Providing for Consideration of H.R. Puerto Rico Status Act

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 1519 and ask for its immediate consideration.

The Clerk read the resolution, as follows: H. Res. 1519

Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 8393) to enable the people of Puerto Rico to choose a permanent, nonterritorial, fully self-governing political status for Puerto Rico and to provide for a transition to and the implementation of that permanent, nonterritorial, fully self- governing political status, and for other purposes. All points of order against consideration of the bill are waived. In lieu of the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on Natural Resources now printed in the bill, an amendment in the nature of a substitute consisting of the text of Rules Committee Print 117-74 shall be considered as adopted. The bill, as amended, shall be considered as read. All points of order against provisions in the bill, as amended, are waived. The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill, as amended, and on any further amendment thereto, to final passage without intervening motion except: (1) one hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Natural Resources or their respective designees; and (2) one motion to recommit.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Reschenthaler), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only. General Leave
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Speaker, yesterday, the Rules Committee met and reported a rule, House Resolution 1519, providing for consideration of H.R. 8393, the Puerto Rico Status Act, under a closed rule. The rule provides 1 hour of general debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking member of the Committee on Natural Resources and provides one motion to recommit.

Madam Speaker, Puerto Ricans have been U.S. citizens since the Jones- Shafroth Act of 1917. That is over 100 years the Puerto Rican people have been Americans. Yet, for those 100 years and more--in fact, going all the way back to the United States' annexation of the island in 1898--the U.S. Government has not guaranteed our fellow citizens on Puerto Rico the full and equal rights of citizens on the mainland.

Puerto Rico has faced multilayered crises rooted in this century-long policy, crises that have been compounded in recent years by natural disasters, the COVID-19 pandemic, and migration.

Puerto Rico's current status prevents the island from enjoying full democracy at the national level. Puerto Rico's Delegate to Congress has limited voting rights, and the Puerto Rican people cannot vote in U.S. Presidential elections, even though the U.S. Government enacts and enforces their national laws and residents pay Federal taxes.

Puerto Rico also cannot set its own monetary trade or immigration policy. They are unable to join international organizations or enter into international agreements, highlighting the complicated implications of the island's current status as a territory.

Puerto Rico's status also limits the island economically. For example, in granting Puerto Rico the ability to restructure its debt in 2016, Congress established an oversight and management board that had the power to override decisions of the Governor and legislature of Puerto Rico.

Look, it is time Congress recognizes that Puerto Rico has no interest in being a colony, just as we in the United States should have no interest in being a colonizing power in the year 2022.

We are here today to consider a rule that would bring H.R. 8393, the Puerto Rico Status Act, to the floor.

This bill details the transition to and the implementation of a nonterritory status for Puerto Rico, finally giving the people of Puerto Rico a choice to determine their own status. It tasks the Puerto Rico State Elections Commission to carry out a nonpartisan campaign to educate and inform voters before holding a referendum for Puerto Ricans to decide between statehood, independence, or independence followed by free association with the United States.

I am proud to represent a vibrant Puerto Rican community in central Massachusetts, and many of my Puerto Rican constituents have family members still living on the island. Their family members, just like Americans on the mainland, deserve the right to self-determination. They ought to have an opportunity to carve their own path and build the future that they want.

The Puerto Rico Status Act is the result of serious negotiation and careful compromise to clarify available status options and ensure a productive process.

I am grateful to Chairman Grijalva, Chairwoman Velazquez, and Congresswoman Gonzalez-Colon, the Resident Commissioner from Puerto Rico, for all the work that they have done to get us to this point.

Ultimately, the people of Puerto Rico must decide on the island status, and it is up to us in Congress to help facilitate that process.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

This shouldn't be controversial. We are not deciding the fate of Puerto Rico. We are setting a process in place so that the people who live on the island can make that decision.

Listening to my colleague's speech, as he mentions Democrat, Democrat, Democrat, Democrat, you would never know that this compromise was actually written in conjunction with the Republican--let me repeat that--with the Republican Delegate from Puerto Rico.

So I don't understand what the big fuss is about.

But if my friend believes that the people of Puerto Rico should decide their future, then he should support this bill which will set in place a process so they can determine their future. If the gentleman doesn't, if he continues to believe that we should act like a colonizer, then vote ``no'' on the bill. But this is the commonsense thing to do.

One other thing we heard him say, they are taxpayer-funded elections. All of our elections proceed with the support of taxpayer funds. I don't understand what that is all about. But the bottom line is that people of Puerto Rico do pay taxes.

In any event, this really is about self-determination, and it is that simple. I hope that my colleagues will not only support the rule but also the underlying bill.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I will close.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I don't even know where to start in response to all of that.

Let me, first of all, inform Members about what the legislative history of the bill that we want to bring to the floor is because if you listen to the gentleman, Madam Speaker, you would think that it just came out of nowhere.

On July 15, 2022, Chairman Grijalva introduced H.R. 8393, the Puerto Rico Status Act, with original cosponsors Chairwoman Velazquez, Resident Commissioner Jenniffer Gonzalez-Colon--I will remind my friend, again, that she is a Republican Resident Commissioner from Puerto Rico--and Representative Darren Soto of Florida.

The Natural Resources Committee held a hearing on April 14, 2021, titled: ``Insular Affairs Legislative Hearing on Puerto Rico Political Status,'' and a hearing on June 16, 2021, titled: ``Office of Insular Affairs Legislative Hearing.''

On July 20, 2022, the full committee met and held a markup of the bill and favorably reported it with an amendment in the nature of a substitute by a vote of 25-20 with Resident Commissioner Gonzalez-Colon joining the majority. So the idea that somehow nobody has been talking about this doesn't reflect what the legislative history is.

Madam Speaker, I include in the Record an AP article from June 4, 2022, titled: ``Puerto Ricans speak out on U.S. territory's political status.''

Puerto Ricans Speak Out on US Territory's Political Status (By Danica Coto)

San Juan, PR (AP).--Hundreds of Puerto Ricans crowded into a convention center Saturday where federal legislators held a public hearing to decide the future of the island's political status as the U.S. territory struggles to recover from hurricanes, earthquakes and a deep economic crisis.

One by one, dozens of people ranging from politicians to retirees to young people leaned into a microphone and spoke against the island's current territorial status, which recognizes its people as U.S. citizens but does not allow them to vote in presidential elections, denies them certain federal benefits and allows them one representative in Congress with limited voting powers.

The hearing comes two weeks after a group of Democratic congress members including the House majority leader and one Republican proposed what would be the first-ever binding plebiscite that would offer voters in Puerto Rico three options: statehood, independence or independence with free association, whose terms would be defined following negotiations.

Congress would have to accept Puerto Rico as the 51st state if voters so choose it, but the proposal is not expected to survive in the Senate, where Republicans have long opposed statehood.

``Everyone, even congress people themselves, know that the possibilities of this becoming law are minimal and maybe non- existent, but it doesn't stop being important,'' former Puerto Rico governor Anibal Acevedo Vila told The Associated Press.

About an hour into the hearing, a small group of people including a former gubernatorial candidate who supports independence burst into the ballroom, pointed fingers at the panel of U.S. legislators and yelled, ``120 years of colonialism!''

The majority of the audience booed the group and yelled at them to leave as U.S. lawmakers called for calm. ``Democracy is not always pretty, but it's necessary,'' said Rep. Raul Grijalva of Arizona, chairman of the U.S. House of Natural Resources Committee, which oversees affairs in U.S. territories.

The proposal of a binding plebiscite--a measure that has not yet been introduced in committee--has frustrated some on an island that already has held seven unilateral, nonbinding referendums on its political status, with no overwhelming majority emerging. The last referendum was held in November 2020, with 53 percent of votes for statehood and 47 percent against, with only a little more than half of registered voters participating.

Luis Herrero, a political consultant, said during the hearing that even if enough people support statehood, there are not enough votes in the Senate to make Puerto Rico a state: ``Not today, not yesterday, not tomorrow. Since 1898, Puerto Rican statehood has been a mirage, lip service to score cheap political points or to raise a few dollars for a campaign.''

Saturday's hearing comes amid ongoing discontent with Puerto Rico's current political status, with the U.S. Supreme Court further angering many in April after upholding the differential treatment of residents of Puerto Rico. In an 8-1 vote, the court ruled that making Puerto Ricans ineligible for the Supplemental Security Income program, which offers benefits to blind, disabled and older Americans, did not unconstitutionally discriminate against them.

As a result, many of those who spoke at Saturday's public hearing welcomed the proposed binding plebiscite.

``We finally see the light at the end of the tunnel,'' said Victor Perez, a U.S. military veteran who lamented the current political status. ``Even after all our service and sacrifice, we come back home and we are denied full voting rights and equality. . . . We cannot vote for our president, our commander in chief,

(but) they send us to war.''

Grijalva said the testimonies given Saturday will help him and other legislators revise the proposed measure, which he said is a way to make amends. He said he hopes it will go to the House floor by August. If eventually approved, it would be held on Nov. 5, 2023.

Acevedo, the former governor, said he hasn't lost hope despite numerous attempts throughout the decades to change the political status of Puerto Rico, which became a U.S. territory in 1898 following the SpanishAmerican War.

``A solution to this problem of more than 120 years has to happen at some point,'' he said. ``When will conditions allow for it? That's unpredictable.''

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, it is clear something needs to change. Puerto Ricans don't want to continue under the island's territorial status for many reasons--namely because while the status recognizes its people as U.S. citizens, it doesn't allow them to vote in Presidential elections, denies them certain crucial Federal benefits, and limits their congressional Representative's voting power.

The Puerto Rico Status Act is a good solution that will allow Puerto Ricans to decide themselves what the next steps should be. We should give them that opportunity.

The gentleman talked about process in terms of how this House is being operated. Let me remind the gentleman--and let me remind all my colleagues--that the last time the Republicans were in charge of the House, the Senate, and the White House--they controlled everything, and I mean everything--the last time they did that, do you know what they did?

They shut the government down and walked away. That is not responsible governing. That was unconscionable.

And leading up to that government shutdown in the Rules Committee we had an emergency meeting, on what?

Cheese.

Don't even ask me to explain that, but that is what they did. They had an emergency meeting in the Rules Committee, and it was a meeting on cheese.

Madam Speaker, I include in the Record a HuffPost article titled: ``House Republicans Called Emergency Meeting On Cheese As Shutdown Approached.'' [From HuffPost, Dec. 22, 2018] House Republicans Called Emergency Meeting on Cheese as Shutdown Approached (By Amy Russo)

As the federal government was heading for a shutdown Friday night, House Republicans called an emergency meeting.

Plot twist: it was about cheese.

During her broadcast that evening, MSNBC's Rachel Maddow appeared astonished while reporting on the gathering, which was arranged so that lawmakers could discuss the Curd Act, a proposal to allow some cheeses to be advertised as ``natural'' despite having artificial ingredients.

Rep. Jim McGovern (D-Mass.) was clearly irked, feeling the timing was pretty inconvenient.

``This is an emergency meeting that we're having here and I've seen some surreal things around this place, but this is really something,'' McGovern said. ``Vital parts of our government are about to shut down in just a few hours, and the Republicans have called an emergency meeting on cheese.''

Venting his frustration with Republicans in the room, McGovern wondered whether his colleagues had thought about how the meeting would look to the public, which would soon be faced with the third shutdown of the year.

``I mean, has anybody considered how ridiculous this is or how bad the optics are as the American people are watching what's going on here?'' he asked. ``By all means, if you think the most important thing we have to discuss right now is cheese, I'll let you have at it.''

Rep. Pete Sessions (R-Texas) eventually jumped in to defend the meeting, calling the cheese bill ``important to small business,'' then eventually segueing into the issue of funding for the southern border wall, the key matter that prompted the shutdown.

``We are being overrun on our southern border,'' Sessions declared.

That's when McGovern piped up, appearing confused, asking, ``There's no wall in this bill, right?''

``It is important,'' Sessions argued back, clarifying that he was ``not talking about the wall of cheese.''

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, my Republican colleagues seem to be confused about why we are moving quickly here.

Let me explain that simply in the last few hours that they were in charge, as I said, they called an emergency meeting on cheese. Don't get me wrong. I love cheese just as much as everybody else in this Chamber does. But I think the systematic disenfranchisement of millions of American citizens is a little bit more important than cheese. Maybe my Republican colleagues disagree.

I also point out that this is not the last day of this Congress. We will be here to complete our business on an omnibus appropriations bill. But I want the American people to understand how my Republican friends have acted in these last few days. We are still trying to work out the details of this government spending bill. We are working with Republicans and trying to come up with some sort of an accommodation. We need a little bit more time.

What we voted on yesterday was a continuing resolution to keep the government running a few more days so we don't have a shutdown and to work out the details. It is not the final package. Lots of stuff still remains to be figured out.

But what we said is that we need to pass a short-term continuing resolution for a few days so that we can work out those details and so we don't shut the government down and cause all kinds of chaos because we know what government shutdowns do.

I think it is really interesting for people to understand that 201 Republicans voted to shut the government down. If they succeeded, then the government would shut down tomorrow. They voted to shut the government down--

Who does that?

What are they thinking?

All because there is a small group of people here in the House whose allegiance to Trump and the hard-line rightwing fringe of the Republican Party say they don't want to have any kind of deal. They don't want to govern. They would rather shut the government down costing the economy billions and billions of dollars, causing all kinds of uncertainty, and hurting the American people.

They did that before. If they had their way, then the government would be shut down tomorrow. Talk about irresponsible.

So I also should point out that every Democrat--215 Democrats--who voted yesterday voted to keep the government running. So apparently, Members of the Republican Party do not think they are responsible for governing. They vote ``no'' on everything--on everything--and they criticize us for the way we do the job that they won't do.

We heard the gentleman criticize President Biden for dealing with the drug crisis at the border, for actually seizing fentanyl. He is getting criticized because we are seizing it at the border.

Really?

Madam Speaker, this is simple. The legislation that this rule will bring to the floor gives the people of Puerto Rico a choice--one that they deserve--to determine their status. It is past time we provide them this opportunity to decide for themselves what kind of relationship they want with the United States moving forward.

So that is what this rule will do. It will bring that bill to the floor.

Before I close, Madam Speaker, I would just, again, urge my Republican friends: stand up to the Freedom Caucus, stand up to the hard-line rightwing in your conference who says ``no'' to everything. Put the American people first. Put people over politics.

That is something that I think is not an unreasonable request.

The idea that over 200 of my friends voted to shut the government down yesterday?

Give me a break.

So we are going to do our work, and we are going to pass this bill today. We are going to get to an agreement on an omnibus bill that will help the American people. That will be next week. And we are going to do our job because we believe our job is to govern. That is the responsible thing to do, not shut the government down. Madam Speaker, I urge a ``yes'' vote on the rule.

Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source