Puerto Rico Status Act
Floor Speech
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. WESTERMAN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Madam Speaker, introduced in July 2022, H.R. 8393, the Puerto Rico Status Act, would authorize a federally sponsored plebiscite to occur on November 5, 2023, and it would dictate to the voters of Puerto Rico three and only three choices: independence, sovereignty and free association, or statehood. If no one option receives a majority vote, there will be a runoff on March 3, 2024.
I cannot support this measure because of process concerns and wide- ranging policy changes that involve the jurisdiction of the Natural Resources Committee, along with several other House committees that haven't even seen this bill.
The Committee on Natural Resources has not held a hearing on this bill, nor have the other committees with expertise on complex issues of U.S. citizenship, taxation and entitlement programs, foreign policy, and many other matters. None of them have been given an opportunity to openly consider, debate, and amend this bill.
The question of Puerto Rico's political status is a life-altering decision for the people of Puerto Rico. Just as we would expect the people of Puerto Rico to deliberate its questions, understand its consequences, and accept responsibility for the choice, so should Congress.
These issues are far too important for this body to act without proper deliberation. Because of the hasty and secretive process that was used to develop this bill, it contains many concerning and unresolved issues.
The bill contradicts itself, offering Puerto Rico the promise of independence while prescribing actions that should be taken by the newly sovereign nation. How can you be independent yet have another nation dictate what your actions will be?
It promises the trappings of U.S. citizenship without the responsibilities of being a part of the United States.
It is unfortunate that we are here considering this legislation on the House floor after the majority has held backroom negotiations instead of open, transparent hearings and markups. A regular and open legislative process would have allowed Members of this body and the people of Puerto Rico--more than 3 million United States citizens--to fully assess what this bill proposes and what it means for this and future generations.
In fact, the majority made changes to the bill that had even less consideration than the version ordered to be reported by the Committee on Natural Resources in July, cutting backroom deals as recently as this week.
We learned this bill would be on the floor even before we had the text from the Rules Committee. We didn't even know what we would be debating when we learned this bill would be on the floor.
Madam Speaker, there is a favorite Latin expression of mine. It is lux et veritas. It means light and truth. This body, this Congress, and this Federal Government could use a lot more light and truth.
You see, without light, when you are in the darkness, you don't know what truth is. If you don't know what truth is, then you make bad policy decisions.
Unfortunately, the lack of transparency seems to be par for the course in Congress anymore. This bill should have been debated. It should have had light shone on it.
This is just bad policy. I don't see how anybody could read this bill and think that there are not problems with it, that there is not a lack of logic. There is incoherence in the text of the bill, and it is taking us to a position where we would make bad decisions.
Here we are, just a week after this Chamber was left guessing what would be in the final NDAA and while we are currently guessing what will be in a last-minute omnibus spending bill that will, no doubt, be rolled out in the dark of night. This is another example of what is so broken about this process, what is so broken about the way this majority has led.
If this majority were interested in helping Puerto Rico, we would be advancing legislation to address the reliability of the island's energy grid, ensure its fiscal solvency, repair its infrastructure, or meet any of the other tangible needs for the people of Puerto Rico.
We should be treating these U.S. citizens with respect and letting a full and robust legislative process in the light of day take place to address the status question and the many implications for the people of Puerto Rico and for all Americans.
Madam Speaker, I urge a ``no'' vote on H.R. 8393, and I reserve the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. WESTERMAN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Madam Speaker, I want to be as crystal clear as I can. I think this is not only my position, but I believe it is the position of everyone in the minority--the whole Republican Conference and I would hope it would be the position of all of the Democratic Caucus--that America is not a symbol of darkness.
America is still a shining city on a hill. America offers more hope and more protections for freedom than anybody in the history of the world has offered and will continue to offer that. A country that is founded on the protection of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness cannot be considered a country that is a symbol of darkness.
I heard a lot of talk about colonialism. But passing a bill that tells a sovereign nation what its laws should be sounds a lot like colonialism to me.
Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Bentz).
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. WESTERMAN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I thank the distinguished gentleman, the leader of the Democratic Party, for his remarks. I agree with many things that he said. I think all of us would agree with many of the things that he stated. I was with him right up there until the part about using D.C. statehood as a metaphor with Puerto Rican statehood. If the gentleman wanted to talk about the residents of D.C., we can talk about taking those residential neighborhoods and commercial neighborhoods in D.C. and putting them back with the State of Maryland if that is an issue. D.C. statehood is totally different from Puerto Rican statehood, and it shouldn't even be brought into this discussion.
The gentleman talked about the inherent right to self-determination. He said it is something that shouldn't be dictated by the Congress of the U.S. to the people of Puerto Rico. He said the decision belongs to the people of Puerto Rico. Their destiny belongs to them. I think we would all agree with that in principle, but that is not what this bill says.
Section 102 talking about the independence option. I am reading directly from the bill: ``The constitutional convention under section 101 shall formulate and draft a constitution for Puerto Rico that guarantees the protection of fundamental human rights . . . ''
We all agree that should happen, but if they are an independent nation, what right do we have to tell them that? It says it shall include: ``Due process and equal protection under the law; freedom of speech, press, assembly, association, and religion; the rights of the accused; any other economic, social, and cultural rights as the constitutional convention may deem appropriate and necessary; and provisions to ensure that no individual born in the nation of Puerto Rico shall be stateless at birth.''
I don't disagree with that, but if they vote for independence, what right do we have to dictate to them how they write their constitution and what is included in it?
The other option of free association, section 202 of the bill: ``The constitutional convention under section 201 shall formulate and draft a constitution for Puerto Rico that guarantees the protection of fundamental human rights . . . ''
Again, if they have the sovereignty under a free association, what right does Congress have to dictate what their constitution will say? The leader's words that their destiny shouldn't be dictated by the U.S. Congress. Their destiny belongs to them. Yet, this bill tells them what they shall do if they vote for either of those options.
Madam Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from Puerto Rico (Miss Gonzalez-Colon).
Miss GONZALEZ-COLON. Madam Speaker, today is a truly historic day for Puerto Rico. Ironically, it is also a perfect example of the island's colonial reality.
I am Puerto Rico's only voice in Congress. I represent 3.2 million American citizens living back home, more constituents than anyone in this Chamber. Yet, while we consider a bill I helped write, a bill that will directly impact the life of every citizen I represent, I still must rely and depend on everybody here because I cannot vote on the floor. This is the best example of why this bill is so important for Puerto Rico.
Today, Congress takes a step toward finally assuming its responsibility under Article IV, Section 3, Clause 2 of our Constitution to provide the people of Puerto Rico with an opportunity, a federally binding choice to democratically decide our future among three nonterritorial, constitutionally viable options: statehood, independence, and independence in association with the United States.
For the first time in history, we are considering legislation that would authorize a self-executing plebiscite on the island. With the adoption of this bill, this Chamber is also recognizing and making clear that Puerto Rico's century-old territorial status is the problem and cannot be part of the solution.
The territorial condition constrains the island's ability to prosper and has relegated the island to an indefinite second-class status when compared to the 50 States.
This is the main reason behind social, economic, and physical challenges we have faced, forcing a mass exodus of millions of Puerto Ricans to the mainland in search of that equality.
Congress has perpetuated by its inaction this dysfunctional political-economic condition, one that at its core is, as President Ronald Reagan once characterized it, ``historically unnatural.''
Because we are a territory, the people of Puerto Rico lack full voting representation in the House and Senate and cannot vote for the President, who sends our sons and daughters to war.
Because we are a territory, the Federal Government can, and often does, treat us unequally under Federal laws and programs.
Because we are a territory, we are treated as second-class citizens.
Because we are a territory, I am here today discussing a bill related to one of our most critical issues, yet I cannot vote on this bill. This is the reason this discussion is so important.
I support statehood for the island, and our people have voted not once, not twice, but three times already supporting statehood.
In response, I introduced H.R. 1522, which, following the most recent precedents of Alaska and Hawaii, would have established a process to admit the island as a State of the Union in a simple yes or no vote. However, given the political realities in this Congress, and in the interest of advancing the status issue, I led negotiations on this bill before us.
This bill would make an offer to the people of Puerto Rico to choose. I prefer statehood, but this bill would allow the people to choose between statehood, independence, or independence in association with the United States, and spell out the consequences of each option.
Of course, this bill is not perfect, but at least it will advance the issue.
Today, I remember the late Congressman Don Young of Alaska, who understood better than anyone else the inequities that come with being a territory and always championed statehood for Puerto Rico.
Madam Speaker, never has a U.S. territory had to wait longer than Puerto Rico to become an independent nation or to become a State, and we have voted three times for that. We have more than earned the right to do so.
Today, as the sole representative of the people of the island, I urge my colleagues to vote for this bill, H.R. 8393, and allow us to finally put an end to our shameful territorial status.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. WESTERMAN. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Smucker).
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. WESTERMAN. Madam Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. WESTERMAN. Madam Speaker, may I inquire as to how much time is remaining?
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. WESTERMAN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
If there is one thing that I think has come out in this discussion is that there are problems with this bill. It is not a ``perfect piece of legislation.'' It needs work done on it.
But we have to look at what the bill says. The way this bill is written, if it were to pass today, if it passes out of this House and it went through the process in the Senate, signed by the President, then we have abrogated all of our responsibilities and authority, because it doesn't come back to Congress for any kind of approval.
So both sides have agreed, in a bipartisan manner, that this bill has problems, yet we are voting on it today to say, with problems, that is okay; we are just going to go ahead and move it through the process, even though we have all recognized that there are problems with the bill.
Madam Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. McClintock).
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. WESTERMAN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Our neighbors in Puerto Rico are American citizens. They are afforded the protections under the Constitution of the United States. I am from Arkansas. Arkansas was a territory at one time. There is a process for becoming a State.
The American citizens in Puerto Rico deserve the respect to have a process that has actually been thought out, that has been debated, and that gives them an opportunity to enter statehood in a way that is more common to the way other States have entered. This bill is not that. This bill has serious problems with it.
We are right here at the end of Congress. To me, this just looks like a political ploy as we are waiting to pass a massive spending bill before we go home for Christmas and start the new Congress.
Madam Speaker, in closing, it is obvious there is bipartisan support for Puerto Rican self-determination. That is not the issue. The issue is the process, and this is a bad process.
If this is so important to the majority, then I ask: Why today? Why today?
Less than 20 days before this Congress ends and Democrats transition to the minority, why bring this bill today?
Was there not time in the past 4 years to have hearings on this bill, to have other committees look at this bill?
But yesterday, we get notice of an emergency Rules Committee meeting to consider this bill that all of a sudden is so important, but it wasn't important, certainly not in this Congress. We didn't have a hearing on this bill. We had a markup, a markup without a hearing.
The committee spent more time talking about big cats. We had hearings on big cats, then we talked about Puerto Rican status. There are 10,000 big cats in the United States, and there are over 3 million Puerto Rican citizens.
That is why we are not supporting this bill today, and that is why it is disingenuous to bring it to the House less than 20 days before the end of this Congress when both sides have agreed that there are problems with the bill, problems that need to be worked out, but there is no recourse in this bill for Congress to have a second look at it.
We can't control the Senate, but I doubt very seriously the Senate is going to be taking up this bill. So that leads me to conclude that what we are doing here at the end of December, discussing Puerto Rican status, is simply just a political ploy on the backs of the Puerto Rican citizens of the United States.
Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no,'' and I yield back the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Source