Les4TxGov - The Puerto Rico Rave

I have a soft spot for Puerto Rico, several of my friends, and a girl-friend or two, through-out my life have been Puerto Rican. The conversation on statehood was discussed, but there were never any conclusions as to what was best for Puerto Rico. It is a complicated issue with many pro's and con's no matter which path you decide to take, which is why Puerto Rico's status has never changed. My personal stance is that we let Puerto Ricans decide for Puerto Rico.

Now Congress is considering a new bill that "supposedly" would give Puerto Rico the chance to control its own status, but they have had that ability all along. Several times in their history, virtually any time there seems to be support for a change in direction, they have a vote to see what the people truly want, and so far, the majority want it to remain as it is. So what gives with the new bill? Why does something have to be done differently than it has been done before? Where is the problem this bill is supposed to fix?

In every situation dealing with power, you have to follow it to its source. Its the old adage about conspiracies and who is to blame, "If you want to know the guilty party, follow the money trail and see who gets paid." So who gets paid in this instance?

Here is an article that may shed a little light on what's really going on in Washington.

Puerto Rico has been a U.S. territory since 1898. Currently, all Puerto Ricans have U.S. citizenship, they have a non-voting “resident commissioner” in the U.S. House of Representatives (Pedro Pierluisi [D, PR-0]), they have some governing autonomy in their internal affairs, but on their most contentious and most important political issue, their political status and relationship to the U.S., governance decisions are held by the U.S. Congress and the President under the Territorial Clause of the U.S. Constitution.

(a) First Plebiscite- The Government of Puerto Rico is authorized to conduct a plebiscite in Puerto Rico. The 2 options set forth on the ballot shall be preceded by the following statement: ‘Instructions: Mark one of the following 2 options:

(1) Puerto Rico should continue to have its present form of political status. If you agree, mark here XX.

(2) Puerto Rico should have a different political status. If you agree, mark here XX.

If a majority of Puerto Ricans (and U.S. citizens who were born in Puerto Rico) vote to continue their current status, the bill authorizes Puerto Rico to hold a similar vote every eight years. If they vote for the second option, the bill authorizes the Puerto Rican government to hold a follow-up vote on how to change their status, including the option of becoming a U.S. state on equal footing with all other states.

(c) Procedure if Majority in First Plebiscite Favors Option 2- If a majority of the ballots in a plebiscite conducted pursuant to subsection (a) or (b) are cast in favor of Option 2, the Government of Puerto Rico is authorized to conduct a plebiscite on the following 3 options:

(1) Independence: Puerto Rico should become fully independent from the United States. If you agree, mark here XX.

(2) Sovereignty in Association with the United States: Puerto Rico and the United States should form a political association between sovereign nations that will not be subject to the Territorial Clause of the United States Constitution. If you agree, mark here XX.

(3) Statehood: Puerto Rico should be admitted as a State of the Union. If you agree, mark here XX.

So what’s the political goal here? The Washington Times alleges it’s more about supporting Democrats than democracy:

Occasional plebiscites have been held asking island residents if they wanted statehood instead of their special status, but voters rejected change each time. The statehood option garnered just 46.3 percent and 46.5 percent of the vote in the last two attempts, the most recent in 1998. But because Puerto Rico leans heavily Democratic, congressional Democrats pine after the two new senators and perhaps six new House members who would be added to their caucus if statehood passed. The Democrats’ solution is ingenious – and underhanded. The new bill would call for a two-stage vote rather than a straightforward one.

Past elections have shown that commonwealth status is favored directly over statehood, directly against independence and directly against some sort of hybrid arrangement. Yet among all four options, commonwealth support appears to enjoy only a strong plurality, but maybe not an absolute majority. Presto: The Democrats’ scheme is to first hold a vote with just two options: commonwealth on one side, anything else on the other. If supporters of all three other options ban together, they might vote to rule out the commonwealth without knowing what would replace it.

Only if and when that first vote succeeds would a second vote be held to determine which of the other three options would apply – with commonwealth status off the table.

H.R. 2499, the Puerto Rico statehood bill was brought to the House this week after a surprise announcement last Thursday. Debate on this bill has been severely limited by the way Democratic Leaders are managing the process. Democratic Puerto Rican Members of Congress are being shut out of the process and will be severely limited in their ability to debate the bill and offer amendments. Under the current Democratic Leadership, there will be less opportunity for Members and for the people of Puerto Rico to gain a better understanding of the bill.

So, what is up with this Puerto Rico statehood bill?

In my opinion, this bill is the political equivalent of a shady Goldman Sachs derivative: It's secretive. It lacks transparency. It's likely to blow up down the road and cause systemic risk to out democracy. And those who put this political derivative together don't really tell you what this is really about and will play dumb when it explodes.

I get more time to debate renaming a Post Office than I will get to debate a bill that could make Puerto Rico the fifty-first state.

Two Puerto Rican U.S. Senators? Six or seven new Puerto Rican House Members? Really? I can understand why some people would like that idea...but shouldn't we discuss it first?

When a similar Puerto Rico bill came up under Speaker Newt Gingrich's Republican controlled Congress a decade ago, it was the product of lengthy and thorough hearings and an open and fair process. Now, under Democratic Leadership, we get one hearing, no forewarning, no companion Senate bill, and a debate only a few seconds longer than a NASCAR pit-stop.

Then, I was given time to offer seven amendments. Then I was able to clarify the bill for the Puerto Rican people. Then, each of my seven amendments got 30 minutes of floor time for debate. Flash forward to now. Now a Democratic Majority Congress is only allowing me two of the 16 amendments I offered in the Rules Committee on Wednesday. Now I only have 10 minutes to debate each one.

Then was then this is now.

This means Speaker Gingrich, not a Speaker I voted for, not MY Speaker, allowed me 210 minutes of debate on my amendments alone, and under Democratic Leadership I get two amendments at ten-minutes each.

What's the rush? Something is wrong with this picture. It just does not add up.

I am a senior Democratic Member of Congress, whose parents were born in Puerto Rico, and for whom Puerto Rico self-determination has been - and remains - a central issue of my congressional career. This statehood bill is the opposite of self-determination.

It is designed to craft an artificial majority for statehood where none exists now. Every time the people of Puerto Rico have been consulted on this issue through a plebiscite they've said NO to Statehood. NO to Statehood in 1967. NO to Statehood in 1993. NO to Statehood in 1998. This should be called the "Don't you dare say NO to Statehood Bill".

Why is it that the when the people of the District of Columbia repeatedly and overwhelmingly ask for Statehood, Congress ignores them, and when the people of Puerto Rico, who have never asked for statehood and who have actually said 'no' to statehood three times get this statehood bill pushed on them in a rush...with little or no debate?

For the first time I can remember, I am planning to vote against the rule crafted by my party to govern the floor debate of this bill (H.R. 2499). It is a vote I did not expect to have to cast and is a deep disappointment. But I'm left with no choice.

Cross-posted from the Huffington Post.

Why the rush on the Puerto Rico statehood bill? (Rep. Luis Gutierrez)