[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 156 (2010), Part 5]
[House]
[Pages 6833-6841]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                              {time}  1015
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 2499, PUERTO RICO DEMOCRACY ACT OF 
                                  2009

  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 1305 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 1305

       Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this 
     resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule 
     XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the 
     Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of 
     the bill (H.R. 2499) to provide for a federally sanctioned 
     self-determination process for the people of Puerto Rico. The 
     first reading of the bill shall be dispensed with. All points 
     of order against consideration of the bill are waived except 
     those arising under clause 9 or 10 of rule XXI. General 
     debate shall be confined to the bill and shall not exceed one 
     hour and 30 minutes, with one hour equally divided and 
     controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the 
     Committee on Natural Resources and 30 minutes controlled by 
     Representative Velazquez of New York or her designee. After 
     general debate the bill shall be considered for amendment 
     under the five-minute rule. It shall be in order to consider 
     as an original bill for the purpose of amendment under the 
     five-minute rule the amendment in the nature of a substitute 
     recommended by the Committee on Natural Resources now printed 
     in the bill. The committee amendment in the nature of a 
     substitute shall be considered as read. All points of order 
     against the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute 
     are waived except those arising under clause 10 of rule XXI. 
     Notwithstanding clause 11 of rule XVIII, no amendment to the 
     committee amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be in 
     order except those printed in the report of the Committee on 
     Rules accompanying this resolution. Each such amendment may 
     be offered only in the order printed in the report, may be 
     offered only by a Member designated in the report, shall be 
     considered as read, shall be debatable for the time specified 
     in the report equally divided and controlled by the proponent 
     and an opponent, shall not be subject to amendment, and shall 
     not be subject to a demand for division of the question. All 
     points of order against such amendments are waived except 
     those arising under clause 9 or 10 of rule XXI. At the 
     conclusion of consideration of the bill for amendment the 
     Committee shall rise and report the bill to the House with 
     such amendments as may have been adopted. The previous 
     question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and 
     amendments thereto to final passage without intervening 
     motion except one motion to recommit with or without 
     instructions.
       Sec. 2.  The Chair may entertain a motion that the 
     Committee rise only if offered by the chair of the Committee 
     on Natural Resources or his designee. The Chair may not 
     entertain a motion to strike out the enacting words of the 
     bill (as described in clause 9 of rule XVIII).

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Colorado is recognized 
for 1 hour.
  Mr. POLIS. For the purposes of debate only, I yield the customary 30 
minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Lincoln Diaz-Balart). All 
time yielded during consideration of the rule is for debate only.


                             General Leave

  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members be 
given 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks on 
House Resolution 1305.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Colorado?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 1305 provides for consideration of H.R. 
2499, the Puerto Rico Democracy Act of 2009, under a structured rule. 
The rule provides 1 hour and 30 minutes of general debate, with 1 hour 
equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member 
of the Committee on Natural Resources and 30 minutes controlled by 
Representative Velazquez of New York. The rule makes in order those 
amendments printed in the report of the Committee on Rules. The 
amendments made in order may be offered only in the order printed in 
the Rules Committee report, may be offered only by a Member designated 
in the report, shall be considered as read, shall be debatable for the 
time specified in the report, equally divided and controlled by the 
proponent and an opponent, shall not be subject to amendment, and shall 
not be subject to a demand for a division of the question. Finally, the 
rule provides one motion to recommit with or without instructions.
  The rule is a fair rule. There were 35 amendments submitted for this 
bill, 13 of which were found to be nongermane. Of the remaining 
amendments, eight are made in order under this rule--three offered by 
Republicans and five offered by Democrats.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of House Resolution 2499, the 
Puerto Rico Democracy Act. I'd like to thank Speaker Pelosi, who has 
been an unrelenting champion of this important issue; and Leader Hoyer, 
whose strong support of this bill helped bring the resolution to the 
floor. I also want to recognize Resident Commissioner Pierluisi for 
sponsoring the bill and Chairman Rahall for his leadership on this 
issue.
  This bill is based on the most fundamental democratic principle, the 
rule of self-determination. Puerto Rico has been a U.S. territory for 
over 100 years; yet during that time, Congress has never bothered to 
determine whether Puerto Ricans are actually satisfied with the status 
quo. H.R. 2499 aims to fix that by offering fellow citizens this basic 
right.
  Puerto Ricans have been American citizens since 1917. During that 
time, they've contributed to our country's culture and economy while 
also serving proudly in the Armed Forces to defend our Nation. In fact, 
Puerto Rico has historically ranked alongside the top five States in 
per capita military service in defense of our Nation.
  Yet, in spite of the contributions Puerto Ricans have made to this 
country, they do not receive all of the benefits that are due to them 
as American citizens. Their representative in Congress is a resident 
commissioner, who works tirelessly to advance their interests, yet has 
limited voting rights, instead of several Congresspeople with full 
voting rights the Puerto Ricans deserve. While they pay many taxes, 
Federal programs treat Puerto Rico less than equally when compared to 
the 50 States. As I mentioned before, while they have courageously 
served in the military, and in fact at a higher rate than many other 
States, they do not yet have the right to vote for President of the 
United States, the Commander in Chief.
  It's imperative that Congress act to right these wrongs which Puerto 
Ricans have had to live through for so long. The Puerto Rico Democracy 
Act would do that. If enacted, this bill would authorize a plebiscite 
process which would offer Puerto Ricans the chance to vote on the 
future of their island. The plebiscite would ask the unambiguous 
question: Are you satisfied with the status quo? If a majority of 
Puerto Ricans vote ``yes,'' then the government of Puerto Rico would be 
authorized to hold regular plebiscites every 8 years to ensure that 
voters continue to have the opportunity to express themselves 
democratically over time.

[[Page 6834]]

  If a majority vote is against the status quo, if they decide that 
they are tired of their being treated as second-class citizens, the 
plebiscite will ask them to choose between nonterritorial status 
options: independence, statehood, and free association. This plebiscite 
represents the straightforward expression of self-determination and 
direct democracy that would allow Puerto Ricans to express their wishes 
to Congress. I, for one, will support the express wishes of the Puerto 
Rican people as a Member of Congress representing Colorado.
  Like any important piece of legislation, this bill has some critics. 
You will hear from them today. Opponents have claimed that the bill 
favors statehood, and they take issue with how the plebiscite is being 
constructed. It's not only fair but imperative that voters, our fellow 
Americans, be given the opportunity to express whether or not they 
approve of their current status quo that is disenfranchising Puerto 
Ricans.
  I urge and encourage my colleagues to support the rule, and I reserve 
the balance of my time.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I'd like to, first 
of all, thank my friend, the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Polis), for 
the time; and I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  The underlying legislation, H.R. 2499, the Puerto Rico Democracy Act 
of 2009, is a fair and appropriate way for the people of Puerto Rico to 
express themselves at the ballot box regarding the critical issue of 
their permanent status. The legislation would allow a plebiscite 
whereby the people of Puerto Rico will decide whether to maintain their 
current political status or have a different status. If a majority 
favors a different status, the Government of Puerto Rico would be 
authorized to conduct a second plebiscite among three nonterritorial 
status options recognized under United States and international law: 
independence, United States statehood, or sovereignty in association 
with the United States. They would, obviously, have to be worked out 
between sovereign Puerto Rico and sovereign United States.
  The legislation does not dictate an outcome for the people of Puerto 
Rico. Congress will not take sides by voting for this legislation. 
Congress will only be asking the Puerto Rican people to vote on the 
issue of their permanent status. This process is absolutely respectful 
of the Puerto Rican people's right to decide their future status.
  I wish to commend Resident Commissioner Pierluisi and my dear friend 
and former colleague, Governor Luis Fortuno, for extraordinary 
leadership on this issue. Both of them have earned the admiration of 
both sides of the aisle in the United States Congress and deserve 
commendation for their leadership.
  Mr. Speaker, I understand that some Members of Congress have concerns 
that the results of the election would be automatically implemented. I 
was discussing with my colleague, Ms. Ros-Lehtinen, some falsehoods 
that are being said on radio and other media that the vote today is one 
that would set up a process that would automatically be implemented. 
That is not the case. The results of the plebiscites are nonbinding on 
Congress. So in order for the results to be put into effect, whatever 
the results of the referendum would be, Congress would need to debate 
again and, again, pass legislation. In other words, new legislation.
  My position with regard to the status of Puerto Rico is that the 
people of Puerto Rico have the right to decide the political and legal 
status of their wonderful island through a fair, neutral, as well as 
federally recognized, plebiscite. I have ultimate admiration for the 
people of Puerto Rico. They are a wonderful people. If the people of 
Puerto Rico ultimately vote to request admission to the United States 
of America as a State of the American Union, there will be no stronger 
defender of their right to be the 51st American State than me. If they 
vote to remain in their current status, there will be no stronger 
defender of their decision than me. And if they vote for independence, 
there will be no stronger defender of their decision than me. This 
legislation is a self-determination vehicle, and I support self-
determination. I support democracy everywhere. The Puerto Rican people 
should be able to decide their permanent status themselves.
  The House last addressed this issue in 1998. I remember, Mr. Speaker, 
that I had the honor of chairing that debate in the House when H.R. 
856, the United States-Puerto Rico Political Status Act, after much 
leadership and advocacy by Resident Commissioner Romero-Barcelo, was 
brought to the floor under a Republican majority.

                              {time}  1030

  I was a member of the Rules Committee at that time, and I am proud to 
say that our majority, the Republican majority, allowed that bill to 
proceed under an open rule, a rule that allows Members from both 
parties to have their amendments to the legislation debated on the 
House floor without having to get approval from the Rules Committee. 
This is an important issue, and if there's ever been legislation that 
deserves an open debate process, it's this legislation.
  I remind the House of the process that we used when we were the 
majority because today the current majority has decided to restrict 
debate on this issue, on this very same issue that we allowed an open 
debate process on in 1998. And not only on this legislation, but on 
every piece of legislation brought before this Congress. This majority 
has not allowed any open rules, any open debate process in over 2\1/2\ 
years. Since they regained the majority, they have allowed only one 
open rule, apart from appropriations bills. And even on appropriations 
bills, they have restricted debate.
  Now I disagree with some of the amendments that were presented before 
the Rules Committee yesterday, and if, by chance, the majority would 
have allowed their consideration by the full Congress, I would have 
voted against those amendments. I may have even debated against those 
amendments. But just because I disagree with amendments that were 
brought before the Rules Committee, asking the Rules Committee to allow 
consideration by the full House does not mean that I believe that those 
Members of the House do not deserve the right to be heard. I believe 
the House should be allowed to work its will.
  Now, unlike the current majority, I believe in open debate. Let 
amendments stand or fall on their merits. Just about every week I have 
the honor to come to the floor of this House to help manage rules 
debates on behalf of my party, and pretty much every time I come to the 
floor, I criticize the current majority for systematically blocking 
open debate with ruthless efficiency on every bill that we consider. 
Even on appropriations bills, which have long been brought to the floor 
under a tradition of open rules, they blocked debate. Today they could 
have easily upheld the tradition set by the Republican majority to 
allow an open debate on the extremely important issue of Puerto Rico's 
political status; yet the current majority, they can't bear to do 
something so abhorrent to them, to permit an open debate process. They 
cling, Mr. Speaker, they cling to their modus operandi, restricting 
debate, restricting debate. So they've done so again today.
  Now, that doesn't negate the historic nature of what the Congress of 
the United States is doing today. Today whatever the outcome of this 
legislation, Congress will send its greeting, its support and 
admiration for the wonderful people of ``La Isla del Encanto,'' Puerto 
Rico.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
Puerto Rico (Mr. Pierluisi), the sponsor of the bill.
  Mr. PIERLUISI. I thank the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Polis), and 
thank you for your eloquent explanation as to why H.R. 2499, the Puerto 
Rico Democracy Act, is a fair bill, a necessary bill, and a bill that 
is long overdue. I'm also thankful for the kind words given by the 
gentleman from Florida, Congressman Diaz-Balart, and for his support 
for H.R. 2499.
  I'm so grateful to you and to the hundreds of my other colleagues on 
both

[[Page 6835]]

sides of the aisle who support H.R. 2499. I cannot cast a vote this 
afternoon, but please know that your vote will give voice to the 
aspirations of 4 million men, women, and children from Puerto Rico whom 
I am honored to represent. I'm also grateful for the support of diverse 
organizations such as LULAC, the Nation's oldest Hispanic civil rights 
organization, the Young Democrats of America, and the Puerto Rico 
Republican Party.
  I want to say a special thank you to Majority Leader Steny Hoyer. The 
majority leader has been a champion without peer for the U.S. citizens 
of Puerto Rico. My constituents and I owe him a debt of gratitude that 
no words, however sincerely uttered, can ever repay.
  Mr. Speaker, this has not been easy, but I am a firm believer that 
nothing truly worth doing ever is. The fundamental justice of our 
cause, to enable a fair and meaningful self-determination process for 
the people of Puerto Rico after more than 110 years of inaction, is 
beyond question. Patience is a virtue, but my people have been patient 
enough.
  H.R. 2499 is a simple bill designed to address a longstanding 
problem. Since joining the American family at the close of the 19th 
century, the Puerto Rican people have enriched the lives of this Nation 
in many ways. For generations, the island's sons and daughters have 
fought proudly alongside their fellow citizens of the States to protect 
freedom and democracy around the world. Many have given their lives in 
defense these values. Many more have borne the scars of their service 
to this great country.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman from Puerto Rico 
has expired.
  Mr. POLIS. I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.
  Mr. PIERLUISI. Notwithstanding their contributions, my people have 
never expressed their views in a fair process authorized by Congress as 
to whether Puerto Rico should remain a U.S. territory or seek a 
nonterritorial status. If the majority of the voters express a desire 
for a nonterritorial status, the bill would authorize the government of 
Puerto Rico to conduct a second-stage plebiscite among the three 
alternatives to territorial status: independence, free association, and 
statehood. The bill before us would, for the first time, provide the 
people of Puerto Rico with the opportunity to be heard on the 
fundamental question of their political destiny.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman from Puerto Rico 
has again expired.
  Mr. POLIS. I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.
  Mr. PIERLUISI. Thank you, Congressman Polis.
  This bill does not favor or exclude any valid status options, and 
claims to the contrary are without merit.
  In the 21st century, shouldn't this Congress at least ask the people 
of Puerto Rico, the 4 million citizens living in Puerto Rico, whether 
they want to continue to be treated differently, different than their 
fellow citizens in the States? That is the question posed by H.R. 2499.
  I ask for your support.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, it's my privilege to 
yield 3 minutes to my dear friend and colleague from Florida (Ms. Ros-
Lehtinen).
  Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my dear friend 
and colleague, Congressman Lincoln Diaz-Balart, for yielding me the 
time.
  I rise in strong support of the underlying legislation, the Puerto 
Rico Democracy Act, and I commend the bill's author--we just heard from 
him--Resident Commissioner Pedro Pierluisi, for his work in bringing 
this important legislation to the floor this morning. And I would be 
remiss if I did not also recognize the efforts of our former colleague 
Luis Fortuno, now the Governor of Puerto Rico, for his many years of 
leadership on this issue.
  This day has been long in the making. With a population of nearly 4 
million people, the people of Puerto Rico deserve the opportunity to 
decide their fate. Puerto Rico has been under the U.S. flag for 111 
years, and its residents have been U.S. citizens for more than 90 
years.
  Since the extension of U.S. citizenship to its residents in 1917, 
Puerto Rico has maintained one of the highest per capita rates of 
participation in the U.S. Armed Forces. Puerto Ricans have fought and 
have died in every armed conflict since the First World War. And yet 
while Puerto Ricans have fought valiantly for self-determination 
overseas, they have never been given the opportunity to participate in 
a federally sanctioned vote to determine Puerto Rico's political 
status. That is until today.
  H.R. 2499 authorizes the government of Puerto Rico to conduct an 
initial plebiscite. In this process, eligible voters would be asked 
whether they wish to maintain the current political status or to have a 
different status. The rationale for this plebiscite is simple: In 
accordance with the American principle of government by consent, 
Congress should seek the meaningful consent of Puerto Rico to the 
political status that it has had for more than 110 years. The American 
citizens of Puerto Rico have a right to determine their political 
future. This bill does not exclude any viable status option, nor does 
it provide for a change in status to be automatically implemented.
  Under the initial plebiscite, eligible voters will be asked if they 
wish to maintain the current status or to have a different status. If a 
majority favors the current status, then the government of Puerto Rico 
would be authorized to ask voters this question again in 8 years. If a 
majority of voters cast ballots in favor of a different political 
status, then the government of Puerto Rico would be authorized to hold 
a second plebiscite on the three status options: independence, 
statehood, and free association.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman from Florida has 
expired.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. I yield the gentlewoman an 
additional 30 seconds.
  Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. I thank the gentleman for the time.
  After 111 years under the U.S. flag, our founding principles dictate 
that the people of Puerto Rico be allowed to determine their political 
future in a fair and orderly vote sponsored by the Federal Government.
  And it is for those reasons, Mr. Speaker, that I urge my colleagues 
to vote ``yes'' on H.R. 2499, the Puerto Rico Democracy Act.
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
Illinois (Mr. Gutierrez), the author of two of the amendments that were 
made in order under this rule.
  Mr. GUTIERREZ. I thank the gentleman from Colorado for allowing me 
the opportunity.
  First of all, I really think that if you're going to talk about 
democracy, if you're going to talk about freedom, that if you're going 
to talk about self-determination, then you have to deal with the 
process, and this process is just patently unfair.
  I thank the majority for two amendments. That was nice. But isn't it 
interesting that as a Democrat--100 percent Democrat, one that has been 
consistently a senior Democrat--that when I came down here in 1998 when 
it was Gingrich's bill, when the author was Young, when it was a 
Republican-sponsored bill and I went before the Rules Committee, I had 
seven amendments ruled in order. Each amendment was given 30 minutes. 
That's 210 minutes of debate time. And now when my party, the party 
that says they are promoting this legislation to foment, to foster, to 
encourage, and to engage the people of Puerto Rico in a democratic 
process, the Democratic majority has decided to give me two amendments 
and then 10 minutes each. Well, you do the math. That's 10 to 1, 10 
times more time, and that's just on mine.
  I want everybody to remember--I think it's kind of sad--Dorothy 
Height. There is a wonderful ceremony. I would have liked to have been 
at that ceremony. Here is a woman who gave everything for freedom, for 
civil rights, and this Congress couldn't wait until after the funeral 
arrangements were completed to begin this debate? You don't want people 
on this House floor to hear this debate. You don't want a

[[Page 6836]]

full, compelling, articulate debate on this issue. You want this issue 
done today. You want it done quickly. You want it done swiftly.
  I am telling you, this is going to blow up just like the Goldman 
Sachs derivatives blowup that don't have any transparency. And then 
everybody's going to say, What, that happened? We don't know how that 
happened. We don't know what room that was put together in. We don't 
know who put it together. But we are going to make a case today, a case 
today that this bill is just not what it pretends to be.

                              {time}  1045

  It is a bill, I mean, listen to yourselves. You say: Well, we have to 
stop the current system. I agree. I don't like the current colonial 
system of Puerto Rico either. I think it is a bad system, too. I would 
like to eliminate it and make sure that it ends in Puerto Rico. But you 
want to know something, I want to do it with respect to the people of 
Puerto Rico. I want to make sure that as we engage in this process, 
it's proper, so I just want to read something to you. Here's what it 
says. It says that the people of Puerto Rico will be able to vote for 
statehood. But guess what, we don't define what ``statehood'' means. I 
think statehood, they should continue to have their Olympic team 
because the statehooders say they can continue to have their Olympic 
team. I think statehood, they should continue to speak Spanish and be 
the predominant language which it is today. Under statehood, I think 
that's fine. But we don't get to debate it or discuss it.
  I think there are many issues we should look at, but we are not going 
to define statehood because you know what, the proponents don't want a 
definition.
  Now independent, we don't need to define that either. What is the one 
alternative that we define, the current status. You know, that's like, 
can you imagine Barack Obama going to John McCain and saying: Hey, 
John, by the way, would you set my platform for me so when we run 
against each other, I have to defend and articulate what you have said 
my platform is, because that's really what is happening here today.
  Moreover, this is what is going to happen today: The people of Puerto 
Rico are going to be engaged in a process in which, you know, one of 
the alternatives is going to be sovereignty in association with the 
United States. Let me repeat that. Sovereignty in association with the 
United States. People of America, call in if you know what that means. 
Call in right now if you've figured it out. I'm sure there are 
political scientists all over the country. You know what, it's okay if 
we don't understand it. The Congressional Research Service, that's what 
they're paid for. They have smart people there. You know what they 
said: It is ambiguous at best. And this is going to be congressionally 
sanctioned? And one of the alternatives our Congressional Research 
Service says they don't even have an explanation for. Let's have an 
open rule and let's vote ``no.''
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. POLIS. I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.
  Mr. GUTIERREZ. Thank you so much.
  Look, we had a debate the last time. If statehood wins, I'm going to 
support it. I'm going to support it, but it has got to win in a fair 
way. It has got to win in a fair way. And you know what, the people of 
Puerto Rico, 1967, 1993, 1998, they had a chance. Why is it that we are 
advancing this? What happened to the people of the District of Columbia 
who, on numerous occasions, have begged and implored this Congress to 
take action as America citizens, and we have done nothing. And the 
people who have said no, we don't think so, we are moving forward.


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair will remind Members to address 
their comments to the Chair.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to 
the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Hastings).
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, as today's debate begins on 
this very important issue, where opposition is obviously on both sides 
of the aisle, there are two basic points I wish to make: first, to 
express the fundamental unfairness of this rule for debate, as the 
previous speaker just pointed out; and second, to explain why the 
underlying bill violates this Nation's established precedents when it 
comes to admitting States in the Union.
  First, this rule is unfair to both Republicans and Democrats. It is 
astonishing to me to see how the Democrat leaders are denying the 
amendments proposed and offered by Members of their caucus. Senior 
Democrat Members are being limited. Their amendments were blocked. 
Their ability to speak and engage in debate is being restricted. And 
for what possible reason, Mr. Speaker? By what justification is this 
necessary and how is it fair?
  In 1998, when the House last debated a similar Puerto Rican bill, 
there was an open rule, as Mr. Gutierrez mentioned. That rule was 
supported by both the Republican chairman and the ranking Democrat at 
that time, and it resulted in a full, all-day debate on this very 
important issue. So what is wrong with an open rule and a fair debate 
in 2010? This bill isn't about naming a post office; it is a bill that 
Congress is asking Puerto Rico if they want to become the 51st State. 
This is an important issue.
  Amendments of importance, of ensuring Second Amendment rights by 
Puerto Rico if it becomes a State were blocked. Amendments to address 
the issue of English as an official language, that too was blocked.
  Mr. Speaker, this rule should be defeated. Actually, the previous 
question should be defeated. And if the House is going to consider this 
bill, it should do so under an open process.
  Second, the reason why such a thorough debate is necessary is that 
this bill is a dramatic departure from past procedures by which a State 
has sought and been admitted into the Union. Look at Alaska, look at 
Hawaii just in the last century. Look at numerous other States. They 
all held local referendum on the question of their desire to become a 
State. When a strong majority expressed their desire to become a State, 
the results of those individual referendum were communicated to 
Congress, and it was then that Congress responded to those referendum.
  In this bill that process is exactly backwards. This bill is asking 
if Puerto Rico wants to become a State.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. I yield the gentleman 1 
additional minute.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. This bill has Congress blessing statehood 
before Puerto Rico even expresses its will. This bill isn't needed for 
Puerto Rico to hold a self-determination vote on what they desire of 
their future political plans. Puerto Rico can conduct a vote right now, 
just like they have done three times previously.
  Mr. Speaker, it is wrong to deviate from the precedent of Alaska, 
Hawaii, and other States where those territories self-initiated a 
communication to Congress and Congress responded by making them States.
  So, Mr. Speaker, I oppose this unfair rule for those reasons. I think 
that Republicans and Democrats on this important issue ought to have as 
much time as we had in 1998 to debate this issue. With that, I thank my 
friend for yielding me this time.
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, in brief response to the gentleman from 
Washington, all States, certainly including the residents of Puerto 
Rico, if they, in fact, become a State, would have the protections of 
the Second Amendment, as well as all of the other amendments and 
protections of our Constitution as interpreted by the Supreme Court.
  And, of course, it is entirely up to States what they do with regard 
to recognizing official languages. My own State of Colorado has no 
official language. I understand there are other States that do. 
Certainly any State can establish English, Spanish, French, whatever 
language they want, as an official language or languages.
  Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
New York (Mr. Serrano).

[[Page 6837]]


  Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for the time.
  My colleagues, I come to you today in a unique situation because, you 
see, I was born in the territory of Puerto Rico; and by being a 
resident of New York and having been raised in New York, I am able to 
be a Member of Congress. Not a Resident Commissioner, with all due 
respect to my brother, but a full voting Member of Congress.
  And so I come fully understanding how it is to be able to look at 
yourself and to wonder what, if ever, will be resolved when it comes to 
the status of Puerto Rico.
  This is a very significant moment and a very significant bill. For 
the first time in 112 years, the Congress of the United States will ask 
the 4 million American citizens in Puerto Rico what they wish their 
relationship to the United States to be. And it is done, I believe, in 
a fair way.
  Now many will argue today that it is not binding on the Congress. 
That is a good thing because Congress can then take the results and 
analyze them and determine how it wants to apply the results, yes or 
no, whether it wants a higher vote for independence, if that is what 
they choose, or a higher vote for statehood. Congress can make that 
determination.
  But I believe the process is fair. It says in the initial vote: Do 
you wish to remain as you are or do you wish to change your 
relationship to the U.S.? And then in the second vote if they choose 
for change, it says: Do you wish to become the 51st State, do you wish 
to become an independent nation, or do you wish to go and become an 
associated republic? Well, we have that. Some people say they don't 
know what that means. We have that. Micronesia is an associated 
republic of the United States. Palau is an associated republic of the 
United States. The Marshall Islands is an associated republic of the 
United States. So we know what that means.
  I would argue for those who support commonwealth, that the next 
natural step of the commonwealth is free association unless they have a 
notice and it is statehood or unless they have been misled and it is 
independence. I think the next step is free association.
  Why are those the three options available? Because all three options 
will remove Puerto Rico from the territorial clause of the Constitution 
of the United States, meaning it will no longer be a territory and then 
we can decide what to do.
  It has been said here that Puerto Ricans have served our Armed 
Forces. That means a lot to us. And it means a lot to be able to say to 
those veterans who are now in Puerto Rico that they will have a chance 
to express themselves.
  Many have asked me, Joe, if it doesn't do all of the things that some 
people claim it does, why do you support this bill? Because it begins a 
process, because it allows people to speak, because we would have heard 
for the first time that we know that they have something that they want 
to change.
  Now, the opponents claim that this bill pushes Puerto Rico to 
statehood. Now I grew up in New York, but I can tell you one thing as a 
fact that I know about the Puerto Rican community and Puerto Rico: they 
know the status issue through and through. I think from the time you 
are 10 years old, all you debate in Puerto Rico is the status and 
baseball. And the status is bigger than baseball. So no one in Puerto 
Rico will be forced to vote for statehood unless they want it. Nobody 
will be forced to vote for independence unless they want it. No one 
will be forced to vote for anything unless they want it. They are very 
adamant. You think I'm excited now, you should see the way they speak 
about those issues in Puerto Rico. Nobody will force them into 
anything.
  At the same time, the opponents tell you there is no majority support 
for statehood in Puerto Rico, but they'll be forced to vote for 
statehood. I don't understand that; if there is no support, then they 
won't vote for statehood. That's a fact.
  Now, briefly, some of the commonwealth people, with all due respect 
to them, have proposed a new commonwealth, but they have never 
presented it in legislative form. They've had years. In the 20 years 
I've been here, they've never presented the commonwealth in a 
legislative form. We have presented many bills that speak to self-
determination.
  What they propose, and are you ready for this, Puerto Rico would 
remain American citizens. Puerto Rico would get more Federal dollars. 
Puerto Rico would be able to choose and pick any Federal law it wishes 
to follow and not follow. And Puerto Rico would be able to exchange 
ambassadors with other countries. That's the commonwealth that has been 
proposed.
  I want that for the Bronx. That's a great deal. And I am sure that 
the gentleman wants it for Florida. And the Texans would jump at it 
immediately. But that is not what it is. Give the people of Puerto Rico 
the opportunity to express themselves.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to 
my friend from Utah (Mr. Chaffetz).
  Mr. CHAFFETZ. Mr. Speaker, I believe this is a rushed process. This 
should be considered under an open rule, as it has in the past. Even 
Louise Slaughter, the chairwoman of the Rules Committee, was cited in 
Congress Daily today saying she didn't know why the House is even 
taking up the bill.
  I offered an amendment that said two-thirds of the people of Puerto 
Rico should vote affirmatively for statehood in order to move forward, 
yet that was not ruled in order. Believe me, we want to make sure that 
more than 51 percent of the people want this before we move forward. 
You don't want to get married to someone who is only 51 percent sure, 
for goodness sake.
  Nobody necessarily even knows what is in this bill; sovereignty and 
association with the United States has been pointed out. I don't think 
the people understand what that necessarily means, certainly in this 
body.
  And there is no need for a federally sanctioned vote. In 1967, 1993 
and 1998, the people of Puerto Rico voted. They voted against 
statehood. There is no reason that the heavy hand of the United States 
Congress needs to come down and force the people of Puerto Rico to vote 
on this.

                              {time}  1100

  They can do it themselves. And if they do it, they should do it with 
a very simple question: Are you in favor of statehood, yes or no? That 
simplicity would go a long ways with people like me and a lot of 
others. Let's have that kind of straight vote.
  We love the people of Puerto Rico. They're fellow citizens; they've 
served in our military. There is a great kinship. But it doesn't 
necessarily mean that the people of Puerto Rico want statehood. If 
they're going to have a vote, they should do so in Puerto Rico. They 
don't need the heavy hand of Congress; let them vote on that straight 
vote.
  I stand in opposition to this rule and in opposition to this bill, 
and I urge my colleagues to do the same.
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Maryland, the distinguished majority leader, Mr. Hoyer.
  Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman from Colorado.
  I rise in strong support of the bill. I rise in strong support of the 
underlying legislation. I am pleased to join my colleague from Puerto 
Rico (Mr. Pierluisi) in support of the rule and the bill.
  I know that Mr. Pierluisi, who was elected to represent Puerto Rico 
in the Congress of the United States as their representative, has 
worked long and hard on this bill, as have so many of his predecessors. 
When I came to Congress, Carlos Barcelo was the representative of 
Puerto Rico, and he was for this. That was 30 years ago, and we're 
still talking about this. The gentleman from Puerto Rico and Mr. 
Serrano make points that I would make.
  Now, the gentleman who preceded me said that we are rushing this 
bill. This bill was reported out of committee last July, 30-8. This 
bill has 181 cosponsors, broad bipartisan support in this Congress. And 
so we have brought this bill

[[Page 6838]]

to the floor for consideration. It offers amendments to those who are 
opposed to this bill. It offers amendments, frankly, that I think are 
extraneous to the basic premise of this bill as well. The fact of the 
matter is that America prides itself on being the beacon for democracy.
  What this bill does is celebrate democracy in Puerto Rico. I am 
grieved from time to time when I read that some of our fellow American 
citizens in Puerto Rico talk about the United States treating Puerto 
Rico as a colony. I don't know about the rest of you, but I'm not 
interested in having colonies. I don't perceive and have never 
perceived the United States as an imperial power with colonies. I 
perceive the United States of America as priding itself on being 
supportive of self-determination, of being committed to the premise 
that people freely ought to be able to come together and determine 
their own status.
  That's what this legislation does. I don't think it does more than 
that or less than that. Unlike previous legislation, it does not say 
that if in fact the voters of Puerto Rico vote one way or the other, 
that action will automatically follow by this Congress. This Congress 
will then have to make a determination as to what relationship we want 
to have to Puerto Rico in a democratic fashion in this House and in the 
Senate, as should be the case.
  The President of the United States has said he would want to see the 
status of Puerto Rico resolved. I want to see the status of Puerto Rico 
resolved. And, yes, if the citizens of Puerto Rico, under this bill, 
decide that they want to remain a Commonwealth and vote not to change, 
that will be the conclusion. If on the other hand they decide they want 
to have change, then they will have the options that the United Nations 
has set forth for colonies to become free nations.
  I myself do not refer to Puerto Rico as a colony; some in Puerto Rico 
do. The fact of the matter is that it gives three options which are the 
three options sanctioned by the United Nations, and that is, for a free 
people to self-determine if they want to be an independent nation, or, 
alternatively, that they want to be a State, or, alternatively, they 
want to have a free association with the United States. That latter 
category, as I suppose similar to the relationship that England has to 
Australia and Great Britain or that Micronesia has, or some other 
entity that has its own independent laws, it's a sovereign nation, as 
is Canada; but the Queen of England is the head of their government. 
That may be somewhat like a free association. But whatever the people 
of Puerto Rico decide, it seems to me that I would be, as one Member, 
prepared to honor.
  I am hopeful that today, after 111 years that Mr. Serrano spoke about 
and that Mr. Pierluisi has talked about, that we do in fact give to the 
Puerto Rican people the option that they deserve to have and that our 
principles demand they have.
  I hope my colleagues will support this rule. I hope they will support 
the bill, and I hope they will oppose amendments that will undermine 
this opportunity that can be a historic opportunity, not just for the 
people of Puerto Rico, but for the people of the United States of 
America to live out its pledge to peoples that have an association with 
us and, indeed, the principle that we ask other nations to honor as 
well of self-determination.
  I thank the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Polis) for yielding.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to 
yield 2 minutes to my friend from Georgia, Dr. Broun.
  Mr. BROUN of Georgia. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, this legislation is the first step in a process that 
offers the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico an invitation to become a full 
member as a State in the greatest Nation in the world. It is neither 
onerous nor unfair to require that English be the only official 
language as a precondition for its admission. I introduced an amendment 
that would accomplish this on two separate occasions. Unfortunately, 
the Democrats in this body rejected my amendment on both occasions, 
both in the committee as well as in this rule. Without this commonsense 
amendment, this legislation is fundamentally flawed.
  Throughout our Nation's history, the common thread that has united 
individuals of diverse backgrounds has been the common use of the 
English language. It is the glue that holds us together as a Nation. 
This amendment would help unite the island with the rest of the other 
50 States if it is admitted as a State. President Ronald Reagan once 
said, ``By emphasizing the importance of a common language, we 
safeguard a proud legacy and help to ensure that America's future will 
be as great as her past.''
  No territory with an official language other than English has ever 
been admitted to the Union. In fact, there are a number of former 
territories that had to comply with English preconditions before they 
were admitted to the Union, including Louisiana, Oklahoma, Arizona, and 
New Mexico. All of these States agreed to the condition that their 
schools shall always be conducted in English, and Puerto Rico should be 
no exception.
  My amendment does not prevent the Puerto Ricans from speaking Spanish 
in their home, church, business, or on the streets in San Juan.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. I yield the gentleman 1 
additional minute.
  Mr. BROUN of Georgia. I thank the gentleman.
  It simply requires English to be the official language in public 
schools, local and State courts, State government agencies, and the 
Puerto Rican legislature. This should not be a huge problem because 
since 1900 English has been taught from kindergarten to the 12th grade 
in Puerto Rico. Without this amendment, children in Puerto Rico will 
never have the opportunity--never have the opportunity--to participate 
fully and equally with their fellow citizens.
  It is my firm belief that insisting on Puerto Rico's adoption of 
English as its only official language must serve as a minimal 
requirement for consideration of its inclusion into our sacred Union. 
Since the Democrat leadership of this body rejected my amendment on two 
separate occasions, I urge this body to vote ``no'' on the rule and 
``no'' on H.R. 2499.
  Mr. POLIS. In response to the gentleman from Georgia, we live in a 
Federalist system. States have the ability to determine what languages 
are recognized in an official capacity. I think it would be misleading 
to the people of Puerto Rico in the context of a vote to insinuate that 
there is a Federal tyranny with regard to language.
  We live in an affiliation of States, a Federalist system that 
reserves power for the States. I know that the gentleman from Georgia 
has generally been a standard bearer of the rights of States and the 
prerogatives of States and, in fact, the ongoing battle against the 
overreach of Federal powers, and this is certainly an example of that.
  States have the ability to decide what languages to print things in--
language or languages--certainly the ability to set the language that 
their own State legislature meets in. This would be an example of an 
overreach of the Federal Government were they to dictate that.
  Mr. BROUN of Georgia. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. POLIS. I will yield briefly.
  Mr. BROUN of Georgia. I thank the gentleman from Colorado for 
yielding.
  I believe very firmly that the only way that we are going to 
incorporate people into this country--and we have been a Nation of 
immigrants, and I believe very fully that we should continue to allow 
responsible immigration into this Nation--but English has been the 
common thread that has bound us all together. It should be the official 
language of America.
  We have required Oklahoma, Louisiana, Arizona, and New Mexico to 
accept English as the official language to be admitted, and I don't 
think----
  Mr. POLIS. Reclaiming my time, I think it's a very appropriate 
discussion to have. It's a discussion at the State level; and I know 
that some States have done precisely that. But, again,

[[Page 6839]]

this would be an example of an overreach of the Federal Government 
where they would actually be involved with dictating to States that 
here you must speak Spanish, here you must speak French, here you must 
speak English, although certainly the gentleman has argued there are 
many at the local and State level that have advocated those policies on 
behalf of particular States.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, as I said before, I 
would have opposed amendments like Dr. Broun's on the floor, but I 
think that everyone should have an opportunity to be heard, even with 
ideas that I think are premature, because I don't know how the people 
of Puerto Rico are going to vote. So it's premature to say at this 
stage, okay, you have to speak this language or the other language 
because you're going to vote this way or the other way. No. No. All 
this does is start a process that will allow the people of Puerto Rico 
to speak. And it's the first time that there has been a federally 
authorized referendum for the people of Puerto Rico, and I think it's 
fair.
  At this time, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from 
California (Mr. Rohrabacher).
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the rule and to 
the underlying bill, but it could have been otherwise, I might add.
  The major flaw in H.R. 2499 is that it never allows an up-and-down 
vote, a yes-or-no vote on statehood or on any of the other status 
options presented to the people of Puerto Rico. It is a skewed process. 
It is designed to have a poll that will have a predetermined outcome.
  I submitted an amendment to the Rules Committee that would have fixed 
this fundamental flaw. Unfortunately, the rule now before us does not 
make my amendment in order. So now, if this bill becomes law, it will 
not find out whether the people of Puerto Rico support statehood. All 
the plebiscite will tell us is whether the people of Puerto Rico prefer 
statehood to independence.
  I can save us all a lot of trouble to that point. I concede--and most 
of my friends will concede, pretty much everyone involved in this issue 
will concede--that the Puerto Rican people would prefer statehood to 
independence or free association. So if everyone is willing to concede 
the only point that will be established in this bill, then why bother 
passing this bill and having two separate plebiscites just so we can 
find out what we already know?
  We also know that when people have had a chance just to vote on 
statehood, they voted against it. Well, the answer is that the 
proponents want to get the results of this system that's been set up 
this way so they can paint the people's opinion of Puerto Rico in a 
different way. They want to try to convince Congress and the American 
people the vote will really mean that the Puerto Rican people want 
statehood, but they're not being given the chance to vote up and down 
on statehood. It's only statehood in relationship to the other options, 
the other options that are offered on the ballot, I might add.

                              {time}  1115

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. I yield the gentleman an 
additional 30 seconds.
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. So, if the people of Puerto Rico really wanted 
statehood, that could be demonstrated by a ``yes'' or ``no'' vote on 
statehood, for which my amendment would have provided; but the sponsors 
of this legislation don't want an up-or-down vote on statehood, 
apparently because they don't think they can get that outcome in a fair 
vote. So they want to set up the scenario, the only scenario by which 
they can win--a popularity contest between statehood, independence, and 
free association.
  The people of Puerto Rico have a right to have an up-or-down vote on 
whether they want statehood right now as compared to their own status. 
This is a skewed poll, and it is stacking the deck. We should vote 
against this attempt to misrepresent the people of Puerto Rico.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to 
yield 3 minutes to my friend, the distinguished ranking member of the 
Rules Committee, the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier).
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, ``Who's on first?'' is the natural question 
that comes to mind on this issue.
  As we sat in the Rules Committee last night, we saw Luis Gutierrez, 
Charlie Rangel, and Nydia Velazquez join up with Virginia Foxx. We have 
here on the floor concerns raised by Dana Rohrabacher and Doc Hastings, 
and we have Lincoln Diaz-Balart; Mr. Pierluisi; our former colleague, 
Governor Fortuno; and a number of members of the Republican leadership 
joining in support of this.
  The bottom line is that we should do exactly what Mr. Gutierrez 
argued both in the Rules Committee and here on the floor last night. 
Now, I have stood in this well repeatedly, saying that I could have 
done a better job when I'd had the privilege of serving as chairman of 
the House Rules Committee. I could have had more open rules. I could 
have had more free-flowing debate. In fact, as this new majority was 
attempting to emerge to that majority status, I was criticized, and it 
was justified in some ways.
  We were promised, though, as I and others were being criticized, Mr. 
Speaker, that we would have an entirely new direction for America and 
that there would be an open, freewheeling debate. Well, there is no 
issue on which it is more apparent that we should be having a 
freewheeling debate, an open amendment process, than on this issue 
before us today.
  As we look at where it is we are going, I will say that I was 
troubled by the arrogance, the arrogance that was exhibited in the 
Rules Committee last night. There were attempts made by people like Mr. 
Gutierrez, who submitted 16 amendments, and two of those 16 amendments 
were made in order. Ms. Velazquez submitted six amendments, and three 
of hers were made in order. There were attempts made to make more 
amendments in order, and they were denied.
  In 1998, as has been pointed out, we had a completely open amendment 
process. Let me say that, last night, in the Rules Committee, Mr. 
Speaker, when we made an attempt to put together a bipartisan 
amendment, we saw the arrogance of the Rules Committee demonstrated 
when there was a complete denial of even the chance to recess for 10 
minutes so that the Democrats and Republicans could come together and 
offer a proposal.
  I will make a pledge that, if I am fortunate enough to hold the gavel 
again and if a request is made by the minority to cobble together a 
bipartisan amendment to deal with an issue that is before us, I will 
assure the Members I will recess the committee and will allow Members 
to come together and work on that package.
  We are going to have an opportunity in just a few minutes to defeat 
the previous question. If we do that, Mr. Diaz-Balart will offer an 
open rule. Democrats and Republicans alike have been arguing for an 
open amendment process on this, Mr. Speaker.
  So I ask my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous question so 
that we can have the free-flowing debate that this institution and the 
American people deserve.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I support the 
historic underlying legislation being brought to the floor today. 
Again, I commend Mr. Pierluisi and Governor Fortuno.
  In order to rightly return, however, to the open rule precedent set 
by the Republicans in 1998, I will be asking for a ``no'' vote on the 
previous question so that we can amend this rule and allow the House to 
consider the Puerto Rico Democracy Act under an open rule.
  Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the 
amendment and extraneous materials immediately prior to the vote on the 
previous question.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Florida?

[[Page 6840]]

  There was no objection.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. I yield back the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to emphasize that this bill is 
revenue neutral for the Federal Government and that all costs of the 
plebiscite will be paid by the Puerto Rican government.
  The United States is committed to democracy, and this bill gives us 
the opportunity to respect the democratically arrived-upon decision of 
the people of Puerto Rico. I join the number of sentiments that have 
been expressed today, including those from my friend and colleague from 
Florida, which are that, should Puerto Rico decide to seek 
independence, as an individual Member of Congress, I will support that. 
Should they decide to seek status as an associated republic, I will 
support that, and should they choose to join us as a State, I will 
support that.
  This recent health care debate, I think, helped to show the people of 
Puerto Rico some of the advantages that might be attained were they a 
State. Their Resident Commissioner, Pedro Pierluisi, did an excellent 
job in trying to advocate for the interests of Puerto Rico in this 
health care debate, but he was but one vote. The people of Puerto Rico, 
counted and apportioned under a census, should have six Members of 
Congress, probably Members on both sides of the aisle, advocating for 
their interests alongside Members of Congress, representing other parts 
of our country. The current territorial status of Puerto Rico would end 
under any of the three options. No options would be subject to the 
territorial clause of the U.S. Constitution. As my colleague from New 
York has mentioned, this is a topic that is discussed constantly around 
dinner tables in Puerto Rico.
  As a Member of Congress from Colorado, I respect the voice of the 
Puerto Rican people and of the Resident Commissioner, Pedro Pierluisi, 
who has been elected with this as part of his platform.
  Given the current hyperpartisan environment under which Congress 
works, it is very good to see a bill with such strong bipartisan 
support. It is important to point out that this bill has over 180 
cosponsors and that it was voted out of committee with a strong 
bipartisan majority. In addition, the highest of Puerto Rico's elected 
officials from both parties, including its Representative to Congress 
and Governor Luis Fortuno, along with a sizable majority of both 
chambers of its legislature, also support this bill. The reason is they 
understand that this bill upholds the most basic democratic tradition 
on which our country was founded.
  Today, we can offer millions of people the right to self-
determination. For too long, we have denied our fellow citizens this 
right, and we are now faced with an opportunity to fix this grievous 
injustice and to give the people of Puerto Rico the ability to self-
determine. Therefore, I urge my colleagues to uphold this country's 
commitment to democracy and to vote for the underlying rule, which is a 
fair rule, and the legislation.
  I urge a ``yes'' vote on the previous question and on the rule.
  The material previously referred to by Mr. Lincoln Diaz-Balart of 
Florida is as follows:

Amendment to H. Res. 1305 Offered by Mr. Lincoln Diaz-Balart of Florida

       Strike all after the resolved clause and insert:
       That at any time after the adoption of this resolution the 
     Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule XVIII, declare 
     the House resolved into the Committee of the Whole House on 
     the state of the Union for consideration of the bill (H.R. 
     2499) to provide for a federally sanctioned self-
     determination process for the people of Puerto Rico. The 
     first reading of the bill shall be dispensed with. All points 
     of order against consideration of the bill are waived except 
     those arising under clause 9 or 10 of rule XXI. General 
     debate shall be confined to the bill and shall not exceed one 
     hour and 30 minutes, with one hour equally divided and 
     controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the 
     Committee on Natural Resources and 30 minutes controlled by 
     Representative Velazquez of New York or her designee. After 
     general debate the bill shall be considered for amendment 
     under the five-minute rule. It shall be in order to consider 
     as an original bill for the purpose of amendment under the 
     five-minute rule the amendment in the nature of a substitute 
     recommended by the Committee on Natural Resources now printed 
     in the bill. Each section of the committee amendment in the 
     nature of a substitute shall be considered as read. During 
     consideration of the bill for amendment, the Chairman of the 
     Committee of the Whole may accord priority in recognition on 
     the basis of whether the Member offering an amendment has 
     caused it to be printed in the portion of the Congressional 
     Record designated for that purpose in clause 8 of rule XVIII. 
     Amendments so printed shall be considered as read. At the 
     conclusion of consideration of the bill for amendment the 
     Committee shall rise and report the bill to the House with 
     such amendments as may have been adopted. Any Member may 
     demand a separate vote in the House on any amendment adopted 
     in the Committee of the Whole to the bill or to the committee 
     amendment in the nature of a substitute. The previous 
     question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and 
     amendments thereto to final passage without intervening 
     motion except one motion to recommit with or without 
     instructions.
                                  ____

       (The information contained herein was provided by 
     Democratic Minority on multiple occasions throughout the 
     109th Congress.)

        The Vote on the Previous Question: What It Really Means

       This vote, the vote on whether to order the previous 
     question on a special rule, is not merely a procedural vote. 
     A vote against ordering the previous question is a vote 
     against the Democratic majority agenda and a vote to allow 
     the opposition, at least for the moment, to offer an 
     alternative plan. It is a vote about what the House should be 
     debating.
       Mr. Clarence Cannon's Precedents of the House of 
     Representatives, (VI, 308-311) describes the vote on the 
     previous question on the rule as ``a motion to direct or 
     control the consideration of the subject before the House 
     being made by the Member in charge.'' To defeat the previous 
     question is to give the opposition a chance to decide the 
     subject before the House. Cannon cites the Speaker's ruling 
     of January 13, 1920, to the effect that ``the refusal of the 
     House to sustain the demand for the previous question passes 
     the control of the resolution to the opposition'' in order to 
     offer an amendment. On March 15, 1909, a member of the 
     majority party offered a rule resolution. The House defeated 
     the previous question and a member of the opposition rose to 
     a parliamentary inquiry, asking who was entitled to 
     recognition. Speaker Joseph G. Cannon (R-Illinois) said: 
     ``The previous question having been refused, the gentleman 
     from New York, Mr. Fitzgerald, who had asked the gentleman to 
     yield to him for an amendment, is entitled to the first 
     recognition.''
       Because the vote today may look bad for the Democratic 
     majority they will say ``the vote on the previous question is 
     simply a vote on whether to proceed to an immediate vote on 
     adopting the resolution . . . [and] has no substantive 
     legislative or policy implications whatsoever.'' But that is 
     not what they have always said. Listen to the definition of 
     the previous question used in the Floor Procedures Manual 
     published by the Rules Committee in the 109th Congress, (page 
     56). Here's how the Rules Committee described the rule using 
     information from Congressional Quarterly's ``American 
     Congressional Dictionary'': ``If the previous question is 
     defeated, control of debate shifts to the leading opposition 
     member (usually the minority Floor Manager) who then manages 
     an hour of debate and may offer a germane amendment to the 
     pending business.''
       Deschler's Procedure in the U.S. House of Representatives, 
     the subchapter titled ``Amending Special Rules'' states: ``a 
     refusal to order the previous question on such a rule [a 
     special rule reported from the Committee on Rules] opens the 
     resolution to amendment and further debate.'' (Chapter 21, 
     section 21.2) Section 21.3 continues: ``Upon rejection of the 
     motion for the previous question on a resolution reported 
     from the Committee on Rules, control shifts to the Member 
     leading the opposition to the previous question, who may 
     offer a proper amendment or motion and who controls the time 
     for debate thereon.''
       Clearly, the vote on the previous question on a rule does 
     have substantive policy implications. It is one of the only 
     available tools for those who oppose the Democratic 
     majority's agenda and allows those with alternative views the 
     opportunity to offer an alternative plan.

  Mr. POLIS. I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the 
previous question on the resolution.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous 
question.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the 
yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.

[[Page 6841]]

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further 
proceedings on this question will be postponed.

                          ____________________