (MA)
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Fudge
Gallegly
Garamendi
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Giffords
Gingrey (GA)
Gohmert
Gonzalez
Goodlatte
Gordon (TN)
Graves
Grayson
Griffith
Grijalva
Guthrie
Hall (NY)
Hall (TX)
Halvorson
Hare
Harman
Harper
Hastings (FL)
Hastings (WA)
Heinrich
Heller
Hensarling
Herger
Herseth Sandlin
Higgins
Hill
Himes
Hirono
Holden
Holt
Hoyer
Hunter
Inglis
Inslee
Israel
Issa
Jackson (IL)
Jenkins
Johnson (GA)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Jordan (OH)
Kagen
Kanjorski
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilroy
Kind
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Kirkpatrick (AZ)
Kissell
Klein (FL)
Kline (MN)
Kosmas
Kratovil
Lamborn
Lance
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Latham
LaTourette
Latta
Lee (NY)
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lujan
Lummis
Lungren, Daniel E.
Lynch
Mack
Maffei
Maloney
Manzullo
Marchant
Markey (CO)
Markey (MA)
Marshall
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (CA)
McCarthy (NY)
McCaul
McClintock
McCollum
McCotter
McDermott
McGovern
McHenry
McIntyre
McKeon
McMahon
McMorris Rodgers
McNerney
Meek (FL)
Mica
Michaud
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller (NC)
Miller, Gary
Miller, George
Minnick
Mitchell
Moore (KS)
Moran (KS)
Moran (VA)
Murphy (CT)
Murphy (NY)
Murphy, Patrick
Murphy, Tim
Myrick
Nadler (NY)
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Neugebauer
Norton
Nye
Oberstar
Obey
Olson
Olver
Ortiz
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Paulsen
Payne
Pence
Perlmutter
Perriello
Peters
Peterson
Petri
Pierluisi
Pitts
Platts
Poe (TX)
Polis (CO)
Pomeroy
Posey
Price (GA)
Price (NC)
Putnam
Quigley
Radanovich
Rahall
Rangel
Rehberg
Reichert
Richardson
Rodriguez
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Rooney
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross
Rothman (NJ)
Roybal-Allard
Royce
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Ryan (WI)
Sablan
Salazar
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Scalise
Schakowsky
Schauer
Schiff
Schmidt
Schrader
Schwartz
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Sessions
Sestak
Shadegg
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Sires
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Souder
Space
Spratt
Stark
Stearns
Stupak
Sullivan
Sutton
Tanner
Taylor
Terry
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Tierney
Titus
Tonko
Tsongas
Turner
Upton
Van Hollen
Visclosky
Walden
Walz
Wasserman Schultz
Watson
Watt
Welch
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Woolsey
Wu
Yarmuth
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NOT VOTING--38
Akin
Barrett (SC)
Boucher
Brown (SC)
Butterfield
Carnahan
Castor (FL)
Clay
Cohen
Davis (AL)
DeGette
Delahunt
Faleomavaega
Fallin
Filner
Granger
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hodes
Hoekstra
Linder
Meeks (NY)
Melancon
Mollohan
Nunes
Paul
Pingree (ME)
Reyes
Schock
Shuler
Speier
Teague
Wamp
Waters
Waxman
Wilson (OH)
Announcement by the Chair
The CHAIR (during the vote). Members have 2 minutes remaining to
vote.
{time} 1758
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Stated against:
Mr. FILNER. Mr. Chair, on rollcall No. 238, I was away from the
Capitol due to commitments in my congressional district. Had I been
present, I would have voted ``no.''
Amendment No. 6 Offered by Ms. Velazquez
The CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a recorded vote
on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from New York (Ms.
Velazquez) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the
ayes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.
Recorded Vote
The CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The CHAIR. This is a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 112,
noes 285, not voting 39, as follows:
[Roll No. 239]
AYES--112
Altmire
Bartlett
Bilbray
Bishop (GA)
Bonner
Boozman
Boren
Brady (TX)
Bright
Broun (GA)
Burgess
Capito
Carter
Christensen
Clarke
Coble
Coffman (CO)
Cole
Conaway
Cooper
Costello
Courtney
Culberson
DeLauro
Dreier
Duncan
Ellison
Ellsworth
Flake
Fortenberry
Foster
Foxx
Frank (MA)
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gerlach
Giffords
Gingrey (GA)
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hall (TX)
Hastings (WA)
Hensarling
Herger
Herseth Sandlin
Himes
Honda
Inglis
Johnson (IL)
Jordan (OH)
Kaptur
Kilpatrick (MI)
King (IA)
Kingston
Kline (MN)
Kucinich
Lamborn
Lance
Larson (CT)
Latham
Lee (CA)
Lee (NY)
Lowey
Marchant
Marshall
Matheson
McMahon
McMorris Rodgers
[[Page H3056]]
Michaud
Miller, Gary
Minnick
Mitchell
Moore (WI)
Murphy (CT)
Murphy (NY)
Nadler (NY)
Neal (MA)
Neugebauer
Nye
Olson
Pence
Pitts
Platts
Poe (TX)
Price (GA)
Richardson
Rogers (KY)
Rohrabacher
Roskam
Roybal-Allard
Royce
Scalise
Schakowsky
Schrader
Sessions
Shadegg
Sherman
Skelton
Smith (NE)
Smith (TX)
Souder
Space
Stearns
Sullivan
Thornberry
Tonko
Towns
Velazquez
Watt
Weiner
Westmoreland
Wilson (SC)
NOES--285
Ackerman
Aderholt
Adler (NJ)
Akin
Alexander
Andrews
Arcuri
Austria
Baca
Bachmann
Bachus
Baird
Baldwin
Barrow
Barton (TX)
Bean
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Biggert
Bilirakis
Bishop (NY)
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blumenauer
Blunt
Boccieri
Boehner
Bono Mack
Bordallo
Boswell
Boustany
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown, Corrine
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Buchanan
Burton (IN)
Buyer
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Cantor
Cao
Capps
Capuano
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carney
Carson (IN)
Cassidy
Castle
Chaffetz
Chandler
Childers
Chu
Cleaver
Clyburn
Connolly (VA)
Conyers
Costa
Crenshaw
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Dahlkemper
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
Davis (KY)
Davis (TN)
DeFazio
Dent
Deutch
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Donnelly (IN)
Doyle
Driehaus
Edwards (MD)
Edwards (TX)
Ehlers
Emerson
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Farr
Fattah
Fleming
Forbes
Fudge
Gallegly
Garamendi
Garrett (NJ)
Gonzalez
Goodlatte
Gordon (TN)
Graves
Grayson
Green, Al
Griffith
Guthrie
Hall (NY)
Halvorson
Hare
Harman
Harper
Hastings (FL)
Heinrich
Heller
Higgins
Hill
Hirono
Holden
Holt
Hoyer
Hunter
Inslee
Israel
Issa
Jackson (IL)
Jackson Lee (TX)
Jenkins
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Kagen
Kanjorski
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilroy
Kind
King (NY)
Kirk
Kirkpatrick (AZ)
Kissell
Klein (FL)
Kosmas
Kratovil
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
LaTourette
Latta
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lujan
Lummis
Lungren, Daniel E.
Lynch
Mack
Maffei
Maloney
Manzullo
Markey (CO)
Markey (MA)
Matsui
McCarthy (CA)
McCarthy (NY)
McClintock
McCollum
McCotter
McDermott
McGovern
McHenry
McIntyre
McKeon
McNerney
Meek (FL)
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Moore (KS)
Moran (KS)
Moran (VA)
Murphy, Patrick
Murphy, Tim
Myrick
Napolitano
Norton
Oberstar
Olver
Ortiz
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Paulsen
Payne
Perlmutter
Perriello
Peters
Peterson
Petri
Pierluisi
Polis (CO)
Pomeroy
Posey
Price (NC)
Putnam
Quigley
Radanovich
Rahall
Rangel
Rehberg
Reichert
Rodriguez
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (MI)
Rooney
Ros-Lehtinen
Ross
Rothman (NJ)
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Ryan (WI)
Sablan
Salazar
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schauer
Schiff
Schmidt
Schock
Schwartz
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Sestak
Shea-Porter
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Sires
Smith (NJ)
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Spratt
Stark
Stupak
Sutton
Tanner
Taylor
Terry
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thompson (PA)
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Tierney
Titus
Tsongas
Turner
Upton
Van Hollen
Visclosky
Walden
Walz
Wasserman Schultz
Watson
Welch
Whitfield
Wittman
Wolf
Woolsey
Wu
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NOT VOTING--39
Barrett (SC)
Boucher
Brown (SC)
Butterfield
Castor (FL)
Clay
Cohen
Davis (AL)
DeGette
Delahunt
Faleomavaega
Fallin
Filner
Gohmert
Granger
Green, Gene
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hodes
Hoekstra
Linder
McCaul
Meeks (NY)
Melancon
Mollohan
Nunes
Obey
Paul
Pingree (ME)
Reyes
Shuler
Slaughter
Speier
Teague
Wamp
Waters
Waxman
Wilson (OH)
Yarmuth
Announcement by the Chair
The CHAIR (during the vote). Members have 2 minutes remaining to
vote.
{time} 1805
Mr. SPRATT changed his vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Stated against:
Mr. FILNER. Mr. Chair, on rollcall No. 239, I was away from the
Capitol due to commitments in my congressional district. Had I been
present, I would have voted ``no.''
Amendment No. 7 Offered by Ms. Velazquez
The CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a recorded vote
on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from New York (Ms.
Velazquez) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the
noes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.
Recorded Vote
The CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The CHAIR. This is a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 171,
noes 223, not voting 42, as follows:
[Roll No. 240]
AYES--171
Aderholt
Adler (NJ)
Akin
Altmire
Arcuri
Austria
Bachmann
Bachus
Bartlett
Barton (TX)
Becerra
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Blunt
Boehner
Bonner
Boozman
Boren
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Bright
Broun (GA)
Buchanan
Buyer
Calvert
Capito
Carney
Carter
Cassidy
Chaffetz
Chandler
Coble
Coffman (CO)
Conaway
Cooper
Costello
Courtney
Davis (IL)
Davis (KY)
DeLauro
Dreier
Duncan
Ellison
Ellsworth
Emerson
Fattah
Flake
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Frank (MA)
Franks (AZ)
Gallegly
Gerlach
Giffords
Gingrey (GA)
Goodlatte
Graves
Griffith
Grijalva
Guthrie
Gutierrez
Hall (TX)
Hastings (WA)
Heller
Hensarling
Herger
Holden
Honda
Hunter
Inglis
Jenkins
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Jordan (OH)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kilpatrick (MI)
King (IA)
Kucinich
Lamborn
Lance
Larson (CT)
Latham
LaTourette
Latta
Lee (NY)
Lewis (CA)
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Lowey
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lynch
Manzullo
Marchant
Marshall
Matheson
McCarthy (NY)
McCaul
McClintock
McCollum
McCotter
McHenry
McKeon
McMahon
McMorris Rodgers
Michaud
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Minnick
Mitchell
Moore (WI)
Moran (KS)
Myrick
Nadler (NY)
Neal (MA)
Neugebauer
Nye
Olson
Paulsen
Perriello
Petri
Pitts
Platts
Poe (TX)
Price (GA)
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Rooney
Roskam
Roybal-Allard
Royce
Rush
Ryan (WI)
Scalise
Schmidt
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Sherman
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Skelton
Smith (TX)
Souder
Space
Stearns
Sullivan
Tanner
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tonko
Towns
Turner
Upton
Velazquez
Watt
Weiner
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
NOES--223
Ackerman
Alexander
Andrews
Baca
Baird
Baldwin
Barrow
Bean
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Biggert
Bishop (NY)
Bishop (UT)
Boccieri
Bono Mack
Bordallo
Boswell
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown, Corrine
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Camp
Campbell
Cantor
Cao
Capps
Capuano
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carson (IN)
Castle
Childers
Chu
Clarke
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cole
Connolly (VA)
Conyers
Costa
Crenshaw
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Dahlkemper
Davis (CA)
Davis (TN)
DeFazio
Dent
Deutch
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Donnelly (IN)
Doyle
Driehaus
Edwards (MD)
Edwards (TX)
Ehlers
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Farr
Fleming
Foster
Frelinghuysen
Fudge
Garamendi
Garrett (NJ)
Gonzalez
Gordon (TN)
Grayson
Green, Al
Hall (NY)
Halvorson
Hare
Harman
Harper
Hastings (FL)
Heinrich
Herseth Sandlin
Higgins
Hill
Himes
Hirono
Holt
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Issa
Jackson (IL)
Jackson Lee (TX)
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Kagen
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilroy
Kind
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Kirkpatrick (AZ)
Kissell
Klein (FL)
Kline (MN)
Kosmas
Kratovil
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Lee (CA)
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lujan
Lummis
Lungren, Daniel E.
Maffei
Maloney
Markey (CO)
Markey (MA)
Matsui
McCarthy (CA)
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McNerney
Meek (FL)
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Moore (KS)
Moran (VA)
Murphy (CT)
Murphy (NY)
Murphy, Patrick
Murphy, Tim
Napolitano
Norton
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Payne
Pence
Perlmutter
Peters
Peterson
Pierluisi
Polis (CO)
Pomeroy
Posey
Price (NC)
Putnam
Quigley
Radanovich
Rahall
Rangel
Rehberg
Reichert
Richardson
Rodriguez
Ros-Lehtinen
[[Page H3057]]
Ross
Rothman (NJ)
Ruppersberger
Ryan (OH)
Sablan
Salazar
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schauer
Schiff
Schock
Schrader
Schwartz
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Sestak
Shea-Porter
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Spratt
Stark
Stupak
Sutton
Taylor
Terry
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tiahrt
Tierney
Titus
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Visclosky
Walden
Walz
Wasserman Schultz
Watson
Welch
Woolsey
Wu
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NOT VOTING--42
Barrett (SC)
Blackburn
Blumenauer
Boucher
Boyd
Brown (SC)
Butterfield
Castor (FL)
Christensen
Clay
Cohen
Culberson
Davis (AL)
DeGette
Delahunt
Faleomavaega
Fallin
Filner
Gohmert
Granger
Green, Gene
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hodes
Hoekstra
Linder
Mack
Meeks (NY)
Melancon
Mollohan
Nunes
Paul
Pingree (ME)
Reyes
Shuler
Speier
Teague
Wamp
Waters
Waxman
Wilson (OH)
Yarmuth
Announcement by the Chair
The CHAIR (during the vote). Members have 2 minutes remaining to
vote.
{time} 1811
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Stated against:
Mr. FILNER. Mr. Chair, on rollcall 240, I was away from the Capitol
due to commitments in my Congressional District. Had I been present, I
would have voted ``no.''
The CHAIR. The question is on the committee amendment in the nature
of a substitute, as amended.
The committee amendment in the nature of a substitute, as amended,
was agreed to.
The CHAIR. Under the rule, the Committee rises.
Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr.
Weiner) having assumed the chair, Mr. Schiff, Chair of the Committee of
the Whole House on the State of the Union, reported that that
Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 2499) to
provide for a federally sanctioned self-determination process for the
people of Puerto Rico, pursuant to House Resolution 1305, he reported
the bill back to the House with an amendment adopted in the Committee
of the Whole.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the rule, the previous question is
ordered.
The question is on the amendment.
The amendment was agreed to.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the engrossment and third
reading of the bill.
The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was
read the third time.
Motion to Recommit
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I have a motion to recommit
at the desk.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentleman opposed to the bill?
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I am.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion to
recommit.
The Clerk read as follows:
Mr. Hastings of Washington moves to recommit the bill H.R.
2499 to the Committee on Natural Resources with instructions
to report the same back to the House forthwith with the
following amendment:
Amend Section 2(c)(3) to read as follows:
(3) Statehood: Puerto Rico should be admitted as a State of
the Union, the official language of this State shall be
English, and all its official business shall be conducted in
English; and laws shall be in place that ensure that its
residents have the Second Amendment right to own, possess,
carry, use for lawful self defense, store. assembled at home,
and transport for lawful purposes, firearms and in any amount
ammunition, provided that such keeping and bearing of
firearms and ammunition does not otherwise violate Federal
law. If you agree, mark here ___.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask
unanimous consent that the motion be considered read.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Washington?
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, as the House considers the
bill on Puerto Rico's future, this motion to recommit provides Members
of the House an opportunity to register their views on questions of
English as an official language and on the importance of protecting
Americans' Second Amendment rights.
{time} 1815
Mr. Speaker, two amendments were filed with the Rules Committee to
directly address the issues of the English language and Second
Amendment gun rights. Both were blocked by the Democrat-controlled
Rules Committee.
What that means, of course, is that Members have no opportunity to
debate this issue. Making an amendment in order does not guarantee,
obviously, the outcome. Yet we are even denied the opportunity of
English as the official language and Second Amendment rights. So this
motion to recommit simply combines these two issues in the motion to
recommit. Let me explain specifically what the motion will do.
It will amend the description of ``statehood,'' which will appear on
the plebiscite ballot authorized under this bill, to state: one,
English will be the official language of the State, and all official
business will be conducted in English; two, laws will be in place that
will ``ensure residents have the Second Amendment right to own,
possess, carry, use for self-defense, store assembled at home, and
transport for lawful purposes, firearms and in any amount ammunition,
providing that such keeping and bearing of firearms and ammunition does
not otherwise violate Federal law.''
This MTR simply expresses the views on these two important issues. It
has been asserted during the debate that providing for English as the
official language is something unprecedented or that it is something
which hasn't been talked about or whatever. That is simply not true,
because four States were admitted to the Union, and part of that
admittance was a requirement that English would be the official
language.
So, Mr. Speaker, this is a pretty straightforward motion to recommit,
and I urge my colleagues to vote for the motion to recommit.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. PIERLUISI. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion to
recommit.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Puerto Rico is recognized
for 5 minutes.
Mr. PIERLUISI. The matters that are being raised in this motion are
premature. They are irrelevant, actually, because all that H.R. 2499
does is to consult the people of Puerto Rico on the four available
options that they have regarding our status--the current status of the
territory, statehood, independence, and free association.
The people of Puerto Rico have not yet expressed by a majority that
they want to join the Union as a State. I hope that it comes about, and
when it comes about, Puerto Rico will comply with the Second Amendment
in the same way that all the other States must comply with the Second
Amendment.
The same goes for the English language. That shouldn't be an issue.
It shouldn't be an issue now in Puerto Rico, and it will not be an
issue, if the time comes, when we become a State. Puerto Rico now has
two official languages--English and Spanish. Ninety percent of our
parents want their children to be fluent in English. We are proud of
having English as a language, and we want to improve it. In fact, I
have two bills pending before this Congress for that very purpose.
So both issues are being unfairly placed--at least that is what the
motion seeks--in the ballot that the people of Puerto Rico will be
having in front of them. What the motion seeks is to somehow tell the
people of Puerto Rico, You can have statehood, but just English only
and only if you comply with the Second Amendment.
I oppose this motion because it is untimely, and it is premature. The
day will come when we will debate these issues, but that day is not
now.
I yield 1 minute to the majority leader, the gentleman from Maryland
(Mr. Hoyer).
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman may not yield blocks of time
and must remain on his feet.
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, how much time remains?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Puerto Rico has 2 minutes
and 40 seconds remaining.
[[Page H3058]]
Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I rise in
opposition to this motion.
I traveled throughout the Soviet Union to captive nations with many
of you, and I rose in those nations and said to the leaders, You need
to give your people self-determination.
Many of you have said the same thing on this floor. You've said it
about tyrant governments that have kept their peoples from practicing
their own religions, from speaking their own languages, from adopting
their own laws. You have spoken out against it. They were foreign
nations, and it was easy to do. But now we talk about Puerto Rico, a
territory of the United States of America. What Mr. Pierluisi seeks to
do, what his Governor wants to do, what two-thirds of his legislature
want to do--the senate and the house--is to give them the opportunity
to exercise that self-determination.
Now, on this floor, we have adopted an amendment, for which many have
spoken, that we ought to give four alternatives rather than three.
We've done that. There will now be four alternatives for the people of
Puerto Rico on the second ballot. Let us now defeat this amendment
designed only to defeat this bill.
Hawaii was not made to do this. As the gentleman from Alaska, Don
Young, will tell you and as he said on the floor, Alaska was not made
to do this, and we did not ask that to occur in any one of the captive
nations to which we spoke. Ronald Reagan did not ask for that. Let us
not ask for it. Let us give an honest up-or-down vote to the people of
Puerto Rico, who for 112 years have perceived themselves as a colony.
Now, there are some who want statehood. There are some who want
independence and sovereign status. There are some who want
commonwealth. There are, perhaps, some who want a relationship with the
United States somewhat like Australia has with Great Britain. As the
gentleman from Puerto Rico said, do not diminish this principle,
however, with the politics of the future. This will be debated when and
if Puerto Rico asks for statehood.
Your Republican Governor asks for a vote for this bill and against
this motion to recommit. I ask my party to do the same. Give Puerto
Rico its chance today.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time has expired.
Without objection, the previous question is ordered on the motion to
recommit.
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to recommit.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the noes appeared to have it.
Recorded Vote
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 and clause 9 of rule
XX, this 15-minute vote on the motion to recommit will be followed by
5-minute votes on passage, if ordered; and the motion to suspend the
rules on H. Res. 375.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 194,
noes 198, not voting 38, as follows:
[Roll No. 241]
AYES--194
Aderholt
Adler (NJ)
Akin
Alexander
Altmire
Arcuri
Austria
Bachmann
Bachus
Barrow
Bartlett
Barton (TX)
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blunt
Boccieri
Boehner
Bonner
Bono Mack
Boozman
Boren
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Bright
Broun (GA)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Buchanan
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Buyer
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Cantor
Capito
Carney
Carter
Cassidy
Castle
Chaffetz
Childers
Coble
Coffman (CO)
Cole
Conaway
Costello
Crenshaw
Culberson
Davis (KY)
Dent
Donnelly (IN)
Dreier
Driehaus
Duncan
Ehlers
Ellsworth
Emerson
Flake
Fleming
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foster
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Giffords
Gingrey (GA)
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Graves
Griffith
Guthrie
Hall (TX)
Harper
Hastings (WA)
Heller
Hensarling
Herger
Holden
Hunter
Inglis
Issa
Jenkins
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Jordan (OH)
Kanjorski
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Kline (MN)
Lamborn
Lance
Latham
LaTourette
Latta
Lee (NY)
Lewis (CA)
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
Marshall
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul
McClintock
McCotter
McHenry
McIntyre
McKeon
McMahon
McMorris Rodgers
McNerney
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Minnick
Mitchell
Moran (KS)
Murphy, Tim
Myrick
Neugebauer
Nye
Olson
Owens
Paulsen
Pence
Perriello
Peterson
Petri
Pitts
Platts
Poe (TX)
Posey
Price (GA)
Putnam
Radanovich
Rehberg
Reichert
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Rooney
Roskam
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Scalise
Schauer
Schmidt
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Skelton
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Souder
Space
Stearns
Sullivan
Terry
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Titus
Turner
Upton
Walden
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Young (FL)
NOES--198
Ackerman
Andrews
Baca
Baird
Baldwin
Bean
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boswell
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown, Corrine
Cao
Capps
Capuano
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carson (IN)
Chu
Clarke
Cleaver
Clyburn
Connolly (VA)
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Courtney
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Dahlkemper
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
Davis (TN)
DeFazio
DeLauro
Deutch
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle
Edwards (MD)
Edwards (TX)
Ellison
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Farr
Fattah
Frank (MA)
Fudge
Garamendi
Gonzalez
Gordon (TN)
Grayson
Green, Al
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hall (NY)
Halvorson
Hare
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Heinrich
Herseth Sandlin
Higgins
Hill
Himes
Hirono
Holt
Honda
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson Lee (TX)
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Kagen
Kaptur
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilroy
Kind
Kirkpatrick (AZ)
Kissell
Klein (FL)
Kosmas
Kratovil
Kucinich
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee (CA)
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lujan
Lynch
Maffei
Maloney
Markey (CO)
Markey (MA)
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
Meek (FL)
Michaud
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Moore (KS)
Moore (WI)
Moran (VA)
Murphy (CT)
Murphy (NY)
Murphy, Patrick
Nadler (NY)
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Payne
Perlmutter
Peters
Polis (CO)
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rahall
Rangel
Richardson
Rodriguez
Ros-Lehtinen
Rothman (NJ)
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Salazar
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schock
Schrader
Schwartz
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Sestak
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Spratt
Stark
Stupak
Sutton
Tanner
Taylor
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Tonko
Towns
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz
Wasserman Schultz
Watson
Watt
Weiner
Welch
Woolsey
Wu
Young (AK)
NOT VOTING--38
Barrett (SC)
Boucher
Boyd
Brown (SC)
Butterfield
Castor (FL)
Chandler
Clay
Cohen
Davis (AL)
DeGette
Delahunt
Fallin
Filner
Granger
Green, Gene
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hodes
Hoekstra
Kilpatrick (MI)
Linder
Meeks (NY)
Melancon
Mollohan
Nunes
Paul
Pingree (ME)
Reyes
Ross
Shuler
Speier
Teague
Wamp
Waters
Waxman
Wilson (OH)
Yarmuth
Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore
The SPEAKER pro tempore (during the vote). Members are reminded there
are 2 minutes remaining in this vote.
{time} 1839
Mr. CANTOR changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
So the motion to recommit was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Stated against:
Mr. FILNER. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall 241, I was away from the Capitol
due to commitments in my Congressional District. Had I been present, I
would have voted ``no.''
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the bill.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas
and nays.
[[Page H3059]]
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 223,
nays 169, answered ``present'' 1, not voting 37, as follows:
[Roll No. 242]
YEAS--223
Ackerman
Adler (NJ)
Andrews
Arcuri
Baca
Baird
Baldwin
Barrow
Bartlett
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Biggert
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blackburn
Blumenauer
Boccieri
Boswell
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown, Corrine
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Buchanan
Burton (IN)
Buyer
Campbell
Cantor
Cao
Capps
Capuano
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carson (IN)
Castle
Chu
Clarke
Cleaver
Clyburn
Coffman (CO)
Cole
Connolly (VA)
Conyers
Costa
Crenshaw
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Dahlkemper
Davis (CA)
Davis (TN)
DeFazio
Dent
Deutch
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle
Driehaus
Edwards (MD)
Edwards (TX)
Ehlers
Ellsworth
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Farr
Fattah
Flake
Foster
Frelinghuysen
Fudge
Garamendi
Gonzalez
Gordon (TN)
Grayson
Green, Al
Grijalva
Hall (NY)
Halvorson
Hare
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Heinrich
Hensarling
Herseth Sandlin
Higgins
Hill
Himes
Hirono
Holt
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Issa
Jackson (IL)
Jackson Lee (TX)
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Kagen
Kaptur
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilroy
Kind
King (NY)
Kirk
Kirkpatrick (AZ)
Kissell
Kline (MN)
Kosmas
Kratovil
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee (CA)
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lujan
Lungren, Daniel E.
Lynch
Mack
Maffei
Maloney
Markey (CO)
Markey (MA)
Matsui
McCarthy (CA)
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McNerney
Meek (FL)
Mica
Michaud
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Moore (KS)
Moran (VA)
Murphy (NY)
Murphy, Patrick
Murphy, Tim
Nadler (NY)
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Payne
Pence
Perlmutter
Peters
Peterson
Polis (CO)
Pomeroy
Posey
Price (NC)
Putnam
Rahall
Rangel
Reichert
Richardson
Rodriguez
Ros-Lehtinen
Rothman (NJ)
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Ryan (OH)
Salazar
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schauer
Schiff
Schock
Schrader
Schwartz
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Sestak
Shea-Porter
Sires
Skelton
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Spratt
Stark
Stupak
Sutton
Tanner
Taylor
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thompson (PA)
Tierney
Titus
Tonko
Towns
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Visclosky
Walden
Walz
Wasserman Schultz
Watson
Watt
Welch
Woolsey
Wu
Young (AK)
NAYS--169
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Altmire
Austria
Bachmann
Bachus
Barton (TX)
Bean
Berry
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Blunt
Boehner
Bonner
Bono Mack
Boozman
Boren
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Bright
Broun (GA)
Burgess
Calvert
Camp
Capito
Carney
Carter
Cassidy
Chaffetz
Chandler
Childers
Coble
Conaway
Cooper
Costello
Courtney
Culberson
Davis (IL)
Davis (KY)
DeLauro
Donnelly (IN)
Dreier
Duncan
Ellison
Emerson
Fleming
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Frank (MA)
Franks (AZ)
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Giffords
Gingrey (GA)
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Graves
Griffith
Guthrie
Gutierrez
Hall (TX)
Harper
Hastings (WA)
Heller
Herger
Holden
Honda
Hunter
Inglis
Jenkins
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Jordan (OH)
Kanjorski
King (IA)
Kingston
Kucinich
Lamborn
Lance
Latham
LaTourette
Latta
Lee (NY)
Lewis (CA)
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
Manzullo
Marchant
Marshall
Matheson
McCaul
McClintock
McCotter
McHenry
McIntyre
McKeon
McMahon
McMorris Rodgers
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Minnick
Mitchell
Moore (WI)
Moran (KS)
Murphy (CT)
Myrick
Neugebauer
Nye
Olson
Paulsen
Perriello
Petri
Pitts
Platts
Poe (TX)
Price (GA)
Quigley
Radanovich
Rehberg
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Rooney
Roskam
Ross
Royce
Rush
Ryan (WI)
Scalise
Schmidt
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Sherman
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Souder
Space
Stearns
Sullivan
Terry
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Turner
Upton
Velazquez
Weiner
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Young (FL)
ANSWERED ``PRESENT''--1
Slaughter
NOT VOTING--37
Barrett (SC)
Boucher
Boyd
Brown (SC)
Butterfield
Castor (FL)
Clay
Cohen
Davis (AL)
DeGette
Delahunt
Fallin
Filner
Granger
Green, Gene
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hodes
Hoekstra
Kilpatrick (MI)
Klein (FL)
Linder
Meeks (NY)
Melancon
Mollohan
Nunes
Paul
Pingree (ME)
Reyes
Shuler
Speier
Teague
Wamp
Waters
Waxman
Wilson (OH)
Yarmuth
{time} 1855
So the bill was passed.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
Stated for:
Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 242, final
passage of H.R. 2499, had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''
Stated against:
Mr. FILNER. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall 242, I was away from the Capitol
due to commitments in my Congressional District. Had I been present, I
would have voted ``no.''
____________________