[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 156 (2010), Part 5]
[House]
[Pages 6843-6875]
[From the U.S. 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.

[[Page 6844]]

  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.
  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.

[[Page 6845]]

  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 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

[[Page 6846]]

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. 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. 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

[[Page 6847]]

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).
  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.

[[Page 6848]]

  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 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

[[Page 6849]]

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.
  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

[[Page 6850]]

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).
  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. 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

[[Page 6851]]

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.
  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. 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

[[Page 6852]]

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.
  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

[[Page 6853]]

     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.
  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

[[Page 6854]]

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.
  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

[[Page 6855]]

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 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.

[[Page 6856]]


  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.
  Ms. BORDALLO. Mr. Chair, I rise in support of H.R. 2499, the Puerto 
Rico Democracy Act of 2009, introduced by our 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 22nd of last 
year.
  H.R. 2499 is an important bill for both 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. Guam and Puerto Rico were 
both ceded to the United States after the Spanish American War in 1898. 
The communities in Guam and Puerto Rico have long traditions of 
patriotism and loyalty to the United States. In fact, both Guam and 
Puerto Rico boast some of the highest per-capita rates of military 
service in the United States. But while we are proud and fortunate to 
be Americans, we must be given an opportunity to decide our future 
political status. H.R. 2499 will provide the people of Puerto Rico a 
congressionally-sanctioned process to express their preferences 
regarding their political status. The bill's broad, bipartisan base of 
cosponsors as well as the unified support it enjoys among Puerto Rico's 
elected and governing leaders should not be overlooked, and in fact, 
should prompt us today to decisively pass this bill. Appropriate 
deference on questions about ballot format and process should be given 
to Governor Fortuno, the legislature leaders of Puerto Rico, and our 
colleague, Congressman Pierluisi of Puerto Rico. They are the 
democratically elected leaders of the people desiring Congress to 
sanction a process for them to exercise their fundamental right to 
self-determination.
  Mr. Chair, Article 4, Section 3 of the Constitution makes it clear 
that Congress has the power to make needful rules and regulations 
governing the territories. Passing the Puerto Rico Democracy Act will 
fulfill the responsibility this body has to over 4 million American 
citizens.
  Each territory is on a different path toward self-determination, and 
what is appropriate for Puerto Rico may not be suitable for the other 
territories. But I firmly believe that the process established by H.R. 
2499 is the best way for the people of Puerto Rico to exercise their 
right to self-determination and express their desires to Congress to 
ultimately resolve their political status. I urge my colleagues to vote 
yes on this important and needed legislation.
  Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Chair, I stand in opposition to H.R. 2499, the Puerto 
Rico Democracy Act. I believe that H.R. 2499 will lead to a situation 
where the government of Puerto Rico could demand recognition as the 
51st state in the Union despite the will of the Puerto Rican people. 
This bill represents the fourth time since 1991 that Puerto Ricans have 
been asked to vote on their status, and all four times they have 
rejected statehood as their desired political status. The two-step 
voting process contained in this bill will skew the results in favor of 
a minority of the people who support statehood, and drown out the 
voices of the majority who do not.
  I am also deeply troubled by the provision in the bill that would 
allow anyone born in Puerto Rico, but not currently residing there, to 
vote in this plebiscite. With hundreds of thousands of people born in 
Puerto Rico, but not residing there, I believe this aspect of the bill 
dilutes the voices of Puerto Rican residents and again sets the stage 
for a skewed result supporting statehood.
  Finally, I believe that as a condition of possible statehood, Puerto 
Rico must officially adopt English as its primary language. It is 
currently officially a bilingual territory, where only 1 in 5 people 
speak English fluently. The last states admitted to the Union, Alaska 
and Hawaii, both adopted English as their official language and, 
although they respect the culture and language of their native 
population, the vast majority of their populations are fluent in 
English.
  For these reasons, I cannot vote to support H.R. 2499 or the Burton/
Young Amendment, which does not adequately ensure that English would be 
the official language of Puerto Rico.
  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.

[[Page 6857]]




                  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 
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. 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.

[[Page 6858]]


  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. 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

[[Page 6859]]

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.
  I reserve the balance of my time.

                              {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, 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''.

[[Page 6860]]

       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.
  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.

[[Page 6861]]

  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 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

[[Page 6862]]

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 
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

[[Page 6863]]

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 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.

[[Page 6864]]

  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 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

[[Page 6865]]

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 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

[[Page 6866]]

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 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.

[[Page 6867]]

  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 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:

[[Page 6868]]



                             [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
     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

[[Page 6869]]


     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
     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.

[[Page 6870]]

  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
     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

[[Page 6871]]


     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
     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)

[[Page 6872]]


     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
     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.

[[Page 6873]]

  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.
  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.

[[Page 6874]]

  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.
  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

[[Page 6875]]


     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.''

                          ____________________