[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 160 (2014), Part 3]
[House]
[Pages 3524-3525]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




    A RESPONSE TO TWO U.S. SENATORS REGARDING PUERTO RICO STATEHOOD

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from 
Puerto Rico (Mr. Pierluisi) for 5 minutes.
  Mr. PIERLUISI. Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the junior Senator from 
Mississippi and the junior Senator from West Virginia spoke on the 
Senate floor about Puerto Rico's political status. Because Puerto Rico 
is a territory and not a State, we have no Senators who can respond to 
these two Senators on the Senate floor. So, as the only elected 
representative in Congress of the 3.6 million U.S. citizens that live 
in Puerto Rico, I respond now.
  The Senators discussed the referendum that was held in Puerto Rico in 
November 2012. However, neither

[[Page 3525]]

Senator mentioned that, on the first question in that referendum, 54 
percent of voters said they do not want Puerto Rico to be a territory, 
which means that my constituents no longer consent to the current 
status.
  Likewise, neither Senator noted that, during a Senate hearing on the 
referendum held last August, the senior Democrat and the senior 
Republican on the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources agreed that 
it was indisputable and clear that the people of Puerto Rico oppose the 
current territory status.

                              {time}  1100

  Finally, in their remarks yesterday, neither Senator acknowledged 
that in the referendum, statehood received more votes than any other 
status option, including the current status. In short, the Senators' 
discussion of the historic referendum was clearly deficient.
  In addition, both Senators expressed opposition to the Puerto Rico 
Status Resolution Act, which I introduced last year in the House and 
which was introduced earlier this month in the Senate. The two Senators 
have every right to oppose this legislation, which calls for an up-or-
down vote in Puerto Rico on the territory's admission as a State and 
outlines the steps the Federal Government would take if a majority of 
voters favor admission. But to argue, as the Senators did, that the 
bill excludes other options other than statehood makes no sense. A 
binary vote, by definition, is not exclusive. Those who support 
statehood can vote ``yes,'' and those who oppose it can vote ``no.'' 
This was precisely the format of the votes that led to Hawaii and 
Alaska becoming States.
  I ask the Senators: Do you believe those earlier votes were unfair or 
exclusionary? In any event, there are now 132 Members of the House and 
Senate who have cosponsored the Puerto Rico Status Resolution Act and, 
therefore, disagree with these two Senators' characterization of the 
bill. Both Senators sought to contrast their opposition to the Puerto 
Rico Status Resolution Act with their apparent support for a Puerto 
Rico-related appropriation that the President included in his fiscal 
year 2014 budget request at my urging, and that recently became law. 
Under this appropriation, funding would be provided for the first 
federally sponsored vote in Puerto Rico's history, to be held among one 
or more options that are consistent with U.S. law and policy and that 
would ``resolve'' the status issue. Contrary to the suggestion made by 
both Senators, a vote on Puerto Rico's admission as a State is a 
perfectly valid and logical way to structure the federally sponsored 
plebiscite to be held pursuant to this appropriation.
  Both Senators also expressed the view that the status debate is a 
``distraction'' from efforts to tackle Puerto Rico's economic and 
fiscal challenges. This argument is familiar, but it is false. The 
reality is that Puerto Rico's economic problems are structural in 
nature and are rooted in the territory's unequal and undemocratic 
status. No wonder my constituents are relocating to the States in 
unprecedented numbers.
  I look forward to the day when the men, women, and children I 
represent have the same rights and responsibilities as their fellow 
U.S. citizens residing in the States that the two Senators represent. 
We do not seek special treatment. We seek equality, and we intend to 
achieve it.

                          ____________________