Pedro Pierluisi

Mr. PIERLUISI

Mr. PIERLUISI. Mr. Speaker, after 8 years, this will be my last floor speech as the Resident Commissioner of Puerto Rico in Congress. I want to thank my constituents for giving me the opportunity to serve as their voice in Washington. They are enduring difficult times, but they never lose their hope, dignity, or appreciation for life's blessings. I also want to thank my colleagues in the House and the Senate. I respect your dedication to public service, energy, and commitment to the causes you champion. In addition, I want to thank my staff, which has served me and the people of Puerto Rico with skill, passion, and loyalty. Most importantly, I want to thank my wife, Maria-Elena; my four children; and the rest of my family. They have walked alongside me on this journey through the peaks and valleys, and my love for them cannot be captured with words. It is impossible to condense 8 action-packed years into 5 minutes. However, if there is a central theme to my tenure as Resident Commissioner, it has been ``fighting the good fight'' on behalf of the 3.4 million American citizens in Puerto Rico, who have been treated unfairly for too long. In an example of baptism by fire, the battle began almost as soon as I assumed office in 2009, when Congress was debating the stimulus bill known as ARRA. Even as I was still learning to navigate my way through the Capitol, we managed to secure virtually State-like treatment for Puerto Rico, injecting almost $7 billion into the island's economy when we needed it most. The fight continued the following year with the Affordable Care Act, which resulted in the largest funding increase in history for Puerto Rico's Medicaid program. Separately, we secured legislative and administrative action that eliminated many of the disparities that Puerto Rico faced under the Medicare program. I am also proud of our work to combat drug-related violence in Puerto Rico, requiring the Federal Government to prepare the Caribbean Border Counternarcotics Strategy and persuading Federal lawsuit agencies to increase their resources in Puerto Rico. The number of homicides on the island was cut in half between 2011 and 2015. But this is not about statistics. It is about preserving human life. Moreover, I have tried my best to serve those who have served us. Residents of Puerto Rico have a rich military tradition, and no unit exemplifies their courage and character better than the 65th Infantry Regiment, which fought the enemy on the battlefield and discrimination in the barracks. After we enacted legislation to award them the Congressional Gold Medal, these warriors--now in the twilight of their lives--stood beside President Obama as he signed the bill into law and were honored at a ceremony in the Capitol, one that I will never forget. The toughest fight of my tenure came earlier this year when Congress and the White House worked together to enact legislation, called PROMESA, to prevent the Government of Puerto Rico from collapsing. Nobody was pleased that such legislation was necessary, and nobody liked every provision in the bill, but I firmly believe that PROMESA, if properly implemented, provides a path to a better future for Puerto Rico. I close with this thought: Puerto Rico's current territory status, which gives Congress license to treat my constituents like second class citizens, is undignified and unsustainable. Following a 2012 local referendum in which island residents expressed their opposition to the current status and their support for statehood, Congress enacted legislation that provided funding for the first federally sponsored referendum in Puerto Rico's history. The significance of this achievement has yet to be sufficiently appreciated. Puerto Rico should use this authority to conduct a vote on whether the territories should become a State. If the people of Puerto Rico ratify their support for statehood, as I expect they will, it will be incumbent upon Congress to implement that result. This country, which was founded on the principles of equality and justice, must live up to its creed. May God bless Puerto Rico and the United States of America.

Mr. PIERLUISI

Mr. PIERLUISI. Mr. Chairman, I want to begin by thanking Congressman Duffy for his outstanding work on this bill and on this particular amendment. I also want to thank Congressman Don Young, a steadfast champion for fair treatment for Puerto Rico who is also a cosponsor of this amendment. The primary purpose of this amendment is to increase small business activity and promote job creation in Puerto Rico. The HUBZone program supports economically distressed communities throughout the Nation. If the poverty rate or median income in a census tract meets a certain threshold, it is designated as a qualified census tract. Small businesses located in a qualified census tract can compete for Federal contracts with preference, assuming they meet all other criteria established by law. However, there is a statutory cap which prevents the combined population of the qualified census tracts within a metropolitan statistical area from exceeding 20 percent of the total population of that area. Although the cap applies nationwide, it has a uniquely negative impact in Puerto Rico. Small firms located in over 60 municipalities in Puerto Rico cannot take advantage of the HUBZone program solely because of the cap. No other U.S. State or territory comes anywhere close to being as adversely affected by the cap as Puerto Rico. To promote economic development in Puerto Rico, which is absolutely essential if the territory is going to prosper, our amendment would remove the cap for Puerto Rico for 10 years or until the independent oversight board established by the legislation terminates, whichever occurs first. Based on the best available statistics, this amendment ensures that small firms located in over 80 percent of the census tracts in Puerto Rico may be eligible to compete with preference for Federal contracts, which should create additional employment opportunities on the island. The amendment will only extend the HUBZone programs to those census tracts in Puerto Rico that would have qualified for the program in the absence of the cap. So it does not constitute an unwarranted expansion of the HUBZone program. I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on this amendment.

Mr. PIERLUISI. Mr. Chairman, I thank Congressman Grijalva. I rise to support this thoughtful amendment and to thank its authors, Congressman Jolly and Congressman Curbelo, both from Florida. Florida is home to over 1 million individuals of Puerto Rican birth or descent, and will soon pass New York as the State with the largest Puerto Rican population. Many of the Puerto Rican families in Florida are recent arrivals, having relocated from Puerto Rico to the Sunshine State in search of the equality and economic opportunity that they lack on the island. I also want to thank the organization Jubilee USA, which has been a constructive player in the debate over PROMESA. This amendment requires the Congressional Task Force on Economic Growth in Puerto Rico, created by section 409 of the bill, to report on recommended changes to Federal policy that would reduce child poverty in Puerto Rico. I do not want to prejudge the work of the task force, so I will simply say this: poverty in Puerto Rico, including child poverty, is far higher than in any State in the Nation, and it has been far higher for as long as statistics have been available. This demonstrates that the problem is structural in nature. It is rooted in the unequal treatment that Puerto Rico receives under key Federal antipoverty programs, which is only permissible because Puerto Rico is a territory rather than a State. To reduce poverty, we must end unequal treatment, and to end unequal treatment, Puerto Rico must discard its territory status in favor of statehood or nationhood.

Mr. PIERLUISI. Mr. Chairman, I represent Puerto Rico in Congress, and I rise in support of PROMESA. Puerto Rico is at a crossroads. Since 1898, it has been a territory of the United States, subject to the broad powers of Congress under the Territory Clause. In 1917, Congress conferred U.S. citizenship on individuals born in Puerto Rico. In the 1950s, Congress authorized and approved a constitution for Puerto Rico, which provides the island with a republican form of government consisting of three branches. Because Puerto Rico is a territory, my constituents have never been treated equally relative to their fellow U.S. citizens in the States in terms of either democratic rights or economic opportunities. In large part, to compensate for the lack of fair treatment at the Federal level, the Puerto Rican Government has spent beyond its means at the local level, leading to excessive deficits and debt. This lack of discipline is regrettable but understandable, since the Puerto Rican Government is seeking to provide a quality of life to island residents comparable to the quality of life in the States. Bear in mind that my constituents can hop on a plane any time, any day, and move to Florida or Texas. The bill we consider today, PROMESA, is a bipartisan compromise intended to deal with the territory's unprecedented fiscal crisis, which is severe and immediate. The bill will enable Puerto Rico to restructure its public debt in a fair and orderly manner, while establishing an independent and temporary oversight board to ensure that Puerto Rico has a viable, long-term fiscal plan and balanced budgets and that it sticks to both. In an emergency, the first step is to stabilize the situation, and I believe PROMESA can accomplish this objective. Without this legislation, the Puerto Rican Government is likely to collapse, participants in public pension plans will be terribly harmed, and many bondholders could lose their investments. PROMESA is in the interest of all stakeholders, and the most likely alternative is chaos, litigation, a rapidly deteriorating quality of life in Puerto Rico, and even greater migration to the States. However, let me be plain. This bill is an essential first step, but it is not an enduring solution. The Federal Government and, indeed, the Puerto Rican Government must come to terms with a fundamental fact: so long as my constituents are treated like second-class citizens, Puerto Rico will never have a first-class economy. Puerto Rico must become a full and equal member of the American family as a State, which is the just and logical next step, or Puerto Rico must join the community of nations as a sovereign country. Puerto Rico deserves true democracy and true dignity--nothing less-- yet first things come first. We have to deal with this immediate crisis. We have to save the house in Puerto Rico. Vote ``yes'' on H.R. 5278.

Mr. PIERLUISI

Mr. PIERLUISI. Mr. Speaker, in the last year and a half, this Congress has held nine hearings on Puerto Rico, a U.S. territory, home to 3.4 million American citizens. These hearings confirmed that Puerto Rico is in jeopardy right now. Not next year. Now. Island residents are relocating to the States in unprecedented numbers. The Puerto Rican Government is on the brink of collapse, a victim of decades of inequality at the Federal level and mismanagement at the local level. The government and its instrumentalities have $70 billion in bonded debt, three public entities on the island have already defaulted on payments to creditors, and larger defaults appear imminent. Puerto Rico's three main pension systems are severely underfunded, placing at risk the retirement security of over 330,000 individuals. The government of Puerto Rico has lost access to the credit markets, so it cannot borrow money to meet current obligations. All objective observers, including virtually every major editorial board in the Nation, understand that the government of Puerto Rico must restructure its debts--ideally, through voluntary agreements with creditors, but through a court-supervised process, if necessary. It is regrettable that we have reached this point, but it is reality. We must confront this challenge with courage and candor. PROMESA gives Puerto Rico the critical tool it lacks; namely, a legal mechanism to restructure its debts in an orderly way, ensuring the sacrifice will be shared in a fair and equitable manner. Without PROMESA, the Puerto Rican Government is likely to collapse, participants in pension plans will be terribly damaged, and most bondholders could lose their investments. Absent this bill, almost nobody wins and nearly everybody loses. Now, PROMESA pairs debt restructuring authority with the creation of an independent oversight board to help the Puerto Rican Government better manage its public finances, balance its budgets, become more efficient and transparent, and regain access to the credit markets. There are some Puerto Rican politicians who seek broad debt restructuring authority from Congress, but oppose an oversight board. This is not a realistic option, and would result in Puerto Rico receiving nothing. I fully understand the importance of democracy and dignity. As a lifelong advocate for statehood for Puerto Rico, I want full democratic rights for the island on both the national and local level, not fewer democratic rights. My test from day one has been that the board should have the authority to oversee, but not to command and control, the Government of Puerto Rico. PROMESA meets this test. After intensive negotiations, the bill establishes a reasonable board with powers far less potent than the powers that Congress gave the board it established for the District of Columbia in 1995. If the Puerto Rican Government does its job well, the board will have a limited role and will cease to operate within a few years. PROMESA, like any product of bipartisan compromise, is not perfect. For instance, the minimum wage provision is deeply misguided, and I support Mrs. Torres' amendment to remove it from the bill. I will explain it in plain language. It makes no sense to apply a different Federal minimum wage to Puerto Rico, because it simply encourages Puerto Ricans to migrate to the States or otherwise not to seek a job and rely on government assistance. Nevertheless, I should say that there is almost zero chance this provision will affect a single worker in Puerto Rico, since the government will retain the ability to prevent its use. This bill is the best chance we have to solve the immediate fiscal crisis in Puerto Rico and to place the island on the path to a brighter future. I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the bill.

Mr. PIERLUISI

Mr. PIERLUISI. Mr. Speaker, Congress will hold its eighth hearing on Puerto Rico later this month. At the direction of Speaker Ryan, the Natural Resources Committee will then lead an effort to craft legislation for the territory. The record will demonstrate that there is not a single crisis in Puerto Rico, but a series of intertwined crises. It is an economic crisis, a fiscal crisis, a liquidity crisis, a debt crisis, an immigration crisis, and a public administration crisis. If you visualize Puerto Rico as a tree and each crisis as a withering branch, the root of the tree is Puerto Rico's unequal and undignified political status. While the immediate aim is to mend the branches, ultimately, we will need to attack the problem at its root and that means Puerto Rico must become a State or a sovereign nation. Last week, Antonio Weiss, a senior Treasury Department official, stated as follows: There is no question that status is vitally important. Why are we proposing that restructuring authorities and the earned income tax credit and fair Medicaid treatment be provided to Puerto Rico? Well, as a territory, Puerto Rico's status does not afford it adequate tools in those three areas. So we believe that we need to afford the Commonwealth those tools that it needs so it can navigate this crisis. And we agree that over a long period of time, status has contributed to this crisis. Since the problem in Puerto Rico has multiple dimensions, the legislative solution should as well. First, the bill must empower Puerto Rico to restructure a meaningful portion of its debt. The bill could provide a period in which consensual negotiations between bond insurers and their creditors, mediated by neutral experts, can take place. If those negotiations do not bear fruit, the Puerto Rico Government should be empowered to authorize its instrumentalities to adjust their debts under chapter 9 of the Federal Bankruptcy Code, a right that every State has and that Puerto Rico used to have. Puerto Rico's congressionally approved constitution provides that bonds issued or guaranteed by the central government receive priority payment. What binds us together as Americans--and Puerto Ricans are proud American citizens--is our commitment to the rule of law. While I do not believe that Congress should override Puerto Rico's constitution, I do expect all creditor classes, including GO bondholders, to make concessions for the public good that will ultimately benefit all stakeholders. I sense that a bipartisan consensus is finally emerging in support of reasonable debt restructuring authority for Puerto Rico. Second, the bill should address the outrageous disparities that Puerto Rico faces under key Federal programs, a main driver of our deficits and debt. Consider that historically, Puerto Rico received $300 billion in annual Medicaid funding, while the similarly sized Oregon receives $5 billion. I challenge any State to run a decent Medicaid program with that insulting sum without overborrowing in the capital markets. Impossible. Finally, the Puerto Rico Government has a record of fiscal mismanagement. This is a painful fact, but a fact nonetheless. We must face up to it, resolve to do better, and welcome some temporary assistance. I would support the creation of an independent board to approve Puerto Rico Government's financial plan and annual budgets and to help ensure they are adhered to. The past is not always a prologue. There is no reason why future Puerto Rico leaders cannot embrace fiscal discipline, as distinct from austerity, and rapidly put the oversight board out of business. And Congress should be careful about casting moral judgment on Puerto Rico since the Federal Government has a $14 trillion debt that is 75 percent of the GDP. We, in Puerto Rico, are responsible for our actions, but Congress is responsible for its actions and inaction as well. A balanced board will obtain buy-in from government, business, and labor leaders in Puerto Rico and can serve as a bridge to a brighter future. However, a punitive board that disrespects my constituents and tramples on the principle of states' rights will transform me from an ally to an adversary very quickly.

Mr. PIERLUISI

Mr. PIERLUISI. Mr. Speaker, as my colleagues are aware, the heavily indebted U.S. territory of Puerto Rico is ensnared in a severe economic crisis. My constituents are not responsible for this crisis, but they are its primary victims. I know they would prefer to live, work, and raise a family in Puerto Rico, but thousands are departing for the States every month in search of quality of life, which is not available in Puerto Rico. Each time an individual leaves because they feel compelled to go, it represents a small human tragedy. I have participated in five congressional hearings on Puerto Rico this year. The message I delivered about the roots of the crisis was clear and consistent. I have acknowledged that, over the years, Puerto Rico's leaders, with a few exceptions, have demonstrated a lack of discipline and transparency in managing Puerto Rico's public finances. For this, we have no one to blame but ourselves. But, as I have reiterated time and again, the crisis has a second, equally significant source. It is the relationship between the Federal Government and Puerto Rico, which is like the relationship between a master and his servant. This relationship is a national disgrace. It denies my constituents, countless numbers of whom have served this country in uniform, the fundamental right to vote for their national leaders. Remember this the next time you hear our country lecture another country about the importance of democracy. As an advocate for statehood for Puerto Rico, I am a proud American citizen. But protesting the mistreatment of my people will always take precedence over being polite. The relationship between the Federal Government and Puerto Rico allows you to treat us decently when it suits you and to treat us poorly whenever it does not. We live at your whim, subject to your impulses, which are bound by virtually no legal rules or moral standards. If there is a silver lining in this crisis, it is that the crisis has caused a clear majority of my constituents to conclude that the relationship between the Federal Government and Puerto Rico must change. Puerto Rico must have equality in this Union or independence outside of it. No longer should we be reduced to begging this Congress for crumbs and hoping you throw some our way. We must get off our knees, stand up straight, look you in the eye, and say ``No more.'' However, until Puerto Rico becomes a State or a sovereign nation, our fate rests largely in the hands of Congress. I have introduced a series of bills that would empower Puerto Rico to help itself. These bills don't seek a handout or special treatment. They seek the same or similar treatment as the States receive under the Federal health and other safety net programs, Federal tax credit programs, and the Federal law that authorizes debt restructuring. If Congress declines to act, it will not be because my colleagues did not have options to choose from. It will be because they made a conscious decision not to choose at all. Federal action is necessary to prevent a default by the Puerto Rico Government on its obligations to creditors, which would be catastrophic for all parties. To avoid this outcome, Congress should authorize Puerto Rico to restructure a meaningful portion of its bonded debt, but in a way that honors the territory's constitution. Such authority can be provided at no cost to American taxpayers. If it is, I will not oppose the creation of a temporary, independent board that respects the Puerto Rico Government's primary role in crafting its budget and making fiscal policy, but that is authorized to ensure that the Puerto Rico Government complies with appropriate budgeting standards and fiscal metrics. Ultimately, what Puerto Rico needs is good elected leadership, not heavy-handed Federal intervention that further erodes democracy in the territory. It is in the national interest for Congress to act and to act now.

Mr. PIERLUISI

Mr. PIERLUISI. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I rise in support of H.R. 1755, which makes a small but important change to the Federal charter of the Disabled American Veterans. Once this bill becomes law, that Federal charter will better describe the mission and actual practice of the organization today. In response to the thousands of veterans who returned home after having made considerable sacrifices during World War I, the Disabled American Veterans was established in 1920. Currently, the organization serves our disabled veterans by helping them access all of the benefits available to them, by fighting for their interests in Washington, D.C., and by educating the public about the sacrifices they made. This organization remains today every bit as important as it was at the time of its founding 95 years ago. H.R. 1755 simply makes clear that the mission of the Disabled American Veterans is exclusively a charitable one. I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 1755, which amends the Disabled American Veterans' charter. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. PIERLUISI

Mr. PIERLUISI. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. PIERLUISI. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 3490, the Strengthening State and Local Cyber Crime Fighting Act. This bill establishes the National Computer Forensics Institute as an official Federal program which will be managed by the Department of Homeland Security and operated by the United States Secret Service. I support this bill because it addresses a topic that is critically important to our country. Cybercrime poses an enormous threat to national security, economic prosperity, and public safety. The range of threats and the challenges they present for law enforcement expand just as rapidly as technology evolves. In fact, Mr. Speaker, during the past decade, our Federal law enforcement community has observed a significant increase in the quality, quantity, and complexity of cybercrimes targeting private industry, including our financial services sector. These crimes include intrusions, hacking attacks, the installation of malicious software, and data breaches that have exposed the personal information of millions of U.S. citizens as well as members of our law enforcement and intelligence services. To date, the National Computer Forensics Institute has trained more than 800 State and local law enforcement officers and approximately 238 prosecutors. With this legislation, the Institute will continue to educate State and local law enforcement officers, prosecutors, and judges on current trends in cyber- and electronic crimes investigations and the Institute will train them on proper procedures to conduct these important investigations. In addition, the National Computer Forensics Institute will continue to work to protect our citizens' personal information from unwarranted government intrusion. By establishing national standards for conducting cybercrime investigations, the Institute will promote these important privacy interests. Finally, it is important to highlight the successful efforts that have already taken place to combat the ever-growing threat of cybercrime. As the operator of the National Computer Forensics Institute, the Secret Service has demonstrated its expertise in pursuing cybercrime investigations. The Secret Service's investigations have resulted in over 4,900 arrests, associated with more than $1.4 billion in fraud losses and the prevention of over $11 billion in potential fraud losses during the past 5 years. In closing, Mr. Speaker, this legislation will assist law enforcement in continuing to combat the threats cybercrime poses to national security, economic prosperity, and public safety. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this important legislation. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. PIERLUISI

Mr. PIERLUISI. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. PIERLUISI. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I rise in support of H.R. 3279, the Open Book on Equal Access to Justice Act, as amended. I support this measure for several reasons. To begin with, it strengthens the Equal Access to Justice Act, an important law that has helped senior citizens, veterans, the disabled, and nonprofit organizations vindicate their rights against unreasonable government action. Under the so-called American rule, parties to adjudicative matters typically pay their own litigation costs, subject to certain statutory exceptions. One of these exceptions is the Equal Access to Justice Act, which allows a party to be reimbursed for litigation costs when he or she is victorious against the Federal Government under specified conditions. For example, if the United States can show that its position was ``substantially justified'' or that ``special circumstances'' would make an award unjust, then the prevailing party is not entitled to be reimbursed for his litigation costs. In addition, only certain parties are eligible to be reimbursed for their litigation costs under the act, based on their net worth or exempt status, among other factors. Whether these restrictions still make sense is an open question, as Congress simply does not have adequate information to assess the effectiveness of the act. This is because there has been no comprehensive Federal report on the total amount of fees awarded under the act since 1995, and, as a result, there has simply been conjecture. Fortunately, H.R. 3279 addresses this shortcoming by requiring annual reports on the amount of fees paid under the act to prevailing litigants against the government. As a result of this legislation, Congress will know on an annual basis the agencies that have been required to reimburse parties for their litigation costs, the claims giving rise to the litigation, and the amount of the awards made under the act, as well as the basis for them. With this information, Congress will be in a much better position to assess the implementation of the act and the performance of the agencies as litigants. Another reason why I support this bill is that it respects the privacy interests of the parties who are reimbursed for their litigation costs pursuant to the act. Unfortunately, prior versions of this legislation were unnecessarily intrusive. Organizations such as the National Organization of Social Security Claimants' Representatives and the Paralyzed Veterans of America expressed serious concerns that these earlier versions of the bill would ``infringe the privacy of vulnerable people who have applied for social security and veterans' benefits.'' These are real concerns, especially given the fact that the bill requires the information collected be made available to the public through the Internet. As currently drafted, however, H.R. 3279 strikes the right balance between encouraging transparency while respecting the legitimate privacy interests of parties. Finally, I support this bill because it recognizes the important role that the Administrative Conference of the United States has historically played in helping Congress identify inefficiencies among the Federal agencies and ways to save taxpayer dollars. In addition to requiring the Conference to prepare an annual report to Congress detailing the litigation costs reimbursed by the Federal Government to parties, the bill also requires the Conference to provide ``any other relevant information that may aid Congress in evaluating the scope and impact of such awards.'' Given the excellent work and scholarly analysis that have been hallmarks of the Conference, I expect its report and its attendant findings will be an invaluable aid to Congress. As the Judiciary Committee is the authorizing committee for the Conference, I encourage our friends on the Appropriations Committee to ensure that the Conference has adequate funding to implement this important legislation. In closing, I want to recognize my colleagues on both sides of the aisle for their diligence in helping to craft this bipartisan legislation. The gentleman from Georgia, Doug Collins, and the gentleman from Tennessee, Steve Cohen, as well as the gentlewoman from Wyoming, Cynthia Lummis, have cooperatively worked to effectuate a commonsense bill that will improve the efficiency and accountability of the Federal Government. Accordingly, I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 3279. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. PIERLUISI

Mr. PIERLUISI. Mr. Speaker, the U.S. territory of Puerto Rico, home to 3.5 million American citizens, stands at a crossroads. The Governor recently announced that Puerto Rico cannot pay all of its debts. The Governor's comments were not constructive because they lacked precision. Puerto Rico's total debt is about $72 billion, and the structure of this debt is complex. About 17 entities in Puerto Rico have bonds outstanding, from the central government to public corporations. The terms, source of repayment, and the level of legal protection for each bond varies. For instance, bonds issued by the central government received priority payment under the Puerto Rico Constitution, which was authorized and approved by Congress. Accordingly, when the Governor asserted that Puerto Rico cannot pay its debts, the sweeping nature of his comments raised many practical and legal questions and generated considerable anxiety. Mr. Speaker, the crisis in Puerto Rico is real, and it must be confronted with composure, competence, and candor. To this end, I want to articulate a simple truth, but one that is often overlooked: namely, the challenges we face are structural in nature and, therefore, require structural solutions, at both the Puerto Rico and the Federal level. Within Puerto Rico, more discipline by the territory government is imperative. We must learn to live within our means. Puerto Rico's political leaders have shown the capacity to develop sound strategies, but have not always demonstrated the same ability to effectively execute those strategies. Performance, not planning, is the problem. We can do better, and for the sake of our constituents, we must do better. Mr. Speaker, honest self-appraisal and self-criticism are essential, but cannot be limited to Puerto Rico. If the American public is under the impression that Puerto Rico is solely to blame for this crisis, it is profoundly mistaken. The source of the problem in Puerto Rico is not its people, who are talented and hard-working, nor is it our political leaders, who are no better or worse than their counterparts in other U.S. jurisdictions who at times also overpromise and underdeliver; instead, the root cause of the problem is our political status, which has given rise to a system of severe and entrenched inequality that makes it exceptionally difficult to succeed and exceptionally easy to fail. The direct link between Puerto Rico's political status and its economic problems was explored at a recent congressional hearing. The hearing served to underscore that there are more American citizens in Puerto Rico than in 21 States, that they serve in the U.S. military in large numbers, but that they cannot vote for President or Senators and have only one nonvoting Delegate in this House. The hearing highlighted that, as a territory, Puerto Rico can be and often is treated worse than the States under Federal laws, from Medicaid to the earned income tax credit to chapter 9 of the Bankruptcy Code. To compensate for the deficiency in Federal economic support, the Puerto Rico Government has borrowed heavily, which explains the excessive debt. In recent years, 250,000 island residents have moved to the States, and these numbers are only growing. Once in the States, they are entitled to full voting rights and equal treatment under the law, rights they were denied in Puerto Rico. Mr. Speaker, this is an intolerable situation. My constituents have tolerated it for too long, and they will tolerate it no longer. They voted for statehood in a local referendum in 2012, and they will vote for statehood again in even greater numbers in a Federal referendum in 2017. My message to my colleagues is simple. If you give us the same rights and responsibilities as our fellow American citizens and let us rise or fall on our merits, we will rise; but, if you continue to treat us like second-class citizens, don't profess to be surprised when we fall.

Mr. PIERLUISI

Mr. PIERLUISI. Mr. Speaker, today, I am introducing a comprehensive bill to improve the treatment of Puerto Rico and the other territories under Medicaid, traditional Medicare, and Medicare Advantage. This is the first time that a Member of Congress has filed legislation to address the range of challenges that patients, physicians, hospitals, and insurance providers in the territories face as a result of the unequal treatment the territories receive under Federal health programs. The bill serves as a blueprint for policymakers in identifying the various problems that exist under current Federal law and in proposing fair, realistic, and technically precise solutions to each problem. Based on my conversations with congressional leaders and officials in the Obama administration, I believe there is bipartisan recognition that Federal health laws do not do justice to American citizens living in the territories. I recognize that Republicans and Democrats have different opinions regarding the virtues of the Affordable Care Act, but it is my hope that policymakers can agree that it is in the national interest to take concrete steps to eliminate or reduce the numerous disparities that the territories confront under Medicaid and Medicare. These inequalities were enshrined in law long before 2010 and remain in place today. Stated simply, if the will exists among officials in the legislative and executive branches to improve the treatment of the territories under Federal health programs, as I believe it does, then my bill provides a way forward. After today, no Federal policymaker can say: I want to help, but I don't know how. Rather than summarizing the bill's 16 sections, I will highlight the provisions relating to Medicaid, the program for low-income individuals, which is jointly funded by the Federal Government and each State or territory government. In the States, there is no limit on Federal funding for Medicaid as long as the State provides its share of matching funds. The Federal contribution, known as an FMAP, can range from 50 percent for the wealthiest States to over 80 percent for the poorest States. By contrast, the funding that the Federal Government provides for Medicaid in each territory is capped. When I took office in 2009, Puerto Rico's cap was only $260 million a year, and the Federal Government was covering less than 20 percent of the cost of the territory's Medicaid Program. During my tenure, the Federal Government has increased Medicaid funding for the territories, but that funding remains capped. Especially in the case of Puerto Rico, it is still profoundly inequitable. Most problematic, this funding expires in 2019, and in Puerto Rico, it will be depleted well before then. This funding cliff is unique to the territories. The bill I am filing today would avert this cliff and provide a more stable and equitable level of Medicaid funding for the territories. Starting in fiscal year 2017, the bill would provide the territories with State-like treatment within well-defined parameters. Specifically, each territory's Medicaid program could cover individuals whose family income is at or below the Federal poverty level. As long as a territory covers individuals within these income limits, the Federal Government would fund the territory's Medicaid program as if it were a State Medicaid program. The annual funding caps would be eliminated, and each territory would receive an FMAP based on its per capita income. However, the limiting principle is that if a territory wants to cover individuals earning above the Federal poverty level, it will generally be required to use territory dollars, not Federal dollars. The rationale behind this new proposal is simple. Residents of the territories are American citizens. At the very least, the Federal Government should provide each territory with the funding necessary to provide health coverage to their residents who live at or below the Federal poverty level. Anything less is unacceptable from a moral and public policy standpoint. I invite my colleagues to support this comprehensive bill and to work with me to enact its provisions into law.

Mr. PIERLUISI

Mr. PIERLUISI. Mr. Speaker, earlier this week, I sent a letter to President Obama regarding an approaching problem that is unique to Puerto Rico and the other U.S. territories and that can be called the Medicaid funding cliff. This morning, I rise to advise my colleagues about this cliff, which each territory will reach by 2019 and which Puerto Rico could reach by 2018 or even 2017. My goal is to ensure that Federal officials have advance notice of the problem so we can begin working together now on a fair, thoughtful, and bipartisan plan to address this problem before it arrives. Timely action is critical. Inaction would be unacceptable from a moral and public policy perspective. Let me outline the problem. The territories are treated unequally under Medicaid, which is funded in part by the Federal Government and in part by each State or territory government. In the States and D.C., Medicaid is an individual entitlement, meaning there is no limit on the amount of funding the Federal Government will provide so long as the State in question provides its share of matching funds. The Federal contribution, known as FMAP, can range from 50 percent in the case of the wealthiest States to 83 percent in the poorest States. By contrast, Mr. Speaker, there is an annual ceiling on Federal funding for the Medicaid program in each territory. When I took office in 2009, Puerto Rico--home to 3.5 million American citizens--was subject to a ceiling of $280 million a year and had the minimum statutory FMAP of 50 percent. Indeed, because of the annual ceiling, our true FMAP was less than 20 percent a year. Puerto Rico was spending more than $1.4 billion in territory funds each year to provide healthcare services to about 1.2 million low-income beneficiaries and receiving only $280 million from the Federal Government. To place this in context, consider Mississippi, which has a 73 percent FMAP. In 2014, Mississippi--home to fewer people than Puerto Rico--paid $1.3 billion in State funds and received $3.6 billion in Federal funds. Or take Oregon with a 63 percent FMAP which paid $1.8 billion in State funds and received $5 billion in Federal funds. Again, Puerto Rico was receiving just $280 million a year. The Affordable Care Act provided a total of $7.3 billion in additional Medicaid funding for the five territories, with Puerto Rico receiving $6.3 billion of that amount. Each territory's FMAP was also increased from 50 percent to 55 percent. The result is that, instead of receiving about $300 million a year from the Federal Government, Puerto Rico now draws down about $1.1 billion to $1.3 billion annually. That is a major increase, and I can not adequately express how hard we had to fight for it. But let me be clear. Our funding is nowhere close to State-like treatment and remains deeply inequitable. Moreover, Mr. Speaker, this additional Medicaid funding for the territories expires at the end of fiscal year 2019--the only coverage provision in the law that sunsets in this manner. The Puerto Rico Government has less than $3.6 billion of its $6.3 billion in funding remaining. This is the cliff. It is coming, one way or another; it is just a question of whether it will arrive in 2017, 2018, or 2019. If this pool of funding is not replenished, Puerto Rico will go back to receiving less than $400 million a year. In the coming months, I will continue to brief Federal officials on this subject. I will explain how inaction will deepen the current health, migration, and fiscal crisis in Puerto Rico, and why action is not only in Puerto Rico's interest, but also in the national interest. In short, I will fight as hard to continue this essential funding as I fought to obtain it in the first place.

Mr. PIERLUISI

Mr. PIERLUISI. Mr. Speaker, for the sixth time this year, I rise to discuss Puerto Rico's political status. I am an optimist about Puerto Rico's future. The island is blessed with natural beauty, a rich history, a vibrant culture, a sophisticated and diverse private sector, and talented and hard-working professionals who can compete with anyone, anywhere. But my optimism is tempered by realism. Because to change the world for the better, you must first see the world as it is. And the reality is that Puerto Rico's potential is being squandered. Puerto Rico should be a blooming flower, but instead it is withering on the vine. Puerto Rico is ensnared in the worst economic crisis in its history. The island's healthcare system is in a precarious state, the territory's homicide rate--despite recent improvements--still far exceeds that of any U.S. State, and residents of Puerto Rico are relocating to the States in record numbers. I have heard it argued that leaders in Puerto Rico should concentrate solely on the immediate problems at hand and set aside the issue of political status until those problems are resolved or their severity is reduced. This argument has superficial appeal, but it is completely wrong. All of Puerto Rico's major problems are directly linked to our status. They are rooted in the unequal treatment that Puerto Rico receives because it is a territory. If you want to understand why Puerto Rico has always had higher unemployment and poverty than any State, you must recognize that the territory is excluded from the earned income tax program, partially excluded from the child tax credit program, excluded from the Supplemental Security Income program, and treated unequally under the Federal nutrition assistance program. If you want to understand why Puerto Rico has high debt, you must realize that the territory government has borrowed so heavily in the bond market in order to compensate for its disparate treatment under Federal programs. If you want to understand why patients in Puerto Rico received inadequate care, why physicians and hospitals are not fairly compensated, and why the cost of providing health care is disproportionately borne by the Puerto Rico Government rather than shared equitably with the Federal Government, you must grasp that Puerto Rico is treated in a discriminatory fashion under Medicaid, traditional Medicare, Medicare Advantage, and the Affordable Care Act. If you want to understand why drug-related violence is pervasive in Puerto Rico, then you must come to terms with the fact that Federal law enforcement agencies have dedicated insufficient personnel and equipment to Puerto Rico because States invariably take priority over territories when it comes to the allocation of finite resources. To solve its deeply entrenched problems and to reach its enormous potential, Puerto Rico must receive equal treatment. And to receive equal treatment, Puerto Rico must become a State. To pretend otherwise is just that: to pretend. That is why less than 3 months ago I introduced H.R. 727, the most forceful statehood admission bill for Puerto Rico in history. I am proud to report that the bill is likely to obtain its 100th cosponsor as early as today. Cosponsors come from 31 States, the District of Columbia, and the four other territories. They are both Democrats and Republicans. Indeed, about 1,900 bills have been introduced so far in this Congress, and H.R. 727 has more bipartisan support than over 99 percent of them. Every Member who cosponsors this bill is standing up for a powerful principle, which is this: the people of Puerto Rico are American citizens who have enriched the life of this Nation for generations. My constituents have fought--and many have died--for a flag that contains 50 stars, but no star that represents them. If they reaffirm their desire in a federally sponsored vote to become a full and equal member of the American family, they have earned the right to be first- class citizens.

Mr. PIERLUISI

Mr. PIERLUISI. Mr. Speaker, today, I am reintroducing a bill to extend the Supplemental Security Income program, known as SSI, to Puerto Rico. Of all of the disparities that Puerto Rico faces because it is a territory and not a State, few are as damaging as its exclusion from SSI. SSI provides monthly cash assistance to blind, disabled, or elderly individuals who have limited or no income. We are talking about the most vulnerable members of our society. SSI applies in all 50 States and in the District of Columbia. However, since the program's inception in 1974, it has not been extended to Puerto Rico. Instead, the Federal grant program, known as Aid to the Aged, Blind, and Disabled, or AABD, applies in Puerto Rico. The Social Security Administration sends monthly SSI payments directly to beneficiaries; whereas the AABD program is administered by the Puerto Rico Government, using an annual block grant provided by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. The gap between the treatment that is provided to beneficiaries in the 50 States and the treatment that is provided to their fellow American citizens in Puerto Rico is, in a word, shocking. According to the most recent Federal statistics, the average SSI payment to beneficiaries is $540 a month and is close to $650 a month for beneficiaries who are under the age of 18. By contrast, based on the most recent data that has been furnished to my office, the block grant that the Federal Government provides to the Puerto Rico Government is only $33 million a year. With this limited funding, the Puerto Rico Government provides an average payment to adult beneficiaries of just $74 a month. Let me repeat that--$540 a month in the States versus $74 a month in Puerto Rico. To add insult to injury, the Puerto Rico Government is legally required to meet a 25 percent match in order to receive this block grant. The States, obviously, do not have to make any matching payments for their residents to receive SSI assistance. In 2014, the GAO estimated that, if Puerto Rico were a State, it would receive up to $1.8 billion a year under SSI. That is 54 times as much as the territory receives annually under AABD. Again, let me repeat that--54 times greater. The GAO estimated that, if Puerto Rico were a State, 300,000 island residents would qualify for SSI payments. Under the current program in Puerto Rico, only 35,000 individuals receive assistance. Thus, Puerto Rico's exclusion from the SSI program means that its government cannot provide decent monthly payments to residents who cannot support themselves. It also means that the Puerto Rico Government cannot assist hundreds of thousands of extraordinarily needy residents at all. Those who seek proof of how Puerto Rico is harmed by its territory status need look no further than the treatment it receives under SSI. Those who want to comprehend why, roughly, 240,000 island residents relocated to the States between 2010 and 2014 in search of a better quality of life should realize that Puerto Rico's unequal treatment under key Federal programs, including--but not limited to--SSI, is a major contributing factor to this migration. Let me be crystal clear on this point. Politicians in Puerto Rico and the States who defend Puerto Rico's current status must accept the undeniable truth that this status is harming the people of Puerto Rico. When they rationalize or excuse Puerto Rico's territory status, they are complicit in Puerto Rico's mistreatment. But make no mistake. The era of inequality is coming to an end. I stand side by side with a large and growing army of proud U.S. citizens from Puerto Rico who refuse to accept such shameful treatment any longer. We believe in full equality for Puerto Rico under the American flag. We will fight for it until we achieve it, and we will achieve it soon.

Mr. PIERLUISI

Mr. PIERLUISI. Mr. Speaker, today I am refiling two bills to eliminate disparities that Puerto Rico faces under the Federal Medicare program. At the outset, I want to make clear that the only reason that I have to introduce these bills is because Puerto Rico is a U.S. territory. I look forward to the day when Puerto Rico becomes a U.S. State, when it is automatically treated fairly under Federal programs, and when the island's elected officials no longer need to implore Congress to treat our constituents the same as their fellow American citizens. That is why, 6 weeks ago, I introduced legislation that would provide for Puerto Rico's admission as a State once a majority of island voters affirm their desire for statehood in a federally sponsored vote. The bill already has 80 cosponsors and strong bipartisan support. The first bill I am filing today involves Medicare part A, which covers inpatient hospital services. The Federal Government reimburses hospitals who admit Medicare patients under a system known as the inpatient prospective payment system. The payment made to the hospital is intended to cover the operating and capital costs that a hospital incurs in furnishing care. Each hospital is paid a base rate, which can then be adjusted upwards based on a variety of factors. Every hospital in the States, whether in New York City or rural Alaska, is paid the same base rate, about $5,870. In Puerto Rico, however, hospitals are paid a base rate that is just over $5,000, about 14 percent lower than the base rate for stateside hospitals. This adversely affects patient care in Puerto Rico and the financial stability of island hospitals. The American Hospital Association has endorsed my legislation to eliminate this unprincipled disparity, and I urge my colleagues in Congress to enact it into law. The second bill I am filing today involves Medicare part B, which covers doctors' services and outpatient hospital services. Puerto Rico is the only U.S. jurisdiction where individuals who become eligible for part A are not automatically enrolled in part B, but rather must opt in to receive part B coverage. Individuals who do not enroll in part B during the 7-month initial enrollment period, which begins several months before they turn 65 and ends several months after they turn 65, are required to pay a late enrollment penalty. The penalty is significant and lasts for as long as that individual receives Medicare. This system has operated to Puerto Rico's detriment. There are tens of thousands of seniors on the island who enrolled late in part B, and each year, they pay millions of dollars in late penalties to the Federal Government. There are also over 100,000 seniors in Puerto Rico who are enrolled in part A but not in part B. When those individuals seek to enroll in part B in the future, they, too, will be required to pay lifetime penalties. I am working to address this issue on both the administrative and the legislative front. I persuaded the Federal Government to improve the written materials they make available to island seniors so that they are better informed about the part B enrollment period and the financial consequences of late enrollment. In addition, I am refiling legislation today that would convert Puerto Rico from the Nation's only opt-in jurisdiction to an opt-out jurisdiction, just like every other U.S. State and territory. My bill would also reduce the late penalties now being paid by Puerto Rico seniors who enrolled late and authorize a special enrollment period during which island seniors who do not have part B could enroll on favorable terms. I urge my colleagues to support the bills I am filing today. Until the day that Puerto Rico becomes a State and is treated equally as a matter of course, I will continue to fight for fair treatment for my constituents under all Federal health programs. The 3.5 million American citizens of Puerto Rico deserve no less.

Mr. PIERLUISI

Mr. PIERLUISI. Mr. Speaker, this is the fifth time this year that I have addressed this Chamber about Puerto Rico's political destiny. I recently introduced a bill that would provide for Puerto Rico's admission as a State once a majority of Puerto Rico's electorate affirms their desire for statehood in a federally sponsored vote. The bill already has 70 cosponsors--56 Democrats and 14 Republicans. In contrast to Puerto Rico's current territory status, statehood would deliver to my constituents what all free people deserve: full voting rights, full self-government, and full equality under the law. And unlike separate nationhood, which is the only other nonterritory option available to Puerto Rico, statehood would help rebuild the island's shattered economy and improve its quality of life. Indeed, the fact that statehood would be in the best interest of Puerto Rico is beyond reasonable dispute. There will always be politicians in Puerto Rico who claim otherwise for ideological reasons, but their arguments are detached from reality. Today I want to outline why statehood would also be in the national interest of the United States as a whole. There are three main reasons--one moral, one economic, and one political. First, the moral reason. In 2012, my constituents held a free and fair vote in which they rejected territory status and expressed a preference for statehood. At a subsequent Senate committee hearing, then-chairman Ron Wyden said that the current relationship between the United States and Puerto Rico ``undermines the United States' moral standing in the world.'' Senator Wyden posed this question: ``For a nation founded on the principles of democracy and the consent of the governed, how much longer can America allow a condition to persist in which nearly 4 million U.S. citizens do not have a vote in the government that makes the national laws which affect their daily lives?'' If Puerto Rico desires statehood, I cannot identify any moral basis upon which Congress could decline that petition, especially in light of the enormous contribution that island residents have made in our Armed Forces over generations. How could the U.S. Government, a champion of democracy and self-determination around the world, disregard those principles with respect to its own citizens without losing credibility at home and abroad? The second reason that statehood is in the national interest is economic. Last year, the GAO published a report about the fiscal impact of statehood on the Federal Government. The report confirms that statehood will enhance quality of life in Puerto Rico, but it also alleviates any concern that statehood would have an adverse impact on the U.S. Treasury. As the GAO explains, new Federal outlays to Puerto Rico would be significantly counterbalanced by new Federal revenues generated from the island. The truth is this: this Nation will benefit when Puerto Rico's economic economy is strong, when its residents do not need to move to the States to achieve their dreams or vote for their national leaders, when individuals in businesses on the island flourish, and when the corporate and individual tax base expands. The U.S. stands to gain from the state of Puerto Rico's success, just as it currently pays a severe price for the territory's shortcomings. Finally, let me turn to the political dimensions of this debate. The evidence indicates that either national party could be competitive on the island. I am a proud Democrat, but the pro-statehood party I lead includes hundreds of thousands of equally proud Republicans. Voters in Puerto Rico have elected two Republican Governors and numerous Republican senators, representatives, and mayors at the local level. I can say to my colleagues on both sides of the aisle that they should not view the prospective State of Puerto Rico as either a blessing or a curse for their party's fortunes but, rather, as an opportunity. Statehood is not only in Puerto Rico's interests; it is also in the national interests. Statehood will make Puerto Rico stronger, and it will make the United States a more perfect Union. God bless Puerto Rico, the next State of the United States of America.

Mr. PIERLUISI

Mr. PIERLUISI. Mr. Speaker, today, I am introducing the most forceful and ambitious statehood admission bill for Puerto Rico in U.S. history. The bill, fittingly, has 51 original cosponsors from both parties. Before I describe the bill, let me explain its background. In 2012, the Puerto Rico government sponsored a referendum in which voters rejected Puerto Rico's current territory status and expressed a clear preference for statehood. In the 113th Congress, at my initiative, the President proposed and Congress approved an appropriation of $2.5 million to fund the first federally sponsored status vote in Puerto Rico's history. The funding will remain available until it is used by the Puerto Rico government. While the law does not prescribe the exact format of the ballot, it does establish important conditions; namely, the law provides that the U.S. Department of Justice must certify that the ballot and voter education materials are consistent with U.S. law and policy. The bipartisan bill I am introducing today flows from and builds upon the 2012 referendum and the Federal appropriation enacted in response to that referendum. In other words, this bill is being filed now because the strategic foundation is firmly in place. Every action I take is designed to advance the statehood cause because it is beyond dispute that territory status is the main source of Puerto Rico's grave economic and social problems. My constituents have no interest in symbolic gestures or empty rhetoric. They care only about concrete steps that bring Puerto Rico closer to equality. My bill would authorize a vote to be held in Puerto Rico within 1 year of the bill's enactment--that is, by no later than the end of 2017. The ballot would contain a single question: Shall Puerto Rico be admitted as a State of the United States? To conduct this vote, the Puerto Rico government may use the $2.5 million that Congress already approved since this format clearly satisfies the conditions of the appropriations law. If a majority of voters affirm their desire for admission, the bill provides for an automatic series of steps to occur. First, by February 2018, the President would issue a proclamation to begin Puerto Rico's transition to statehood. Second, the President would appoint a commission to prepare a report that describes the Federal laws that treat the territory of Puerto Rico differently than the States. The commission would complete the report by July 2018. The congressional committees of jurisdiction could then enact legislation to phase in equal treatment of Puerto Rico during the transition period so the admission process is structured and orderly. Third, in November 2020, the American citizens of Puerto Rico would vote for President and Vice President, two U.S. Senators, and voting Members of the U.S. House. Finally, on January 1, 2021, the President would proclaim Puerto Rico to be a State. Puerto Rico's congressional Representatives would be sworn into office, and Puerto Rico would be treated on equal footing with all other States. My bill is modeled on the legislation enacted by Congress with respect to Alaska and Hawaii. When Alaska and Hawaii were territories, they each held votes sponsored by their local governments in which voters expressed a desire for statehood. This is also what occurred in Puerto Rico in 2012. Ultimately, Congress enacted an admission act for Alaska in 1958 and an admission act for Hawaii in 1959. Those acts of Congress provided for admission to occur once a majority of voters in each territory affirmed in a federally sponsored vote that they desired statehood. That is precisely what my bill would do with respect to Puerto Rico. Every Member of Congress who cosponsors this bill is standing up for a powerful, powerful principle, which is this: the people of Puerto Rico are U.S. citizens, they have enriched the life of this Nation for generations, and they have fought and died to defend her. If a majority of Puerto Rico's voters affirm their desire in a federally sponsored vote to become a full and equal part of the American family, the will of the people should be honored. Democracy requires no less.

Mr. PIERLUISI

Mr. PIERLUISI. Mr. Speaker, yesterday this Nation, including Puerto Rico, celebrated Martin Luther King Day. It is important to pause and reflect upon Dr. King's legacy and its relevance to the issue of Puerto Rico's political status. In the 1950s and 1960s, Dr. King was the most prominent leader of the civil rights movement for racial equality in the United States. He was physically brave, leading peaceful marches and other protests in parts of the country where some government officials and residents were willing to use violence and intimidation to maintain a system of segregation and discrimination. Dr. King was also remarkably eloquent. His speeches and writings inspired men and women who already supported the campaign for racial equality, but they also changed the hearts and minds of individuals who initially opposed the cause. He helped many Americans who were living in moral darkness to see the light. Dr. King was motivated by a sense of urgency. In a letter written from an Alabama jail, he stated that ``justice too long delayed is justice denied.'' But Dr. King was also strategic. Every action he took was carefully designed to advance the cause. He knew that means matter as much as ends, and he had little patience for advocates who lacked a sense of tactics and timing. Dr. King traveled to Puerto Rico on at least two occasions, but it does not appear that he expressed a considered opinion about the island's political status. Nevertheless, based on Dr. King's philosophy, it is fair to presume that he would be very troubled by the situation in Puerto Rico. Dr. King regarded the right to vote as sacred. In a 1957 speech delivered in front of the Lincoln Memorial, he said: So long as I do not firmly and irrevocably possess the right to vote, I do not possess myself. I cannot make up my mind; it is made up for me. I cannot live as a democratic citizen, observing the laws I have helped to enact; I can only submit to the edict of others. Nearly 50 years after Dr. King's death from an assassin's bullet, the right to vote in Federal and local elections is guaranteed to all American citizens regardless of race, but only if they reside in a U.S. State. The 3.6 million American citizens residing in the U.S. territory of Puerto Rico are denied this sacred right, unable to vote for the Federal leaders who make the laws that govern every aspect of their lives. We lack the very right that Dr. King lived for and the right he died for. The movement that Dr. King led was a quest for equal rights and equal opportunities for African Americans. However, the principle that lay behind the movement and that gave it such moral power has broader application. It is the belief that there is only one category of American citizenship, not a first-class citizenship for some and a second-class citizenship for others. Every day that Puerto Rico remains a territory, an undemocratic and undignified status, this principle is violated. Dr. King taught us that achieving equality requires hard, determined, relentless work. It requires leaders who are both passionate and strategic, just as Dr. King was, but above all, it requires thousands upon thousands of ordinary men and women to unite around the principle, the principle of equality, and to fight for it until it is attained. Dr. King's life is a testament to the fundamental truth that there is no force on Earth strong enough to stop a righteous cause pursued by righteous means. Our struggle to obtain equal rights and equal opportunities for the U.S. citizens of Puerto Rico is a struggle for justice, and with tireless effort, we will prevail.

Mr. PIERLUISI

Mr. PIERLUISI. Mr. Speaker, last week I spoke about Puerto Rico's mission to discard its status as a U.S. territory and to become a U.S. State. Today, I rise to inform my colleagues about the most recent phase of this mission. A brief word of background. Puerto Rico has been a territory since 1898. Its status is incompatible with the principles this Nation strives to uphold at home and promotes abroad. There are 3.6 million American citizens in Puerto Rico. My constituents cherish their U.S. citizenship and have made countless contributions to this country in law, science, business, government, the arts, the armed services, and every other field of human endeavor. Yet they cannot vote for President, have no U.S. Senators, and send one Delegate to the House who has a voice but no vote in this Chamber. The people of Puerto Rico, beyond lacking democratic rights, are deprived of equality under law. Congress has a license to discriminate against the territories, and Puerto Rico is treated worse than the States under a range of Federal programs. To compensate for the shortfall in Federal funding, the Puerto Rican government has borrowed heavily in order to provide adequate public services. This disparate treatment is the principal reason why Puerto Rico has endured severe economic problems for decades. Inequality, both political and economic, is driving thousands of my constituents to depart for the States every month. It is human nature to go where you believe you can secure a better future for yourself and your family. However, residents of Puerto Rico have finally said enough is enough. They demand a status that is democratic and dignified, a proud status for a proud people. In a referendum organized by the local government in 2012, voters in Puerto Rico rejected territory status and expressed a clear preference for statehood. In response, Congress provided an appropriation of $2.5 million to fund the first federally sponsored vote in Puerto Rico's history, with the clear goal of resolving the territory's status. This is the most significant step the Federal Government has ever taken to settle the status debate in Puerto Rico. I have proposed that the funding be used to hold a federally sponsored ``yes'' or ``no'' vote on whether Puerto Rico should be admitted as a State. Some have complained that Puerto Rico has already voted for statehood and should not have to vote again. This argument is based on a fundamental misunderstanding of history and how Washington works. After expressing a strong desire for statehood in local referenda, the territories of Alaska and Hawaii each held federally sponsored ``yes'' or ``no'' votes on admission that led to statehood. If Puerto Rico wants to become a State, it must do the same. My proposal has broad congressional support, since a bill I filed last Congress that endorsed this approach obtained 131 cosponsors and led to the filing of an identical Senate bill. My proposal also has significant local support. Yesterday, in a remarkable display of unity and resolve, all 22 members of the statehood delegation in the Puerto Rico house and all eight members of the statehood delegation in the Puerto Rico Senate introduced identical bills that proposed to use the appropriation from Congress to conduct a federally sponsored vote on Puerto Rico's admission as a State. Now all that remains is for Puerto Rico's Governor, speaker of the house, and senate president--each a defender of the failed status quo--to show some courage and schedule this vote. Real leaders do not fear the democratic process or its results. Meanwhile, statehood forces continue our forward march, expanding in size and strength. Indeed, today statehood supporters are rallying outside the White House and are holding meetings here in Congress. In the coming weeks and months, our advocacy efforts will only intensify. As individuals, our ability to effect change is inherently limited, but as a united movement, we are as strong as steel. We are fighting for equality, and we will not stop until we achieve it.

Mr. PIERLUISI

Mr. PIERLUISI. Madam Speaker, as the new Congress begins its work on behalf of the American people, I rise to address my colleagues about an issue of national importance, namely Puerto Rico's quest to discard its status as a U.S. territory and to become a U.S. State. Puerto Rico has been a territory since 1898. If Puerto Rico does not desire to remain a territory, it can follow one of two paths. The territory can become a State or it can become a sovereign nation, either fully independent from the U.S. or with a compact of free association with the U.S. that either nation can terminate. If Puerto Rico becomes a nation, future generations of island residents would not be American citizens. My constituents have made countless contributions to the United States in times of peace and war, serving in every military conflict since World War I. They fight today in Afghanistan and other dangerous locations in the same units as young men and women from States such as Florida, Texas, and New Mexico. Many of them have made the ultimate sacrifice in battle. When they do, their casket is flown back to this country draped in the American flag. It takes a special kind of patriotism to fight for a nation that you love, but one that does not treat you equally. Although Puerto Rico is home to more American citizens than 21 States, my constituents cannot vote for President, are not represented in the Senate, and have one nonvoting delegate in the House. Moreover, territory status gives Congress license to treat Puerto Rico worse than the States, and Congress often uses that license. Everyone, other than apologists for the status quo, comprehends that territory status is the root cause of the economic crisis in Puerto Rico. As a result of the structural problems this status has created, residents of Puerto Rico are relocating to the States in staggering numbers. I know it breaks their hearts to leave behind the island they love, but most see no other option; yet through the clouds, a bright sun is emerging. The people of Puerto Rico have finally said, ``No more.'' They have come to the conclusion that they deserve a status that is both democratic and dignified. They will no longer tolerate being second-class citizens. They do not want special treatment; rather, they demand equal treatment, nothing more but nothing less. The will of the Puerto Rican people was expressed in a 2012 referendum sponsored by the Puerto Rico Government. There, a majority of my constituents expressed their opposition to territory status. Statehood received more votes than territory status, and statehood received far more votes than independence or free association, proving that Puerto Rico has no desire to weaken the bonds forged with the United States over nearly 12 decades. In short, statehood is now the predominant force in Puerto Rico. At my urging and in response to this landmark referendum, the Obama administration proposed and Congress approved an appropriation of $2.5 million to fund the first federally-sponsored vote in Puerto Rico's history with the stated goal of resolving the status issue. I have proposed that the funding be used to hold a simple, federally sponsored yes-or-no vote on whether Puerto Rico should be admitted as a State, just as Alaska and Hawaii did. This approach would yield a definitive result that nobody could reasonably question, and it has broad congressional support, since a bill I introduced last Congress that embodies this approach had 131 cosponsors and led to the filing of an identical Senate companion bill. All that remains is for the Governor of Puerto Rico to schedule the vote; yet a year has passed, and we have seen only inertia and indecision, all talk and no action. For my part, I will continue to press for action both in San Juan and in Washington, D.C., using any strategy and technique that will advance the statehood cause. Since none of my colleagues in this Chamber representing States would accept territory status for their constituents, I know they will understand that I will not accept it for my constituents either.

Mr. PIERLUISI

Mr. PIERLUISI. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 83, and commend my colleague, Mrs. Christensen, for her leadership in sponsoring this legislation. I am a cosponsor of this bill, and want to express my support for its passage by the full House of Representatives. The bill requires the Secretary of the Interior to establish a team of experts to develop, and help implement, a plan for each territory to reduce reliance on imported oil and to transition to cleaner energy sources that will improve the environment and lower electricity costs. A typical territory resident pays two to four times more for electricity than the U.S. national average. As an island that does not produce oil, coal or natural gas, Puerto Rico faces inherent energy challenges. Notwithstanding the progress that was made under the last administration in San Juan, which oversaw a nearly 15 percent increase in the use of natural gas and a doubling of the use of renewable sources, Puerto Rico still generates most of its electricity from imported oil. Burning oil pollutes the air and explains why Puerto Rico has the highest rate of asthma and other respiratory illnesses in the nation. Oil is expensive and subject to sudden price shocks. The high cost of electricity strains family budgets and harms businesses. The plan called for by H.R. 83 will help the governments of Puerto Rico and the other territories diversify their energy portfolios and reduce electricity rates. It is for these reasons that I urge passage of this bill. I thank the Chairman and Ranking Member of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce for working with us to advance this bill.

Mr. PIERLUISI

Mr. PIERLUISI. Madam Speaker, I rise to provide an update on Puerto Rico's political status, which is an issue of national significance. Puerto Rico is an unincorporated territory of the United States. Territory status is undemocratic. Although Puerto Rico is home to more American citizens than 21 States, island residents cannot vote for President, are not represented in the Senate, and have one nonvoting Delegate in the House. Territory status is also unequal. As a recent GAO report confirms, Puerto Rico is deprived of billions of dollars each year because it is treated worse than the States under a range of Federal programs. Every objective observer understands that territory status is the underlying cause of the economic, fiscal, and demographic crisis that has enveloped Puerto Rico. History teaches a simple lesson: no people have ever reached their potential while being deprived of political rights and denied equality under the law. Puerto Rico is no exception to this rule. If the people of Puerto Rico wish to discard territory status, there are two--and only two--paths forward. The territory can become a State on equal footing with the other States, or the territory can become a sovereign nation, either fully independent from the U.S., like the Philippines, or with a compact of free association with the U.S. that either nation can terminate, like the Republic of Palau. If Puerto Rico becomes a sovereign nation, future generations of island residents would not be American citizens and would receive reduced Federal support. In a 2012 referendum sponsored by the Government of Puerto Rico, a majority of my constituents expressed their opposition to territory status, which means that Puerto Rico is being governed without its consent. Statehood received more votes than territory status, which is unprecedented. And statehood obtained far more votes than either of the two nationhood options, which demonstrates that Puerto Rico has no desire to weaken or break the bonds forged with the United States over nearly 12 decades. At my urging and in response to this landmark vote, the Obama administration proposed an appropriation of $2.5 million to fund the first federally sponsored referendum in Puerto Rico's history with the stated goal being to resolve the territory's status. Earlier this year, Congress approved this appropriation with bipartisan support. Although the law does not specify how the ballot should be structured, it does require the Department of Justice to ensure that any option on the ballot is compatible with the Constitution, laws, and public policy of the United States. Therefore, the ballot cannot contain the status proposal known as ``enhanced commonwealth'' that one political party in Puerto Rico has consistently put forward over the years and that Federal officials--including the Obama administration, Senators Wyden and Murkowski--have just as consistently rejected as impossible. Moreover, the ballot should not contain the current territory status as an option because it was rejected in the 2012 referendum. It is the primary source of Puerto Rico's problems, and it does not resolve the island's status since, as long as Puerto Rico remains a territory, it has the potential to become either a State or a sovereign nation. Last week, the Governor of Puerto Rico announced his intention to use the $2.5 million to conduct a federally sponsored vote by the end of 2016. I have proposed that the Federal funding be used to hold a yes- or-no vote on whether Puerto Rico should be admitted as a State, just as Alaska and Hawaii did. This approach would yield a definitive result that nobody could reasonably question, and it has broad congressional backing, garnering support from 135 Members of the House and the Senate. If the Governor of Puerto Rico resists this approach, he will face a problem. The party he leads has never been able to agree upon a status proposal that does not conflict with U.S. law and policy. But let me be clear. If a vote does occur, statehood advocates will show up in force. Any time, any place, an army of men and women will be there to seek equality and justice, and we will prevail.