but -- don't want to say categorically. >> is at -- this was not some demonstration motivated by this video that spun up into an attack on our facilities, a coordinated attack. we can -- >> the europeans -- >> the briefing continues on our website c-span.org, reconvening from party lunches working on the zika virus, military construction and veterans funding bill. this is live coverage on c-span2.

a senator: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from west virginia. mr. manchin: are we in a quorum call? the presiding officer: the senate is not in a quorum call. mr. manchin: i'd like to vitiate. the presiding officer: we're not in a quorum call. mr. manchin: i ask to speak concerning -- we have a colloquy, speak on the

protection act. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. manchin: madam president, as you know very well, we've been asking for immediate passage of the miners protection act not just for our state of west virginia but for all the miners across america and basically the retired miners who have done everything that's been asked of them. we have some of our colleagues today and i'm going to go, at this time, if i can, and my other colleagues will allow me, i would defer right now to senator brown from ohio, since he has other commitments. he'll be coming back and forth, if he could go ahead and get started at this time. and i'll come back and go to our other senator from ohio. mr. brown: thank you. i know everyone is squeezed for time but i thank senator manchin for his leadership, the presiding officer, the other senator from west virginia, senator capito, senator portman. we know how serious this is and we're all willing in this body

to do, at least the four of us, senator casey and senator warner i know too, whatever we can do to get this fixed. our nation's retired coal miners are on the brink of losing their health care, their retirement savings. this congress can pull them back from that. the u.m.w. health care and pension plan covers 100,000 workers, 6,800 people and senator portman is in my state. the plan is completely funded since a decade ago but the industry was devastated by the recession. if congress fails to act thousands of retired miners could lose their health care this year and the entire plan would fall as early as 2017. for every one of those years -- for every one of those years where mine workers worked for decades and decades in the mine, they earned and contributed to the retiree health care plans and pensions plans, benefits they fought for similar to when

senator manchin and i, prior to, remember what it was like here during the auto rescue. these were benefits they fought for, benefits they gave up raises for, benefits they earned, putting money aside and now they've been betrayed, frankly, and that's what's so important. i will enter the rest of my remarks in the record because i know others want to speak. but we just had a meeting of a group of senators. senator reid played a film of what's happening in west virginia, the flooding. and much of that flooding is in miners country, most of it is. there were mine workers home. senator capito knows this too. mine workers' homes that were under water as other residents in these communities, proud communities that have done everything right. people worked hard and they played by the rules. they paid their taxes. they helped the community. they've lost so much, and this is the last thing they just

simply should not lose. i -- we -- my contention in the finance committee -- and i know my colleague from ohio's contention too that that committee should not do anything until we fix the miners' pension. senator mcconnell, the republican leader, seems about the only one that doesn't want to move on this. all the rest of us do. but the point that a lot of us are making, we shouldn't allow this body, as important as i think puerto rico is, as much as we want to help this, we shouldn't be voting on restructuring puerto rico's debt without lifting a finger to help our retired miners. i don't want to delay puerto rico. i want senator mcconnell to commit to us that we'll move ahead on puerto rico but promise us a vote, promise us a date for a vote so we can do what we need to do to move this money from the abandoned mind fund to the umwa pension fund in a way that works for these miners, that works for the widows of miners, that works for people who are sick from working in the mines,

works for people who are injured working in the mines. as many of you know, i wear on my lapel the picture of a canary in a bird cage. all of us know in mining country that mine workers would take the canary in the mines. they had no union that cared for them, no government that cared for them. it is up to us to provide that. the canary in the mine has been tweeting mercilessly and it is up to us to do what we were hired to do in these jobs. i thank senator manchin. mr. manchin: thank you. if i can give a little background and go right to senator portman if we're okay with that. thank you, senator brown. i appreciate very much the presiding officer, madam president, she understands very well. we're both from the same state, born and raised there. tough times has always been part of our d.n.a. so that people know the history of the mines, the coal that's been produced, we would not be the country we are today, we would not be the super power of the world if we didn't have the

domestic energy in our backyard. domestic energy was the coal that we had, that we've used to fuel the industry revolution. we basically defended ourselves in every war. it was so important during world war ii, if you were a coal miner you were asked to be deferred from fighting in the war to provide the energy the country needed to defend itself. that's how important this product has been. today it's kind of tab bough to talk about. all of a sudden all of this harm. they don't understand we have the life we have because of it. there is a transition going on and we understand that. but in 1946, harry truman, president harry truman said that we can't have the miners goen 0 strike. -- go on strike. john l. lewis is going to take the miners out on strike for unfair compensation and safety. and harry truman promised them if they would stay, it was so important for our economy after world war ii to keep moving forward, and without the energy, we couldn't do it. so he says if you all will settle this strike, i'll make

sure that everybody that produces coal, all the miners will pay into a pension fund that will guarantee that you will have health care benefits when you retire and a very meager pension. we're not talking big money. we're talking very, very, very meager supplements. that was committed and paid for. it had been funded all the way up until the greed of wall street in 2008 and fell apart. now we have the time, we go up to the end of the time. every time we go up to this timetable. july 1 is the puerto rico. and then let me tell you one thing, july 15, all the retirees, all the retirees will start receiving notices that they'll start losing their health care benefits within 90 days. if you have seen on television all the devastation to our state in west virginia, all the flooding, all the misery that -- the loss of life. one of the largest loss of lives in any flooding in the united states history just happened

this past week in the state of west virginia, our beautiful state. and every one of those communities that you're seeing on television with houses on fire floating down the river, with every businesses ruined and all the homes and all the people that are left with nothing, every one of those are mining communities. every one of them have miners living in them. every one of them have widows who probably lost their husband to black lung, depending on the health care benefits. but yet we've got so many other things. and we're just asking for a vote. this is a bipartisan bill. here we're standing on the floor, all of us not being democrats or republicans. just being americans trying to do the right thing. and all we're asking for is a society on this. it will -- asking for is a vote on this. it will pass. there are ways for us to pay for so it does not cost the american taxpayers. that's what we're asking for, and i don't think that's too much to ask for. i've said let's vote "no" on cloture tomorrow. i'm not voting or saying to be for or against puerto rico.

i understand the situation they're in. but unless we defend and fight for the people that have given us the country we have and just disregard that, then who are we? what's our purpose for being here? so with that, i would yield the floor to my good friend, my colleague from ohio. senator portman. mr. portman: i thank my friend and colleague from west virginia. i appreciate his passion for this issue. over the years he has fought hard for our miners in every different respect, as has his colleague from west virginia who is in the chair right now, senator capito. they need us right now. and he's absolutely right, we've got a bill on the floor of the united states senate that provides for essentially the bankruptcy of puerto rico. i'm not being critical of that legislation. i know puerto rico needs help. but i also know that the people i represent need help. and the people who these two senators represent, senator

brown who spoke earlier. all we're asking for is give us a chance. we have legislation that's been carefully crafted with the united mine workers, with the coal companies, on a bipartisan basis. this is legislation that is fiscally responsible. my own view for what it's worth is that if we don't help now, it's very likely there could be later a need for significant funding from the taxpayer. why? because unfortunately, we're in a situation now where because of all these bankruptcies of these coal companies -- and we can talk about the policy toward the coal companies and the policies towards coal in this country. but the reality is there are a lot of companies in places like ohio and west virginia and virginia and other states out west that are either in bankruptcy or heading toward bankruptcy. and the people who are getting left behind are these coal miners who worked hard, played by the rules, have their pension, have their health care lined up but because of the bankruptcy they find themselves on the outside.

currently, by the way, these mine worker pensions are relatively modest, $530 per month is the average. they're headed toward bankruptcy, by the way, within five to ten years. there are 90,000 coal miners. my colleague said closer to 100,000. over 90,000 coal miners affected here. in ohio alone it is over 6,000 coal miners. when that pension goes bankrupt in five to ten years, there is no guarantee, as i see it, that the p-b -- pbgc, the pension benefit guaranty corporation will be there. that is also in trouble. these mine workers who sacrificed for so long, working hard, played by the rules, helped power this nation could be left with no pension. that is simply not acceptable. there is a further issue that some folks aren't focused on yet but will be soon in a lot of our states, and that's that there are about 20,000 of these

retired coal miners who may well lose their retiree health coverage at the end of this year. this is not down the road. this is now. this is this year. again, these miners spent their careers in dangerous jobs. these jobs resulted in higher rates of injury, disease, cancer, and they're therefore especially dependent on these health benefits, and they've earned them. this would be devastating to those families to lose these benefits. our solution, a bipartisan solution -- senator capito is here, senator manchin, senator brown was here, others -- our solution is to have no interruption of these family health benefits, keep the family plan solvent so it doesn't go over, we don't have to have a bailout, and we can do it with a fund that is currently available. senator manchin talked for a moment about how this is something that can be handled under our current fiscal situation. as some of you know i'm a fiscal hawk and i wouldn't have signed up to this bill if i didn't see a way to pay for it.

the money would come from a miners health spending that is spending about half of its annual allocation. the fund allows for $490 million in annual spending for retired miners. currently it is spending closer to $225 million. that fund is available. our point is, why not use the rest of that authority for our fund to be able to spend the money and make sure none of them lose their health coverage? i think this solution may well cost less money understand that simply a-- than simply allowing the plan to go bankrupt, because then i think it is likely i would end up with a major bailout and the taxpayers would be asked to pick up the rest. so who are these miners? this the last several years i've been at some of the coal mines in ohio, i've been at above-ground coal mines, i've been under the ground 600 feet with coal miners. i have had the opportunity to visit three coal mines. coal miners come to the meetth

and speak up. they talk about why they believe that they deserve to be treated fairly. they have powered this nation. ohio is 70% coal-dependent for our electricity. many states represented here are even higher. some virtually all their electricity comes from coal. it is a hard job. again, when you're underground several hundred feet and you see the kind of work that they do, you learn to aappreciative the fact that they are taking a risk every day and they do have additional health problems because of it. and so these are people who not just power our country but power their communities. they're engaged and involved in their communities. they want to be sure these smaller rural communities can stay, and losing that benefit and health care hurts those communities. these are people who have played by the rules. they zev our help right now because of this pending bankruptcy. again, why on this bill?

it's not about my opposition to the underlying bill. but it is about my insistence that we have a vote. and i intend not to vote to move forward with the puerto rico bill unless we get our vote. and it's appropriate. if we're going to help puerto rico escape bankruptcy, then we should also help the 90,000 miners we talked about in west virginia, ohio, and other states who are suffering the effects of these coal bankruptcies. they don't deserve to be left behind as the senate addresses other bankruptcies. so i want to thank my other colleagues who are here. the presiding officer kindly took the chair so that i could make these remarks. l i am going to real estate place her now -- i am going to replace her now. i want to thank my colleagues for standing up at this crucial time to say this is our opportunity to be heard. that's all we're asking for. i think we did have a vote. i think we'd be successful and

be able to allow these miners to be able to get the benefits they deserve. i yield back to my colleague. mr mr. manchin: i want to thank my friend. the accurate count is 9h.5,94. of those, 27,000 come from my state of west virginia. 27,000. when you talk about who are the minors, the most patriotic people you've ever met. most are veterans. they've sacrificed and will continue to do so. this country still needs a balanced energy policy that works for all of us and they're willing to do that and will to do the hard, tough, heavy-lifting jobs that they've ever done and don't ask for a lot of accolades about doing that. i have another colleague here no knows the mining industry very well. we have been out talking to them and watching the product move and watching how we energize this great country.

with that, i want to yield to my friend, senator donnelly, from indiana. mr. donnelly: thank you. thank you, mr. president. to my colleague from ohio, my colleague from west virginia, this is a critical issue, and i rise today to join you in support of the bipartisan miners' protection act. we are here to make sure that the federal government makes good on our promise of benefits for miners who risked their lives to help our country meet our energy needs. as you've noted, president truman and the federal government made a promise that the 1946 krug-louis agreement to guarantee health and pension benefits for coal miners. these workers and the jn reagan administrations that followed sacrifice their own long-term health. now they're depending on us to make sure that they get the benefits that they earned. in indiana, my friend from west virginia said 27 now your state.

we have 3,000 retired miners approximately receiving pension benefits and another 1,500 receiving health benefits. many of them in the southern part of my state. there are tens of thousands of other retirees, 90,500-plus across the nation -- west virginia, ohio, pennsylvania, illinois, kentucky. these retired miners and their families face a financial emergency unless we act now. congress must work to address broader problems in the multiemployer pension system, which is on the verge of crisis as well. many plans such as the central states pension plan includes hundreds of thousands of retired teamsters and is dangerously underfunded right now. we owe it to these hardworking americans who did their job. it's time for us to do our job and to solve this problem.

this bipartisan proposal -- this isn't about republicans. this isn't about democrats. it's about americans coming together to help the 90,000-plus miners and their beneficiaries who face an imminent loss of the benefits they have earned. they have earned these benefits. this is nothing being given to them. they've earned this every day walking into those mines, working nonstop, facing incredible dangers, and powering our country. we can start meeting our responsibility by scheduling a vote and passing this commonsense legislation. we made a promise to these coal miners, and we take this promise seriously. they did their part for decade after decade.

we can't turn our backs on them. that's not the american way. it's not the indiana way. it's not the ohio way. it's not the west virginia way. i urge the senate to take up this bipartisan miners' protection act as soon as possible because tens of thousands of real estate tirees -- retirees, our friends, our neighbors, our fellow americans are counting on us to do our job and keep the word that's been given to them. mr. president, i yield back. mr. manchin: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from west virginia. mr. manchin: yes, let me just say i want to thank my colleague from west virginia and yourself and my colleague from west virginia, all of us. this is truly a bipartisan bill. as we stand before you, my colleague and i both were born and raised in west virginia. we come from different political parties, but we've been friends

all of our lives. the most important thing is, before we'd become a democrat and republican, we'd been west virginians, first. sometimes we lose sight of that. this is a time when we have to come together and do the right thing. these are people that we've asked to do the heavy lifting all of their lives and all we're asking for is a vote on a commonsense piece of legislation that gives them and protects them and gives them the promises they made. they worked for this. they paid for this. their pension funds were solid. no act of their own caused this. we're not actin asking for a ba. we think there is a pay-for and it should be done. i want to recognize my colleague from west virginia for their commitment and dedication to fight for this. i thank her so much. with that, i yield to senator capito from our great state of west virginia. mrs. capito: thank you. i'd like to thank senator manchin for putting this

colloquy together. you want to thank senator brown and donnelly and portman. we are deeply affected by this. the facts bear out that we can't wait. you know, we talk about emergencies and what we have on the floor is the emerging bankruptcy of puerto rico. the and i think all of us -- and i think all of us have expressed deep empathy and sympathy for puerto rico and the situation they're in. and we appreciate the bipartisan effort to find a solution. but, at the same time, we need our voices to be heard louder and clearer. and my voice is that i cannot vote for cloture on puerto rico when we have stranded and are stranding our hardworking coal miners and the retirees that are upcoming. you know, you got to look at what's at stake here. we've heard the numbers. 21,000 americans stand to lose their health care at the end of

the year within -- by july 15, some are going to lose their health care in 90 days. so that's way before the end of the year. you know, you often hear these -- the trite kind of slogan of promises made, promises kept. this is a promise that was made. this is the hard work of american coal miners who knew going in when they started to work in the mines the difficult jobs, the dangerous jobs, the questions of the spouse, will my husband make it back today from the mines? they had a promise. they had a promise, and that's why a lot of them pursued and went forth into dangerous positions to provide for their families and to power the country. my colleague from ohio remarked that ohio's energy, 70% is

produced with coal. our state of west virginia, 95%. and why? we're he is belled. we've got a lot of -- we're blessed. we've got a lot of coal in west virginia. unfortunately, we've had a lot of issues in the coal industry that's been under assault from multiple directions. all kinds of things are playing into this but the reality is where we are today. and we mentioned the numbers of 12,000 americans that could lose their health care. 5,000 of those are our fellow west virginians. i guarantee you between the two of us, we know quite a few. we live in a small state. we live in communities where everybody knows everybody, and i tell you one thing, just to divert from this to what's happened to our state with the flood, i don't think -- i mean, i am sure other state dozen this just as well. but i don't think there is a

state that does as well as west virginians helping west virginians. what we've seen histor -- what e seen over the last few days with people pulling together is phenomenal. a lot of these folks, if they're not coal mining families, they know coal-mining families. their kids go to school together. their grandchildren play together. we're you a connected in this. you look at the health care, the pensions of 27,000 west virginians. as was mentioned, these are not large amounts. i think the senator from ohio mentioned $506 a month -- $560 a month. unfortunately for some retire year, that's the difference between paying your electric bill and having food on the table. that's a substantial, you know, getting gas for the car, buying your medicines, or helping your children when they might need help to purchase a new pair of shoes. all these kinds of things are

extremely important in the everyday life of our retirees. so i think the best voices are the voices of the miners. i've received letters -- i'm sure you've all received letters and phone calls and talked to people yourself -- from people like rita who wrote that her husband started as a coal miner right out of high school. "without the miners' protection act, they will lose their entire health care coverage." or walter, a third-generation coal miner. we find this a th lot. he's from danville and began working in the mines while he was still in high school. wrote to express concern, not just for himself but as a typical west virginiaian and a hardworking american, he's worried about his friends and former colleagues in boon county. teresa, also from boon koirnghts whose husband worked as a coal miner for 36 years and planned for retirement, and on the retirement benefit that they seervetion the health and the pension benefits, she say,

"please help these retirees to ensure that people like my husband keep the benefits he was promised and that he earned and worked harass for." -- and worked hard for." and then there's ralph from morgantown who reminds us, and this is important for us to reemphasize today, congress has the power to keep that promise because it is the right thing to do, to protect those hardworking americans. and ralph is right. and so i'm going to make a stand with my colleagues. i'm asking in a loud and joint voice to have this vote, to have the vote to keep the promise, keep the promise that was made so we can have our promises that are made are the promises that we keep. and so while puerto rico, i know, is facing a financial crisis -- and i have great empathy for what's going on there -- i cannot vote for

cloture on the puerto rico bill until i get some certainty -- some certainty -- that we're going notify in a positive -- that we're going to move into a positive direction. sew appreciate the -- so i appreciate the passion and willingness for you, senator manchin, to join in this colloquy today. we've got bipartisanship, we've got a regional coalition here that i think we can build on every day. and i hope that we'll be successful so that we can make sure that our miners, their families have the assurances, the security and the faith in us who can make that decision and the faith in this country who's made that promise. so i yield back to the senator. mr. manchin: mr. president, some people say this is a union versus a non-union issue. that is not the case at all. 1946, anybody that was mining

coal was a member of the united mine workers of america. almost 99.9%. with that type of participation, having all of these people involved in that, that's the deal that was made. that's the deal that harry truman, the president of our united states of america, made with john l. lewis. you've got to continue to mine the coal that keeps the country running. now today coal has been villainized to the point where people don't think they need it, they don't like it, don't want it and it's no good for them. well, guess what? the coal that we use today is cleaner and used cleaner than ever before. we talk about global climate. i'm not a denier. i think to 7 billion people we have a responsibility. we have a responsibility to clean up the environment. we've done it and we can do a lot more in america. we can lead the rest of the world who burns over seven billions tons of coal to do it much cleaner, if we're serious about it and not just continue

to demonize it here in america and use in america and putting all of these people out of work. now, my colleague talked about puerto rico and their finances. you know, we have sympathy and compassion for anybody that has difficult times, but you've got people that basically give their sweat, their blood and their lives for the energy and for this country and we're letting the widows and people that are depending upon that retirement, they're depending upon their health benefits. let me tell you the domino effect that will happen. the domino effect is this, these health care benefits go by the wayside. a lot of clinics that take care of people throughout west virginia, throughout the coal industry, throughout the coal counties all across america are going to be hurting. they're going to be hurting to be able to keep their doors open to take care of the children, the families and the widows and the people depending upon it. this has a ripple effect that people don't really consider. all we're asking is the majority leader, our majority leader respectfully, i'm asking him,

coming from the state of kentucky, he understands the mining. he understands the people of the mining, and i'm asking in a compassionate way if he would consider giving us the vote before we leave out of here. that's why we're not voting on the puerto rico cloture. we have basically next week and after next week we're gone for quite awhile. these widows will, and all the retirees will start receiving their notices july 15. we're our here on the 16th. what do we tell them? well, i'm sorry, we're on vacation. we've all gone home. we gave up. the house is gone now. they got in so much conflict, they couldn't take it anymore. they left early. they're not coming back. this is a shame. it is absolutely a shame. i'm almost -- i'm almost ashamed to tell people where do you work? i work for the government in washington. i'm almost afraid to tell them what body i'm in that we can't do better than what we're doing. i'm getting so sick and tired, if you're a republican and i'm a democrat, i'm supposed to be against you.

i'm not against you. i'm with you. i'm with this country. i want america to do well. i want the whole world to be envyious of us if we can help other people. but if we can't take care of ourselves, if we can't take care of the people whaoe committed and made a promise to, why should anyone? we are the hope of the world. if you're going to be the hope of the world you better take care of the people that gave you the country you have. that is the mine workers of this great country, united mine workers of america, toughest people i've ever been around, most generous people i've ever been around and most compassionate people i've ever been around. it is our responsibility, mr. president, and our colleagues to keep our promise to the miners who answered the call when ever the country needed them. when the country went to war the miners sent us to prosperity. they kept their promise to us and now it's time for us to do the same. we must keep our promise of a

lifetime pension and health benefits to our miners, something they paid for, something they worked for, for the dedication to our country. that is why, mr. president, i'm calling for the immediate passage of the miners protection act. i appreciate my colleagues on both sides of the aisle. this is truly a bipartisan effort. i thank you. i thank each and every one of you, and please talk to the colleagues as we do to all our friends on all sides to do the right thing and pass the miners protection act. thank you, mr. president, and i notice the absence of a quorum and yield the floor. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

ms. -- mrs. fischer: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from nebraska. mrs. fischer: i would ask that the quorum call be vitiated. the presiding officer: without objection. mrs. fischer: i rise to continue my tribute to nebraska's heroes and the current generation of men and

women who have given their lives defending our freedom in iraq and afghanistan. each of these nebraskans has a powerful story. today i'll reflect upon the life of marine sergeant joshua robinson of hastings, nebraska. josh grew up on a farm near the small village of oak, nebraska. as a boy, he thrived in the outdoors. many would say he was born to be a marine. josh loved hunting, fishing and preparing animals for 4 competitions. he first learned to shoot with a red rider bb gun and became excellent at tracking wild animals later his family moved to colorado where josh grew into an impressive athlete. he discovered water sports, water boarding and knee

boarding. he generated success on the wrestling team and he would later represent them three times at the state championships. in 2000, josh hofs high school graduation coincided with his family's return to nebraska where he enrolled at metro community college in omaha. his athletic ability was on full display here too. this time riding bulls in the rodeo. over a year after graduating high school, josh would find a new mission. on september 11, 2001, terrorist attacks on our homeland changed the world and instilled a deep sense of duty and patriotism for josh. like so many others in the days that followed, he answered the call to military service. his mother, missy, remembers his passion during that time, saying our freedom was put on the line. it takes young men like josh to

enlist and to protect the u.s.a. by 2003, josh had enlisted in the marine corps. that year he also met the love of his life, rhonda zeruba of bennington, nebraska. they connected immediately and were engaged shortly after josh returned from basic training in 2004. rhonda recalls the advice josh's marine friends gave him at the time. never buy a truck and never get married. well, in 2004, he did both. josh and rhonda were married in omaha later that year. they grew in love and they had two sons -- kodiak who is now 10 and wyatt, now 9. together josh and rhonda navigated their family through josh's two deployments to iraq.

like so many military families, they endured the pain of separation on birthdays and anniversaries and holidays. his service was their service. no one was surprised by josh's success in the military. his mother says josh took the skills he learned as a boy in nebraska and he placed them in the service of his marine corps brothers. as a soldier, he taught courses in tracking and mountain survival. as a scout sniper with the first marine division, he taught high angle shooting and mountain survival at california's mountain warfare training center. josh taught his ma reasons, and he also nurtured his sons. he showed kodiak and wyatt how to identify different animal tracks, and by a very young age,

both boys were masters. they still remember how to read raccoon and deer tracks. josh's fellow marines who referred to sergeant robinson as robby say he was fearless. through extraordinary survival skills, josh kept his men alert and safe. as fellow marine lance corporal gavin bristol put it, i never had any doubt there was a better man looking out for us. whenever we felt fear or anxiety, we just had to remember that robby was with us. josh was an infantryman, assigned to the first battalion, fifth marine regiment first marine division based out of camp pendleton, california. after serving two tours in iraq, he was deployed to helmand province in afghanistan in march, 2011. at this time, helmand province was the most dangerous region in

afghanistan and the last holdout for the taliban. a few months later, on june 11, a firefight broke out lasting six hours. during the attack, josh rescued a wounded marine while leading his combat team to safety. he would later earn the bronze star for his actions that day. two months later, on august 7, 2011, josh was out on patrol and shot twice by enemy combatants. he died shortly after. sergeant josh robinson was flown to nebraska and laid to rest on august 12, 2011, in hastings. st. cecilia's church was filled for the funeral service and hundreds of patriot guard riders led his procession. fellow marine lance corporal

bristol often thinks of josh saying every day i was able to walk alongside sergeant robinson. it was a gift. he can never be replaced as a marine, a leader or a friend. to his wife rhonda, he was a man's man and an amazing marine brother. he took new marines under his wing, and he would bring them home to meet rhonda and their children. josh's sons kodiak and wyatt will remember motorcycle rides with their dad. they will cherish memories of him teaching them how to ride the mechanical bull and to snow ski. nebraskans will remember joshua robinson for what he embodied and what it means to be one of the few and the proud, a marine. sergeant joshua robinson earned the purple heart, the combat

action ribbon and was posthumously awarded the bronze star. he lived his life the way he served his country, with distinction and with great honor. sergeant joshua robinson is a hero, and i'm honored to tell his story. thank you, mr. president. i yield. i would suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from new jersey.

a senator: mr. president, i come to the floor where i -- the presiding officer: the senate is in a quorum call. a senator: i'm sorry. i ask that the quorum call be vitiated. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. menendez: mr. president, i come to the floor as i have many times over the last nearly half a year to talk about the challenge of the people of puerto rico have. i came to the floor last week to ask for consent to bring to the floor the bill that the house of representatives sent called promesa which in spanish means promise but it is anything but a promise to the challenge ever the people of puerto rico had because i knew we needed time to be able to make a horrible bill a lot better. that's the essence of what the senate is. it's a co-equal branch of the legislative body that does not

have to accept what the house of representatives sends and say, well, it's an up-or-down vote. and i had been speaking for some time about what i expected was going to happen and at that time the majority whip, senator cornyn, the distinguished senator from texas got up and said -- objected to my unanimous consent request but said there will be an opportunity for amendments. well, obviously the majority leader put the legislation on the table, filled up the tree, and now there is no opportunity for amendments. and i think the three and a half million united states citizens who call puerto rico home deserve more than being jammed in a legislative process where their lives and their futures are going to be dictated to by

some time by a control board and i'll talk about that at length, by a control board for which there is no elected representatives from puerto rico, no one who the governor and legislature of puerto rico get to name on behalf of the three and a half million citizens, and who can determine just about every facet of their life and yet there cannot be a simple amendment here. so the citizens of puerto rico of citizens. they deserve to be treated as citizens, not servants. they deserve to be treated in a way that beholds a history of proud service to the nation. they deserve to be treated as citizens, not subjects. not subjects. and if all we can do for the

people of puerto rico is to have a very prolonged understanding of what this legislation will do to the people of puerto rico, then that's what i intend to do, mr. president. so i would just let my colleagues know that i intend to be here on the floor for some time to talk about this legislation, that it is not a promise, the consequences to the people of puerto rico, and to hopefully get my colleagues to understand that there is another pathway which is not to invoke cloture, therefore giving us the wherewithal to have amendments to make the legislation achieve its stated promise which goal is to ultimately give a pathway to restructuring of puerto rico's

$70 billion in debt under the bankruptcy code. the only reason to consider any legislation at all is to find a way to give puerto rico the opportunity to achieve a pathway to restructuring its debt under the bankruptcy code. now, they had elements of that ability in the law before, and somehow in the dark of night someone or some entity went ahead and included in the legislation taking away powers that they had to having some element of access to the bankruptcy code and no one can find legislative history as to why that happened to the government of puerto rico but it did. so the only reason to consider legislation in the first place is to have a clear pathway to restructuring so that the enormous challenges the people of puerto rico are facing today

can be alleviated and there can be a better future. but that is not what this legislation does. and i will talk at length about what the legislation does and does not do, but the essence of what i want to show is the reasons that this bill is simply not acceptable. they, meaning this control board, which is appointed, remember again, by two members by the speaker of the house, two members by the senate majority leader, one by the senate minority leader, one by the house minority leader and one by the president. so four republican appointments and three democratic appointments of which only one, one has to have their principle

domicile or business in the island of puerto rico. other than that that person can have their primary business in puerto rico but not live in puerto rico and there would be no say on behalf of puerto rico's elected leadership and no say on behalf of the three and a half million people on the island about how their future will be dictated. and yet this control board that makes the ultimate decisions on so many critical elements, including the very essence of why we're having legislation in the first place, which is to create a pathway towards restructuring, the legislation says the oversight board may certify a plan of adjustment only if it determines in its sole discretion, in its sole discretion, and this phrase, its sole discretion will appear nearly 30 times throughout the legislation we're going to be voting on. i have read the legislation fully at least twice from cover

to cover, and nearly 30 times in critical elements about critical decisions that the control board will have over the people of puerto rico. we don't even define what's the parameters. we say in the control board's sole discretion. that's an incredible grant of power. in its sole discretion, that it is consistent with the applicable certified fiscal plan. so they have the discretion to grant or deny restructuring, and there is a whole series of hurdles which we'll talk about as to what is necessary for them to even grant that determination, which is in their sole discretion. they may never get -- they may never get to the point that they feel that puerto rico should have access to restructuring, which is the only reason we're even considering legislation, because they are supposed to have access to restructuring. and by the way, that control

board not elected, sole discretion, only one person from the island of puerto rico, either their business or their residents are going to be represented there, that control board, it has neither the governor nor the legislature may exercise any control, any supervision, any oversight or any review over the control board or its activities. so that control board of seven members needs what? to get to a restructuring. it doesn't need a majority vote. it needs a supermajority vote so that instead of four out of the seven ultimately saying to puerto rico all right, you have met the standards that we set, you can go to restructuring now and get access to the bankruptcy process, which by the way would be determined by a bankruptcy court under the normal process

when you go for restructuring, you go to a bankruptcy court, the judges -- or the judge assigned to the case will make those determinations, and obviously restructuring is not a taxpayer bailout because restructuring is to take the debts that exist and restructure them in such a way that you can make payments and at the same time deal with essential services for the three and a half million united states citizens who call puerto rico their home. no, so it's not a bailout, but even to get to that restructuring, guess what? you don't need four out of seven, a simple majority. we grow up -- i see our pages here. we grow up learning that majority rules, but no, not for the three and a half million people of puerto rico. we will say that a supermajority has to vote, which means five of the seven have to vote to allow restructuring to take place. and what does that mean? it means that a minority, a

minority three of those seven members could forever not allow puerto rico to get access to restructuring. now, when did that become the process in which a minority can make such a determination, an unelected minority can make such a determination to affect the lives of 3.5 million people and instead of a majority view it's a minority view. pretty amazing extension of power. now, i see my colleague is on the floor, and i would be happy to yield for a question without losing the right to the floor. if you have a question. mr. sanders: well, i have a question. it's a long question, but i will allow -- certainly want my friend from new jersey to respond to that question. i would ask my colleague from

new jersey is this legislation smacking of the worst form of colonialism in the sense that it takes away all of the important democratic rights of the american citizens on puerto rico, that basically four republicans who likely believe in strong austerity programs will be essentially running that island for the indefinite future? would my friend from new jersey agree that this is colonialism at its worst? mr. menendez: oh, absolutely. the senator from vermont is right. i have called this legislation the ultimate neocolonialism that we as a congress would be passing. it treats the citizens of puerto rico like subjects, not like citizens. it doesn't allow them to have a voice. they get no one on the control board, and yet the control board can dictate budgets, it can

dictate budget cuts, it can dictate what is or is not sufficient for the running of essential services, it will dictate whether pensions get treated fairly. so my colleague is correct. mr. sanders: i would ask my friend from new jersey, is -- there is a very strong difference of opinion here in the senate and in the house about economic issues. many of our republican friends think that trickledown economics giving tax breaks to the wealthy, cutting social security, cutting medicare, cutting medicaid, cutting education is the way they would like to see our country move forward. does my friend from new jersey have any doubt that if you have a financial control board dominated by four republicans, that that is exactly the type of philosophy it that will be impod

on the people of puerto rico? mr. menendez: well, my colleague from vermont is onto something here. look, one of the things that the control board can actually do is set the budget for puerto rico, and as you and i both know, you have been on the budget committee for some time, probably the most significant things that members of congress can set is a budget, which is a reflection of our priorities, right? how much do we believe that we spend on education, on health care, how do we provide tax breaks so that students don't graduate under a mountain of debt, something that my distinguished colleague made a major issue in his presidential campaign. how do we ensure that we give tax breaks like the earning of tax credit which the people of puerto rico don't get access to? so the budget sets a series of standards. the control board will set that budget. and if it wants to view austerity as to its fiscal idea as to how you achieve

prosperity, prosperity through austerity, it will be able to do that. and an example of that i think the senator is right when there are provisions that are included here that really have no place in a bill for restructuring that talk about eliminating the minimum wage guarantees for certain parts of the puerto rican society and eliminating overtime protections. i'm sure the senator from vermont is concerned about those. mr. sanders: i am. let me ask the senator from new jersey a significant part of puerto rico's $70 billion debt has been acquired in recent years by vulture funds, and these are folks who purchase bonds for as little as 29 cents on the dollar and who get interest rates of up to 34%, and i believe something like a thir, but i believe about a third of

the debt of puerto rico is now controlled by these vulture funds. people who buy by definition risky bonds but now want to get 100% on the dollar despite the fact they paid a fraction of what the bond is worth. from a moral perspective, should the united states senate be supporting legislation which allow vulture capitalists, some of whom are billionaires, to make huge profits while at the same time nutrition programs and educational programs for low-income children in puerto rico are cut? does that sound like the kind of morality that should be passed here in the united states senate? mr. menendez: well, my colleague is right, and it's a real concern in the legislation as it appears. it says here, to read to my colleague, sole discretion over the budget.

the oversight board shall determine in its sole discretion whether the proposed budget is complying with the fiscal plan. there are other provisions here to go to the senator's particular question which says to go before the board ever considers, if it ever does, access to restructuring, it's going to in essence if you read the language not only urge but it's going to judge as to whether puerto rico worked out a deal with its creditors, including the vulture funds, and it can hold puerto rico to such a standard in its sole discretion because we don't define in the legislation what is the standard of a reasonable attempt to compromise with your creditors. that's fine, a reasonable attempt to compromise with your creditors, but if your creditors believe they have you by the neck and they want to continue to squeeze and they believe that there is a control board that is going to back them up and allow you to squeeze and every time

puerto rico comes to the governor of puerto rico who has no vote or say here except to recommend, comes to the control board and says guess what, we have tried and tried and we have negotiated in good-faith with these creditors, including vulture funds, but we can't come to an agreement because they want too much, and we have to provide police services and fire service and education and health care. i mean, hears an island, part of the united states as a commonwealth, with 3.5 million united states citizens who ultimately is at the epicenter of the zika virus and it's challenged, and yet they can continue to be forced to deal with their creditors in such a way that the concern that my colleague has might actually be materialized by the board itself. mr. sanders: and let me add another point to that very discussion, which i really have a hard time understanding, and maybe my friend from new jersey can educate me on this.

as i understand in this bill, there is a requirement that puerto rico, a nation which has been experiencing a ten-year depression, a nation in which over half of the children are living in poverty, a nation in which many, many schools have been shut down, where people have been laid off, where unemployment is sky high, that within this legislation there is the imposition that the people of puerto rico are going to have to pay for this control board to the tune -- and i don't understand this -- of $370 million. you have got a board of seven people. number one, how in god's name do you run up an administrative cost of $370 million. yeah, you need staff and you need all that stuff, but $370 million to run a small

bureaucracy sounds to me totally off the charts. and then to tell the people of puerto rico you're going to have to shut down schools, you're going to have to shut down health services. we may take away the pensions of your workers. oh, by the way, you're going to have to pay $370 million in order to fund this control board. am i missing anything here? i know this sounds so absurd that people may think i'm misleading them, but am i missing anything here? mr. menendez: no, the senator is right. not only is it $370 million, but the legislation specifically says that puerto rico must have a dedicated source of funding. we know what this means in this institution, a dedicated source of funding, so that means a guarantee of that money. there must be a dedicated source of funding to pay the $370 million for the seven-member board, and whatever staff in their sole discretion

that they decide to hire. mr. sanders: so it means, or it certainly could mean the closing down of schools and nutrition programs and health care in order to fund -- and i cannot for the life of me understand how a seven-member committee can spend $370 million, but this will be taking away perhaps basic needs from hungry kids in order to maintain what seems to me an extraordinary bureaucracy. with that, i want to thank the senator from new jersey for his leadership on this, and i look forward to working with him. mr. menendez: i thank the senator for his concern and his points. mr. president, i have come to the floor time and time again with a simple message. promesa, the name of this legislation which means promise in spanish is not a promise, it's a power play, leaving the people of puerto rico unable to manage their own government, make their own decisions, do what they believe is right.

and i have been concerned exactly about this, and i -- i have my remarks, mr. president. going back to september 22 of 2015. when i started off those remarks by saying i rise today deeply concerned that the growing economic crisis in puerto rico threatens to destabilize the island and that we must help our fellow american citizens before the financial crisis becomes a calamity. september 22 of 2015. and i talked about if we do not act, the results of the financial disorder would be much more expensive, much more chaotic, both in the long and short term, cost puerto rico and the united states, and the fact that a potential solution rests in the hands of the administration with the treasury and h.h.s.

and i talked about a letter and legislation that we introduced along at that time with some of our colleagues that would allow the government of puerto rico to authorize its public utilities to rework their debts under chapter 9. we also talked about the fact that even though puerto rico pays about a third are so of every dollar that they get in revenue towards interest which is unsustainable, that but for those interest payments they'd actually be running a surplus, a surplus if they didn't have debt payments. and we talked about having an effort that was supported by the nonpartisan national bankruptcy conference and numerous bankruptcy lawyers and judges to help the people of puerto rico september of 2015, well in advance of the crisis that has

now been created where we are -- brought legislation for an up or down vote on the senate floor in july -- excuse me in june on the verge of the 4th of july recess at an up or down process with all of the challenges that this legislation has for the people in puerto rico. i talked about that time about the island's health care system, adding additional pressure to the overall financial system and the way in which we fund those health programs, medicare, medicaid, how we treat them as it relates to the united states citizens living in puerto rico is different, part of what has been their challenge. and then i came back to the floor in december of 2015 to once again speak about the urgency of the moment and to give us the time to think

intelligently about how we help the people of puerto rico meet their challenge and at the same time be able to do it in such a way that respects their rights as citizens of the united states. i came to the floor in december 9 of 2015 to ask unanimous consent to pursue a proposal that we thought was rather modest. four things that we needed for the citizens of puerto rico and for puerto rico access to the bankruptcy code, restoring certain elements of that which of course would not cost the treasury a penny, nor would it raise the deficit. and we tried to get focus then because already at that time there were serious financial issues on the island and we had an objection by the chairman of the finance committee saying that there were negotiations under way to come to an agreement.

that was december 9 of 2015. and then in march of 2016 we introduced legislation that i think would be a far greater set of circumstances that the people of puerto rico could see a future but a future that they would help determine and yes, with overtures of an oversight board but not a control board that controls their destiny with a greater representation under certain standards of people's abilities that would ultimately be brought to serve on the board. that legislation i thought created the right structure, creating a true oversight, not control board. created standards that are clear and concise and that the people of puerto rico and its government officials would know this is what i must do in order to achieve a pathway to

restructuring that represented the people of puerto rico as well as the leaders of the congress and gave us an opportunity to ensure that any restructuring plan was based on an objective and independent analysis of the island's situation and provided assurances to creditors that future governments would adhere to a prudent long-term fiscal plan while reaffirming and representing and respecting puerto rico's sovereignty. and that was in march of this year. and then in april we had a press conference to try to bring the consequences of the need to act at that time, april 28 of 216. and then -- 2016. and then i came to the floor again may 24 of 2016 to talk about the challenges that the people of puerto rico were facing and to have an informed, intelligent debate and process

to get to the type of legislation that both would solve the problem and meet their needs. and so that continues all the way through june of this year. and so to me as someone who started in september of last year to raise the alarm bells and not only to do that, to then come up with a legislative proposal that was embraced by all of the elected leadership of puerto rico, by all of the major parties in puerto rico, and by the members of their legislature, the governor and others who all put out statements saying that this was a pathway that would respect the citizens of puerto rico and give them the tools they need to restructure their debt, become fiscally responsible and realize the hopes and aspirations of the people of puerto rico.

so i not only raised the alarm bells as of september of last year, i created a legislative solution for it so that we could have an informed debate. and what do we have in the greatest deliberative body in the world? we have a legislation drafted over in the house for which there is no opportunity to do what the majority leader said he wanted this congress and the senate to do more often, to have a full debate and a full airing of amendments in such a way that the voices of the american people as represented by the members of the senate could speak to. so i think my hope is that the next quite some period of time we're going to have a full display for our colleagues to understand what they will be voting on when it comes to cloture so that when they vote, they vote with open arms.

so the people of puerto rico unable to manage their own government, make their own decisions, under this bill, that's what those who vote for it believe is right. we've heard the words of invehicle tuesday. i am the master of my fate. i am the captain of my soul but that apparently doesn't apply to the three and a half million american citizens in puerto rico who have helped shape the history of this nation, and i'll talk about that at quite some length. we've heard the words of jack welch who says control your own destiny or someone else will. well, apparently our republican friends believe in the case of puerto rico that someone else should, that those three and a half million citizens should not be part of determining their own future. they believe that an unelected control board that could rule with an iron fist as they see fit regardless of what the puerto rican people would want. now, thomas jefferson, i know of no safe depository of the ultimate powers of the society

but the people themselves. i've heard many of my friends here on the other side quote some of the founding fathers, including jefferson. he said i know of no safe depository of the ultimate powers of a society but the people themselves. and if we think them not enlightened enough to exercise their control with a wholesome discretion, the remedy is not to take it from them, not to take it from them but to inform their discretion. but in the case of puerto rico we have decided not to help them make their own decisions but to take powers away from the society as jefferson spoke of, the powers away from the three and a half million united states citizens who call puerto rico their home away from them. so that's what's at the heart of this debate about promesa, that it doesn't really guarantee a pathway to restructuring, that it subjugates the people of

puerto rico through a control board for which they have no direct representation, and that they will have to live with the consequences of the fiscal dictates that the control board will have the edict over in their sole discretion. yet who has to live with it and who has to pay for it as the conversation with senator sanders was, they will. they'll have to pay the $370 million, mr. have to have a dedicated source of revenue and by the way, this control board -- and we'll talk a little bit more about that later -- it has no, no limits as to really how long it's going to exist. it says in the first instance five years, but then it says again in its sole discretion when it determines that puerto rico has reached a standard by which they are fiscally on the right path and have access to the bond markets.

but that discretion will be totally in control of the control board in their sole discretion. so they could extend their life for quite some period of time. so in the spirit of making sure that the three and a half million united states citizens of puerto rico have an opportunity for a better path and a real promise, i have many amendments to offer, many amendments that in the aggregate would show my colleagues what we might have done, what we could have done, and what we can still do by voting against cloture, what reasonable middle ground we could have reached to truly help solve the crisis and the humanitarian catastrophe that awaits the people of puerto rico rather than simply ignore the right of their will and choose the road to colonialism. i note that calls for a thorough debate on the senate floor are

bipartisan in nature. i want to thank my colleague, senator wicker for joining me in a letter to the leadership asking for a full and open process to consider this bill with amendments, as many as it will take to make it right. and i'd remind my colleagues that each one of us was elected to this very chamber to debate and enact legislation to improve the lives of americans and the people of puerto rico are americans. and i emphasize that fact because sometimes i've heard in my congressional career between the house and the senate some people ask me about -- you know, i had members of the house when i served in the other body who would come to me and said, do i need a passport to go to puerto rico and i'd look at them and i thought they were jesting but they were serious. the people of puerto rico are

united states citizens. they've worn the uniform of the united states. they've shed blood. they've died. they love this country greatly and by the way, one plane flight to anywhere in the united states and they have all the full rights, privileges and obligations as any other citizen of the united states which means that the human capital flight that we're seeing taking place in puerto rico is a great, great flight because people see that if there is no future for them, they will ultimately leave. but i fear that instead of a robust debate and thoughtful consideration of amendments to improve this bill, those who wish to see the house bill signed into law as drafted have delayed and delayed and delayed into the last possible minute. we can as united states senators

change that course of events. i understand sometimes when the deck is stacked against you about i also believe you can reshovel the deck. -- reshuffle the deck, that there is the power of individual members of the senate to ultimately say we need a pathway that allows us to improve the legislation and to improve the lives of the three and a half million united states citizens who call puerto rico home. how can we as united states senators shirk our responsibilities when the people of puerto rico are at the edge of a great challenge and yet we don't want them to have a say as to how they meet that challenge? they need our help and they need it today. this bill will affect a generation, a generation of puerto ricans and we owe it to them as our brothers and sisters who live in our states would to get it right. so let me once again remind

everyone -- every one of my colleagues how deeply floored this -- deeply flawed this legislation is and how incomplete it is. in addition to the undemocrattic control board, an obfuscated path to restructuring, the bill would actually increase poverty and out migration rather than stemming both. that's because it provides an exception to the federal minimum wage for younger workers, and it exempts the island from recently finalized overtime protections. what does that have to do with a bill to allow restructuring so that puerto rico can restructure its debt, not pay over a third of every dollar that it takes in to creditors, and be able to deal with the health, well-being, education, and future prosperity of its people?

why is that in here, other than an experiment in what some would believe is the process to prosperity, which is so austerity? so in the minds of those who will be voting on this bill, i hope they understand, i have stood with them when they have talked about raising the minimum wage. organized labor talks about raising the minimum wage. we see raising the minimum wage as a way to create greater rising wages for our families. i think one of the great dis-conat any time we have in this country today -- i think one of the great discontent we have in this country today is that despite all the major macroeconomic numbers where we see, you know, g.d.p. rising, where we see unemployment lowering, where we see all of the realities of low interest

rates, a strong stock market, and all of these macroeconomic indicators that would suggest everything is good. but for the average american -- for the average american -- their challenge is that they see their wages and income stagnant, and yet they see their challenges rising: paying the mortgage, putting food on the table, educating their kids, having them graduate but not under a mountain of debt, being able to think about their retirement in the future, and then increasingly have to take care of a loved one, as my sister did with my dear mother who faced the challenges of alzheimer's before she died. that's a very american story. so what's our answer to that? our answer to that, for the people of puerto rico, is let's cut your wages, let's not guarantee you a federal minimum wage, and, by the way, if you're

forced to work overtime, let's not give you the protections that the law has stated to give protections for. so for u.s. citizens my colleagues here advocate, let's raise the minimum wage, let's have overtime protections, let's herald what the labor secretary, secretary perez, did in providing for overtime protections. but for people of puerto rico, it's okay. now, i know some colleagues will say, well, that provision suggests that the governor would have to invoke that, that he would have to invoke not having the minimum wage for certain younger workers and that the overtime protections he would have to invoke waiving the overtime protections. the problem is -- the problem is that this control board could very well say in its sole discretion that, you know what? you can't afford to pay the minimum wage to your people. you can't afford overtime

protections. you should really consider invoking that. and since that control board is the only guarantor or decider, that's an awful lot of power to wage on the governor of puerto rico. if they say to him, we believe that the republicans, the majority in the congress who have decided that there should be this exception ultimately, you should really ip vok -- inve that. that's why they put it there in the first place. understand that control board will have an enormous amount of power. "a fiscal plan developed under this section shall," and words have meaning when we pass it into law. "shall with respect to the territorial government or covered territorial instrumentality, provide a method to achieve fiscal responsibility and access to the capital markets ... [and] adopt

appropriate recommendations submitted by the oversight board under section 205(a);" this board is incredibly powerful. the board say, you have an opportunity, ghoarch, togovernor, to undo minimum wage and overtime protections. well, that's a lot of power that that governor is facing of a board that holds in puerto rico's future in its hands to determine whether or not there'll be access to restructuring. so, guess what? we're voting for this, we're going to start the demise of minimum wage and overtime. and if you somehow think you can narrow it to the citizens of puerto rico, who are united states citizens, you're sawing that they are not -- you're saying that they are not citizens but they are, in fact, subjects. now, at a time when we're

working to increase workers' wages, this promesa legislation actually cuts workers' wages. it amazes me that the solution to puerto rico's economy growing again is to ensure workers can make even less -- less money. i don't think lower people's wages is a pro-growth strategy. it's a pro-migration strategy, because if i'm a united states citizen living on the island of puerto rico and i say, wow, if i take a flight to newark, new jersey, or if i take a flight to orlando in florida, or if i take a flight to new york city or anywhere else in this great country, i'm going -- if i get a job, i'm going to have a full minimum wage paid. and i'm going to have overtime protections. and, by the way, i'm going to have access, if i'm a senior citizen, i'm going to have all

of my medicare paid for, as any other u.s. citizen. and if i happen to have a child who is eligible for medicaid payments, i'm going to get the full payment. and, guess what? when i work in the united states, i'm going to have access to the child tax credit, which i don't have in puerto rico. so there's a whole host of reasons why cutting the minimum wage and workers' wages isn't about improving the opportunity to have a pro-growth strategy; it's going to drive a pro-migration to the united states. and all it would do is intensify out-migration to the mainland with as i say, puerto ricans are eligible for the higher minimum wage and commonsense overtime protections. in addition, this bill does nothing -- and i repeat, nothing

-- to fix the impending health care funding cliff, a crisis that will impact generations of brains, not just today but -- generations of puerto ricans, not just today but obviously for generations to come. for decades the health care system in puerto rico, most notably medicare and medicaid, have been grossly underfunded. we talk about poor choices that may be -- that maybe various administrations in puerto rico have made on both sides of the equation. well, we have exacerbated their circumstances by the way in which we have treated the united states citizens in puerto rico. they receive rates of half those of anywhere else in the country. so if you're a united states citizen living in puerto rico under either medicare or medicaid, you get half, roughly, of those anywhere else in the country. so you come to the united

states, you'd get the other half. you'd get full funding. that not only affects the individual in terms of their health care and their economic output, but it affects the system of providers and services and hospitals and doctors and technicians because the funding is less. this inequality in payments comes even as united states citizens on the island pay the same amount in medicare and social security taxes -- let me repeat that -- citizens on the island of puerto rico who are u.s. citizens pay the same amount in medicare and social security taxes as those of us on the mainland. yet we reimburse them at different rates. so despite paying their fair share of taxes to pay for these vital health programs, the island's health system is funded at half the rate of other u.s. providers. which is an unsustainably low

rate. so is it any wonder, given this inequality that doctors on the island aren't able to sustain a practice and are moving to the mainland? the mass exodus of doctors, as it was called in a story on national public radio earlier this year, is having a dramatic effect on the island's population. and unlike other critical issues facing the island, a prolonged emigration of health care providers to the mainland, once these providers have relocated, they're unlikely to return. and their absence is already leading to a tremendous gap in the health care workforce, further exacerbating the difficulty residents of puerto rico face when seeking care. now, this funding inequality is largely responsible for the fact that health care accounts for

roughly a third of the island's debt. let hey repeat that. -- let me repeat that. the funding inequality for the united states citizens in puerto rico is responsible for the fact that health care accounts for roughly a third of the island's debt. so when we talk about the people of puerto rico and whatever their governmental leaders have decided in the past, we've contributed -- we've contributed as a congress treating the people of puerto rico with such a disparity that they've had to use a third of their own money, which has been generated in debt, in order to meet the health care of those united states citizens. how is that fair? so we've contributed to this crisis, and our idea of helping to solve the crisis is to create an unelected control board that has the total say, that can cut budgets, that can have us state,

that can -- that can have austerity, that can eliminate minimum wage, that can ultimately eliminate overtime protections and that does nothing to neutralize the fairness and reimbursement on the health care that i just described as the cause of nearly a third of the debt. nothing. nothing. this is not a problem of bad doctors or irresponsible patients. no, it's a problem of unfair treatment and bottom-basement funding levels that have driven the island's health care system to a breaking point. i don't want to make light of the decisions facing providers in puerto rico to move off the island. in the contrary, i can only imagine how difficult it is to uproot your family to move to the mainland, leaving behind your whole legacy, and in the case of providers, patient whose rely on them for critical care. so this decision cannot be easy

for those providers who are still in puerto rico today, but it's becoming increasingly difficult to put off long. there is already a serious lack of providers to cover the needs of the island's residents, and with a doctor leaving the island in droves, it's a situation getting worse literally day by day. the situation facing health care in puerto rico has truly hit a crisis point. now, let me take a step back and look at how the ielsd health care system got to this point because it is all why they have a fiscal challenge. take puerto rico's medicaid problem. it's called mesalu, my vital health. and this program covers half of all puerto ricans. it is a baisht lifeline -- it is a basic lifeline to the people. it is capped and, therefore, limited in what it can do. unlike the medicaid program in my state of new jersey or any

other of the 49 states or the district of columbia, the medicaid program in puerto rico is limited in the funds available to cover the health care costs of its beneficiaries. in mississippi, which has a smaller overall population and less than half of the medicaiden rollees as puerto rico received a whopping percent of its funds from the federal government last year, in puerto rico, however, the percentage was only 55%, and it it is set that low in statute, in statute. so during the debate on the affordable care act, i was able to successfully ensure that additional funding was included to help the territories. this funding amounted to more than $billion total -- $7 billion total, $6.3 billion went to puerto rico, and has helped to keep the program solvent. that's about to expire at the end of fiscal year 2019. so while this may seem a ways

off into the future, there is a good chance the funding will run out sooner rather than later. and some estimates have the funding being used to cover health expenses by this time next year. so i want to add, mr. president, those estimates are made before we knew the gravity of the zika virus and what it is posing on the people of puerto rico, a topic that i want to discuss further momentarily. but puerto rico is in essence the epi center in terms of the united states as part of the united states and its commonwealth challenge of the zika virus. the solution to the impending medicaid funding cliff is clear. provide the same open-ended funding stream in the same way as any other state. this would immediately provide puerto rico's medicaid program with the influx of funding it needs to more adequately cover costs, ensure that beneficiaries are able to get treatments, and

extend the time of doctors and others providers fleeing for the mainland. the grand irony of the whole situation, mr. president, is that my republican friends have since day one refused to consider providing this type of equitable treatment to puerto rico. now, i don't want to make assumptions on motives, but it appears that not only do they support the status quo on puerto rico, they are also actively working to impose the same shortsighted doomed-to-fail policies on the other medicaid programs we have in puerto rico as well. just last week republicans released a white paper calling forked imposition of so -- for the imposition of so-called per capita caps in the medicaid program. this policy, a block grant by any other name, would be devastating for our nation's medicaid program by imposing the same funding limitations on medicaid programs throughout the

country as we're currently experiencing in puerto rico. and we see the results of those caps. so as we stand here today watching in real time as puerto rico's medicaid program is in crisis, facing a funding cliff set to cause chaos for more than a million beneficiaries, republicans have said to the people of this country, we refuse to accept that reality and admit that capping medicaid is a terrible idea with catastrophic financial and health care consequences. on the contrary, what we have seen in puerto rico, we want to make that the reality for the rest of the nation. now, it's not a surprise -- i know many, not all but i know many of my colleagues refused to acknowledge the benefits of medicaid not only to the millions of people who rely on it to get health care but the billions of dollars left on the table in republican led state that refuse to expand medicare. in the case of medicaid reality plays a diminished role in

public policy development. this is very true when it comes to the serious threat of zika in puerto rico. according to the centers for disease control and prevention, there are already more than 1,800 cases of locally acquired zika infection. that's infinitely more than the rest of the country, which has a combined total of, as i understand it, zero locally acquired infections. that means that the people in puerto rico face a risk everywhere they are: at home, at work, at school. and let's not forget that 68% of the island's population enrolled in either medicare or medicaid, the threat, therefore, it poses for health care system on the brink of collapse cannot be overstated. now, this morning the senate just vetoed -- they ultimately voted tpho the to -- not to invoke cloture on zika because

it not only lacks the funding necessary for adequate preresponsible on puerto rico, and for that matter the entire country, it includes several policy riders. one example is to further restrict access to contraception for a disease that is not only sexually transmitted but has potentially devastating effects on fetuses. so that doesn't make any sense. but the people of puerto rico deserve access to health care. they deserve to know that the taxes they pay to fund critical programs like medicare and medicaid will be available to them just like they are to any fellow americans on the mainland. they deserve to know their doctor can sustain a medical practice, that they'll be there to treat them when they're sick. above all, they deserve to be treated with equity and fairness like any other american. this is a central point, not like a second-class citizenship simply because they call puerto rico home. now let me go through some of

the challenges of why this bill is, in my view, simply not acceptable. here are five critical flaws of this legislation. it has an undemocratic, neo-colonial control board, majority appointed by republicans, but none by the people of puerto rico. none. none. so this would be the equivalent of one of our states having a challenge and the governor of that state and the legislature of that state and no one who resides in that state having anybody on a control board that's going to dictate its future. no one that comes from the elected representatives of that state. and for that state to be able to be told, by the way, here's what

you're going to do, by an unelected, undemocratic control board. secondly, it has -- i hear a lot about that supposely the hedge funds are all against this legislation. well it has a prioritization of hedge funds over retirees and essential services. you've got to read the language of the promesa legislation. it's clear that it not only reaffirms some of what it says in the puerto rican constitution. it goes beyond, and it has a prioritization of those hedge funds over retirees and essential services. there is a lack, as i've said before, of a clear pathway. the only reason we're even considering legislation is to grant puerto rico access to the bankruptcy courts for resrubg touring, of -- restructuring of which had skph-f -- skph-f --

some of that capacity in the past. it requires a 5-2 supermajority vote, which means that a minority, three members, can hold back and never -- never grant a pathway to restructuring or make it go through such incredible hurdles, including how it deals with creditors, before it ever guarantees, if it ever guarantees in its sole discretion whether puerto rico has met the standards to qualify for the pathway to restructuring. it will only happen if they vote to do so. this whole purpose of this legislation was to give puerto rico access to restructuring. yet we are creating a control board with a supermajority, which means a minority can dictate what the majority view might be, and that minority can hold the 3.5 million united states citizens of puerto rico hostage to a future that they certainly don't want.

it has continued disparity in health care funding, as i was just speaking to, and tax credits. and it goes to a $4.25 per hour minimum wage and no overtime protections. so if you live in puerto rico, the way to get ahead is to have your minimum wage cut for a certain group of citizens, as dictated by the legislation. let me talk about this disparity of health care funding and tax cuts. the same type of disparate treatment is also prevalent for individual tax credits like the earned-income tax credit and the child tax credit. despite serving our country and being subject to payroll taxes, the 3.5 million american citizens of puerto rico are not eligible for the eitc and only partly eligible for the c.t.c.

the earned-income tax credit in particular is a ready-made tool that has been proven to reduce unemployment and poverty and increase labor participation and economic growth. it encourages people to enter the resource rather than being -- the workforce rather than being part of an economy that strips away the tax base. studies have shown the power of the earned-income tax credit to draw people into the workforce to increase earnings and reduce poverty. labor force participation rate which measures the share of adults who are working or seeking work is 40% in puerto rico, far below the nationwide rate of 62%. if there was error -- any time an area in the united states that needed access to the earned-income tax credit to incentivize or to create that possibility, it's in puerto rico. the department of labor estimates that puerto rico's unemployment rate -- a senator: would the senator yield?

mr. inhofe: would the senator yield for a question? mr. menendez: i understand that i can yield for a question, but i do not yield the floor. mr. inhofe: i understand that. but would the senator please advise us as to how much longer he will be taking on the floor. mr. menendez: i will be happy to do so. it will be several hours. mr. inhofe: would the senator mind since i'm going to be talking about projects in new jersey, about the wrrda projects of which the senator has many, a lot of interest in, would you yield to me to talk about that for ten minutes? mr. menendez: my understanding from the parliamentarian is i cannot do that and preserve the right to the floor. otherwise i would be happy to do that. mr. inhofe: would the parliamentarian -- let me ask the chair. isn't it possible for me to go ahead and receive from him a specific period of time at the end of which he retains the floor? the presiding officer: that would require unanimous consent.

mr. inhofe: all right. i ask unanimous consent that i be recognized as if in morning business for -- the presiding officer: the senator does not have the right to, for unanimous consent, as the senator does not have the floor. the senator from new jersey has the floor. mr. menendez: thank you, mr. president. if there was a procedural way, i would be happy to accommodate my colleague. but since there is not and since there are no amendments being permitted on this legislation, i have no other choice but to speak up for the 3.5 million united states citizens who call puerto rico home because they will not get an opportunity for amendments to be debated or passed. so at a time where the labor force participation rate which measures the share of adults who are working or seeking work is 40% in puerto rico it is far below the 62% throughout the country.

the earned-income tax credit would be a tremendous opportunity. this legislation does nothing as it relates to that, even in the face of puerto rico's unemployment rate at 11.7%. compared with 4.7% for the united states as a whole. at the height of the 2008 -- 2009 financial crisis unemployment peaked at 10% in october of 2009. at the height of the financial crisis, 10% at the height of the financial crisis. yet far below puerto rico's current 11.7% unemployment rate. it's fair to say we would be having a much different debate today if we were talking about a state that had an unemployment rate of 11.7%. now some of my republican colleagues have suggested in relation to puerto rico that there are possible tax incentives that would better incentivize growth and labor force participation and perhaps

development in the puerto rican economy but they dismiss the earned-income tax credit as one of those because they say puerto ricans do not pay federal income tax. to begin with, most puerto rican households do not earn enough to be eligible for federal income tax. and more importantly, if they were pulled into the formal economy through the incentive of the earned-income tax credit, they would be paying more taxes in puerto rico and to puerto rico. and finally, these american citizens are eligible for the eitc as soon as they leave puerto rico and come to the mainland, which is another powerful incentive to leave the island, further eroding its already limited tax base. the latest estimates indicate that approximately 70,000 puerto rican residents are now relocating to the states each year in search of economic and employment opportunity. expanding the eitc to the people of puerto rico could help stem that tide.

i would remind my colleagues once again that puerto ricans are americans just like you and me, should be eligible for the same benefits that we have. let me, in addition to the five critical flaws, let me read to you some of the language that the house interior committee and the powers of the board, so we'd understand why it is that i feel compelled to try to convince my colleagues in the face that there is no amendment process allowed to vote against cloture, create an opportunity, a pathway towards amendments, and have up-or-down votes on them, hopefully improve the legislation, and then be able to move forward. this is what the house natural resources committee said. it's not my words or my interpretation of it. this is what the house natural resources committee said. it said the oversight board may

impose mandatory cuts on puerto rico's governments and instrumentalities, a power far beyond that exercised by the control board established for the district of columbia. " he think about that. the oversight board -- think about that. the oversight board may impose mandatory cuts. not that they're requesting to -- not that they're going to suggest, here are things we think are wasteful. here are a series of things we think you could do better. here's how you should save money. you should prioritize public safety over public health. you should prioritize public education over something else. they will make the absolute determination, in their sole discretion, in their sole discretion, on mandatory cuts on puerto rico's government and it's instrumentalities.

instrumentalities mean the different agencies, whether it be the power agency or the higher education authority or any other -- that's what it means by instrumentalities or the municipality -- it has a wide range. any governmental entity, as we would have any other governmental entity inure states, for example. they would impose the ability to have mandatory cuts -- this is, rerks an unelected -- this is, remember, an unelected board, no direction from the people of puerto rico, but they're going to suffer mandatory cuts on their government and instrumentalities, which our republican colleagues in the house wanted to pound on their chest and say, a power far beyond that exercised by the control board established for the district of columbia. the district of columbia's control board was pretty significant. this one, as it relates to the

3.5 million citizens in puerto rico, is far beyond that which the district of columbia has. also from the house natural resources committee, quote, "the board would have broad sovereign" -- sovereign, the words mean something in legislation when we move it into law -- "the board would have broad sovereign powers to effectively overrule decisions by puerto rico's legislature, govern, and other public authorities." so if the duly elected governor of puerto rico felt that it was important in the midst of the zika virus to go ahead and raise the budgets of puerto rico's health care system to deal with that and for some reason the

control board felt, no, you shouldn't spend that much on that, it could overrule that decision. if the legislature of puerto rico decided that we want to be able to extend the school year for our children in public schools or we want to have a special health care program for them or we want to be able to have students going to colleges and universities, as we've had a great debate in this country so far about the costs of a university education, and we want to subsidize a greater part of that, the control board -- the unelected seven members that have no one coming from puerto rico itself, directed by the people of puerto rico, they can make a sovereign decision -- sovereign basically means they have the power in and of themselves to effectively overrule decisions by who? by the governor of puerto rico, who gets elected by the 3.5

million citizens of puerto rico. i mean, that is the equivalent -- or other public entities that may make decisions in this regard. they can overrule those public entities in puerto rico, too. if we had a control board, you know, in a state that would overrule the governor, overrule the legislature, overrule the higher kegsal authority, refer -- educational authority, overrule any entities in that state, blue have no representation from the people in that state vmentdz sovereign powers to do that. they can, meaning the oversight board again, can effectively nullify -- nullify, which means that's it. you had a law. you think it was a good law for the people of puerto rico. we don't think it is a good law. we're going to nullify it. "any new laws or policies adopted by puerto rico that did

not conform to requirements specified in the bill." but again, if those requirements were clearly stated, unambiguous, defined and we could agree on that, then maybe that might not be such an onerous power. but when nearly 30 times you say, in the board's sole discretion, which means i get to decide what i think is conforming to requirements specified in the bill, that's an incredibly broad grant of power. an incredibly broad grant of power. yet for the citizens of puerto rico, we think that that's okay. we don't want that here. but it's okay for the people of puerto rico. now, when -- i don't use the word "neo-colonialism" lightly.

i don't use that lightly. but there is a little bit of a history here that's going on. as is exemplified, for example, in what happened -- maybe there is no better single example than the story of the island of vieques. this is part of puerto rico. it is a small island, vieques, just 21 miles long and four miles wide located eight miles off the coast of san juan. despite its small size, the island is home to about 10,000 americans. it's a beautiful place with pristine beaches and one of the few bioluminescent bays left in the world. so behind me in this picture you

can see a jellyfish and a snorkeler that's illuminated by the bioly bio-- bioluminescent organisms there. if you had an opportunity to visit vieques and its bio bay, i would encourage you to go. small plankton in the water that light up in blue when they move. and on a moonless night, the waves appear to glow in the dark and kayak tours leave trails of light behind them as they paddled through the water and explore the natural beauty of mosquito bay. in fact, since 1980, the bay has been lifted with the national park salves a -- listed with the national park service as a natural landmark. they're surrounded by mangrove trees. the bay is the perfect habitat for the plankton that make it unique and it is widely considered to be the best

example of a biobay in the united states and perhaps the world. but the history of this trop qual paradise is scarred with a violent and explosive past. in the 1940's, the united states navy in search of a location for a new base and testing ground purchased parcels of land on vieques that amounted to two-thirds of the entire island. on the eastern half of the island lay the vieques naval training range, and on the western end was the naval ammunitions support detachment, and sandwiched in between were the residents of vieques, the 10,000 united states citizens. i am proud to say that my home state of new jersey is home to military installations that are not only critical to our national defense but they are a boon to our local economies and

an asset to the local economies in our state as well. puerto rico has a long and store rid history -- storied history of support for and enlistment in our armed forces. however, the naifnlstallation on vieques -- the naval installation on vieques was no ordinary base. the navy used the island, which remember is very small and them to to a vibrant community, as a bombing range, from ship-to-shore shelling, vieques was bombarded with live ammunition that left deep and lasting scars on the landscape. mr. president, i received concerns frequently from my constituents that live near our airports in new jersey, that planes passing overhead are loud, they're disturbing them as they go about their lives. it is a serious concern. we've worked with the f.a.a. to montana teander-- to monitor an.

imagine these planes are dropping military-grade explosives that land just a few miles from your home. imagine more ships -- war ships parked off of your shore firing live rounds onto your beaches. needless to say, this bombardment was of great concern to the people of vieques. but for decades, it continued unabated. it wasn't until tragedy struck that people began to that i can notice and demand change. in february of 1999, two hairier aircraft fired 263 depleted uranium rounds onto the island. not only are depleted uranium rounds slightly radioactive, but they contain toxic heavy metals. then on april 9 of 199, an errant bomb missed its mark and

killed a civilian security guard working at the base and injured others. the navy attributed this tragic accident to human error and miscommunication between ground crews and the pilot. the death of mr. sanz sparked massive protests in puerto rico and calls to cease operations in vieques. i had myself an opportunity in july of 1999 when i was a member of the house of representatives to visit vieques and see firsthand the impact of the naval operations there. and in the midst of all of this description of what was going on there, there was still great patriotism, great patriotism by the united states citizens of puerto rico and the 10,000 of the island in vieques, even in the midst of what was take place. and the navy eventually decided to go, but were a decade removed from the cessation of military

exercises on vieques and much of the federal land that once housed military equipment has been turned over to a national wildlife refuge, but our legacy of failure continues. though the navy has left, providing some reprieve for the citizens of vieques, they left behind a legacy of toxic contamination. you can see here a scuba diver off the coast of vieques standing next to a massive unexploded ordinance left over from the navy's use of the island. this is not uncommon in vieques. vieques has one of the highest cancer rates in the entire united states and the highest in puerto rico. vieques people have two heavy metal diseases. remember the rounds that were improperly fired and diseases like hypertension and cirrhosis

occur at absurdly as stroh nomineely high rates as compared to the rest of the united states. part of the island is listed on the national priority list as a superfund site which should and could eventually lead to remediation but the process that be slow. the e.p.a. has side of the possibility that unexploded ordinances could contain toxins like mercury, lead, copper, magnesium, lithuania, t.n.t., napalm, depleted uranium among others. a significant part of the superfund cleanup process is identifying responsible parties and working with them to come up with remediation plans. however, we know the culprit is largely here. it was us. it was the united states government and we have a responsibility to the americans living on vieques to clean up the mess that we created, even while they were supporting the nation and accepting what was going on and showing their patriotism. we leave them behind with a

superfund site. this bill won't do anything to take care of that responsibility and that cost. so it continues to tell the people of puerto rico, you're good enough to wear the uniform of the united states, you're good enough to serve the country, you're good enough to bleed for it you're good enough to die for it, but you're not good enough to determine your own future. i think ther the bill before us denies the opportunity to do right by the people of vai characters to do right by the american citizens that have given so much of their lives to their military and to their country. and to have been taken advantage of for our benefit. so again, when we look at this bill and we see a control board un-- totally unrepresentative of

the puerto rican people except for one person who must either reside -- have their primary business or residence -- you can have year primary business without being a resident of the ieltd and determine the island's future. then you get a sense of why they feel that they are being taken advantage. so i would hope that we do not continue the use of misuse and exploitation. we cannot let this opportunity pass by. we owe it to the people of puerto rico to have open and robust debate on this bill and to ensure that it provides real relief, and that means having amendments. and we can do it in time. now, i know that some of my colleagues have suggested that there is a risk if we don't have the july 1 deadline, but this bill calls for retroactivity in

the bill as it stands right now. it takes actions and says retroactively, i believe to december of last year, that any actions would be in essence frozen. so if we can make the bill -- if the bill is retroactive to december, then it would be retroactive from whenever it passes and gets signed into law, which means that we could freeze any potential action and get it right on behalf of the people of puerto rico. i want to focus on what i believe are the most significant failings of this bill, the undemocratic nature of this board, not only does this remain silent on so many important issues, it actually exacerbates the colonial status and second class citizenship some members of congress seem to have on the

3.5 million americans who call puerto rico home. i don't. that's why i'm on the floor trying to fight for their rights. unfortunately under their common law status, they don't have a voting representative in the house of representatives. they don't have a voting representative in the united states senate. but i have a half a million u.s. citizens of puerto rico descent in my great state of new jersey, many who have deep ties to family, friends on the island, and they tell me of the challenges. they also tell me how they cannot believe that in fact this is the status of where they are. i think we have a letter here that speaks from one of those national organizations which i'll get shortly, to speak to how those people who largely represent the puerto rican people feel in this regard.

so that's why many of them feel that this legislation is a perpetuation of what happened in places like vieques, what's happened in the disproportionate payment in medicare and medicaid, in health care. and yet, you know, one flight away and they'd have all the rights of any one of us in this chamber or any one of us in this country. under the legislation, the control board would have colonial level powers, which are certainly completely unacceptable to me and certainly to the people of puerto rico. in fact, according to a recent poll commissioned by puerto rico's largest newspaper, 69% of all respondents opposed -- opposed -- the promesa bill, while 54% opposed the very idea of an oversight board. think about that. this is puerto rico's largest

newspaper, 69% of all respondents oppose the promesa bill. this is 69% of the people of puerto rico. how are you going to ultimately have an attempt by an undemocratic control board make dictates over 3.5 million united states citizens where 69% say we oppose the legislation, legislation which is supposed to be there to help them. yet 69% said no, what you're offering us is not something that we want. 54% opposed the very idea of an oversight board. and that consensus is talked about by a group of a coalition of many civil society groups in puerto rico, the puerto rican

consensus against the fiscal board. they say "we write to you on behalf of of the. [speaking spanish] , which translated means the puerto rican consensus against the fiscal board. we are a broad based organization that represents numerous civic and fiscal organizations in puerto rico and the continental united states. our signers comprise local business leaders, social, environment, human rights organizations, artists, students, academics, religious organizations, the lgbt, feminist movements, cooperative institutions, political parties, immigrant organizations and the puerto rican diaspora groups as well as many individual citizens. this multisectoral coalition has been formed as a common front, a common front to oppose h.r. 5278 because of the negative

consequences that it will have upon all of puerto rican society. we respectfully urge you to vote against this bill when it is presented in the senate. after studying h.r. 5278, we have reached a unanimous agreement that this bill is totally unacceptable. while it is certain that puerto rico faces serious economic and social challenges, there is simply no way that we can consider a solution that would require our country to surrender its rights to a democratic government while putting such broad dictatorial powers in the hands of a few unelected individuals. in addition to a categorical refusal to give up our human right to representative democracy in government, we consider the economic policies in this bill to be grossly inadequate and detrimental to the goal of restoring economic growth and stability. the bill has no clear mechanism

for restructuring the debt, and there are no defined measures for economic development. instead, it is clear that this bill is designed to impose even more -- this is the people of puerto rico who are very bright people. believe me. they've read the bill. they've come together in a coalition as i described at the beginning of the introduction to their letter. and here's what they say: "instead it is clear that this bill is designed to impose even more austerity measures which would further depress the economy, compass base -- exacerbate the effects on young people and professionals and have the effect of shrinking the tax base. what lies ahead for puerto rico should h.r. 5278 be passed in the senate is untold hardship for the most vulnerable sectors. untold hardship for the most

vulnerable sectors: the elderly, children, and the working poor. with a poverty rate of 46% and a shrinking economy, the idea of imposing austerity measures that would reduce government services such as in health and education is unthinkable. puerto rico as of this moment has no clear mechanism for restructuring its debt. but an unspecific restructuring mechanism in exchange for giving up our pensions -- let me take that a little slower. an unspecific restructuring mechanism. this goes to what i said, there is no clear pathway to restructuring which is the only reason we should be considering a bill in the first place. in exchange for giving up our pensions, our employment, our health care program and our representative democracy is not a path to recovery and cannot be considered an option. the imposition of h.r. 5278 or similar legislation on the part of the u.s. congress where we

have no voting representation -- which is why i'm standing on the floor today, to speak on their behalf -- constitute a violation of our human rights. furthermore, it places in evidence that the relationship between puerto rico and the united states has never been anything other than a colonial subjugation which is considered a crime under international law regarding the rights of nonself--governing territories. the most recent supreme court decision permitting the united states congress to approve h.r. 5278 using in effect its powers to unilaterally take over our governance in order to protect the interests of hedge funds and bondholders. while this action by congress will be seen internationally as one that unmasks the intrinsic 118-year-old colonial relationship, such a measure would also evidence the underlying racism that infuses relations between the united states and puerto rico. we will do everything within our power to stop this bill from

being enacted. if the bill were however to be approved, we are ready to resist its implementation by all available means. furthermore, we have also declared our collective willingness and disposition to go forward with a plan of broad protests as well as acts of civil disobedience in puerto rico and the united states. as a broad coalition defending the people of puerto rico against a great injustice -- these are all their words, not mine -- we have the duty and right to vigorously pursue a policy of consistent noncooperation until the legislation is withdrawn. we urge you to forge a different path, one that respects our right to democracy and dignity and that is intent on truly fixing the underlying problems. we ask you to vote "no" on h.r. 5278. let me read to you in that same

vein what governor raphael ernendes colone, who governed the island for 12 years wrote, he wrote i was govern of the commonwealth of puerto rico for 12 years. in 1993 i handed over my office to my successor with a modest budget surplus, growing economy and access to the financial markets at reasonable rates. i write to request an open debate on the puerto rico oversight management instability act, promesa, which would provide puerto rico much-needed relief for the adjustment of debts but will needlessly, needlessly inflict irreparable and permanent damage to the political relationship of puerto rico with the united states of america. as recently as june 9 of 2016, the supreme court of the united states has described this relationship as follows: puerto rico, like a state, is an autonomous political entity,

sovereign over matters not ruled by the federal constitution. this sovereignty over our internal affairs is exercised by the people of puerto rico through our own constitution under a compact entered in 1952 with the congress of the united states. this compact was ordained in order to establish the relationship between puerto rico and the united states under the principle -- and i'm creating emphasis here -- under the principle of the consent of the governed, which is the hallmark of our great democracy. the principle of the consent of the governed. the oversight management and stability act needlessly empowers the oversight board that it creates with the authority to override the decisions of the governor of puerto rico and the laws of the legislature, thus encroaching on the sovereign powers of the commonwealth, rendering negative

the right to vote of the commonwealth. this tramples upon the compact providing for self-government and undermines the democratic underpinnings of the commonwealth relationship established with the united states. it will be an irreparable blow even after the board is terminated. the encroachment powers of the board are not necessary to ensure compliance by puerto rico with the fiscal plan required by the act. there are other means consistent with respect for puerto rico's sovereignty and self-government to accomplish this. and i respectfully request that the members of the senate have the opportunity to engage in an open debate and be allowed to present amendments and that the bill may respect the democratic process in puerto rico and the sovereignty of its citizens.

let me quote from the letter that another former governor, who also served in the house of representatives, the resident commissioner of puerto rico at one time. he says as former governor of puerto rico and former member of congress, i'm writing you to express my strong opposition to h.r. 5278 under consideration of the senate. all candidates for governor of puerto rico in the november election, the majority of the members of puerto rican house of representatives and senate and the majority of puerto ricans oppose this bill as well. a bill that promises only one thing for certain: to end our republican form of government with its checks and balances. the bill called promesa is known in puerto rico as la junta, a name commonly used for military dictatorships in latin america.

please do not take all its implications lightly. it is incredible and a shame that the most important piece of legislation considered by congress regarding puerto rico since the authorization and approval of the commonwealth institution in 1952 effectively denies basic principles of democracy and self-government. and trashes that same constitution and uses the plenary powers of the congress with the mentality reminiscent of 18th century colonialism. that is why i urge you to vote no on cloture and to support the amendments that have been filed to create a more representative ward, limiting the overreaching powers of the board, establish a clear and effective path to restructuring and really protect pensions and basic services to the people. these amendments will eliminate many of the most aggravating

dispositions of this bill, and if the amendments are not approved, i strongly urge you to vote no on approval. those who are pushing to blindly pass the bill acknowledge its imperfections and its excesses. they say congress will need to do more work in the future to help puerto rico. but you know, as they do and i, that the congressional calendar won't allow further action on puerto rico for a long time. we will be stuck with the consequences. it's imperative to get it right this time. the july 1 deadline is not the end of the world. the bill already has retroactive provisions. don't make july 1 the end of democracy for puerto ricans. don't make july 1 the end of democracy for puerto ricans.

i'm going to read some other statements. this shows you the breadth and scope of the opposition, including from those who are now running for governor. those are two very esteemed former governors of puerto rico. you heard the consensus, the group that came together from all different walks of life, but to suggest that there is political support from the people of puerto rico beyond those individuals i have already read, let me read to you those who are running for governor of puerto rico. and what they say. mr. david bernier who leads the democratic party and is their current candidate for governor, wrote dear majority leader mcconnell -- this is a letter written to senator mcconnell and senator reid. i am a current candidate for governor of the popular democratic party. p.p.d. for its spanish acronym

which i preside. as you know, p.p.d. is the governing party controlling the governing and lchg branches in puerto rico. i have written to you on several occasions expressing my opposition to and deep concerns with h.r. 5278, the so-called promesa bill. these concerns are shared by a clear majority of puerto ricans who are opposed to this bill as well as is every candidate for governor of every political party due to its undemocratic financial control board, the lack of real tools for economic growth and the uncertain treatment given to pensioners, among other reasons. fortunately, it's still not too late. that's why i urge you to approve five amendments being proposed by senator robert menendez which would remedy many of the fatal flaws contained in this bill. one of these amendments would ensure that our retirees are given a real priority during this process. other amendments are aimed at

guaranteeing a minimum level of participation by puerto ricans on the control board in making sure central services are -- essential services are rendered. most important, one of these amendments would prevent the federal overreach and wholesale takeover of puerto rico's government by striking section 205 of promesa. this would ensure that voters' elected representatives have the last say over the commonwealth's government instead of a group of seven unelected washington bureaucrats. surely the governors and the state legislators of kentucky and nevada would not accept the type of latent violation of their fundamental right to self-government that would be imposed on puerto rico under this bill. for these reasons, we urge you to adopt the amendments proposed by senator menendez as they would avert the violation of puerto ricans' democratic rights and ensure the protection of our retirees' hard-earned public

pensions. we will therefore continue to oppose the promesa bill unless and until these amendments are included in the final legislation. then there is rafael benever who is running for governor. he says as a candidate for the governor of puerto rico, i wish to convey to you our firm opposition to the promesa bill that is now under consideration in the senate. we believe that the fiscal and economic policies that affect the puerto rican people need to be adopted by the representatives elected by the puerto rican people. the promesa bill violates this fundamental democratic principle as it would create an unelected board that would have considerable powers to impose or block fiscal measures and policies in puerto rico. such an organism would lack all democratic legitimacy and would only make the resolution of puerto rico's debt crisis more difficult. not surprisingly, a vast array of organizations in puerto rico,

in the puerto rican diasper, have expressed their rejection of this legislation. in order to regain the path of economic development, puerto rico requires an enabling renegotiation of its public debt. we label it enabling since it would -- since it should enable puerto rico to attain a path of sustainable economic development. this renegotiation must have as a priority the protection of pensions and essential public services. in order to puerto rico's debts, there are excellent grounds to suspect that a significant portion of the debt is illegal, unconstitutional or otherwise illegitimate. this in turn is legal ground for annulling such portions. a suspension of payments on this unsustainable debt until an adequate renegotiation is completed, and it goes on to say a series of others. fortunately, the promesa bill

includes no provisions that correspond to these requirements. we suggest that promesa be put aside and a brief substitute measure regarding point four which in essence is a temporary suspension be in place. mr. hector ferran, who is the current candidate for resident commissioner -- resident commissioner, for those who may not follow this, that's the un -- the nonvoting delegate from puerto rico to the house of representatives. they get to be a voice for puerto rico. they act very strongly on behalf of the 3.5 million american citizens of puerto rico, but they don't have a vote in the house of representatives, and there is no such delegate here. this gentleman, hector ferran is the current candidate for resident commissioner, the person who would be that voice in the house of representatives for the popular democratic party

of puerto rico, and he writes i am writing to respectfully request you vote no on cloture and to provide and support an open amendment process on the puerto rico oversight management and economic stability act. the simple reality is that as drafted, promesa is an affront to the basic right of the puerto rican people to self-governance. this is not a dispute. the bill plainly supplants our elected government with a federally appointed oversight board which the people of the commonwealth will have essentially no say in. this should be alarming not only to the puerto rican people but to anyone who believes in the democratic ideals of american government. this is a bill that can and should be improved through debate and the full amendment process. to circumvent that process is simply for the purpose of

meeting superfluous deadlines which would do a great disservice to the puerto rican people. there is simply no evidence to suggest that a missed debt payment by our government on july 1 will have the consequences the proponents claim. rather, we should be fighting for the right bill that can bring real relief and economic opportunity to the puerto rican people. puerto ricans have much at stake in this debate, and i commend your willingness to be an advocate for a position held by the overwhelming majority of us. of the national groups like the national conference of puerto rican women incorporated write dear majority leader mcconnell and democratic leader reid, we the national conference of puerto rican women, representing puerto rican women and other latinas across the united states, urges the senate to amend bill h.r. 5278 known as the promesa bill. we believe that as it stands today, promesa cannot live up to the promise of helping puerto

rico resolve its fiscal crisis without exacerbating the humanitarian fiscal crisis that continues to unfold in the island. we strongly oppose the following three aspects of h.r. 5278 that was passed by the house of representatives. number one, the oversight board is not required to create a comprehensive economic development strategy, and yet imposes -- this is what senator sanders was bringing up in his colloquy with me earlier -- an additional debt burden of $370 million on the people of puerto rico to cover their expenses with hundreds of millions more in implementation costs, according to the congressional budget office scoring of the bill. and i would add with a dedicated revenue source. how many times wouldn't we like to see a dedicated revenue

source for things we advocate. that's a difficult thing to advocate, but this control board, it gets a dedicated revenue source, all paid for by the people of puerto rico, even in the midst of an enormous economic challenge. h.r. 5278, they go on to say, authorizes the governor of puerto rico, with the consent of the oversight board, to lower the federal minimum wage to to $4.25 for those 25 years old and younger, accelerating the exodus of young talent and thereby hindering puerto rico's future economic growth. and the creation of the oversight board outlined in promesa focuses on the method by which members are selected without sufficient consideration to the expertise needed to ensure a viable outcome. the lives of puerto ricans who are american citizens have been placed in an unprecedented vulnerable position, so desperate that many puerto ricans have been forced to abandon their homes and leave loved ones to migrate to the united states mainland in search of employment.

despite efforts to maintain some semblance of normalcy, there lives have been harshly disrupted. they are struggling with low-wage jobs or unemployment while health services are drastically reduced and schools are being closed. we therefore urge the senate to amend h.r. 5278 as follows -- eliminate the provisions authorizing the board to prevent the enforcement of any law, regulation or action duly taken by the elected officials of the commonwealth of puerto rico, eliminate provisions that authorize the board to supplant the will of the elected officials of puerto rico with a budget and a fiscal plan that overrides the express wishes of the legislature and the governor of puerto rico. require the oversight board to develop a sound economic development strategy for puerto rico inclusive of a cost-benefit analysis, a plan that takes into account lowering the unemployment rate, improving

public services, fostering entrepreneurship, protecting the natural resources and agricultural development as the means to achieve and sustain economic growth and stability, require the oversight committee to maintain the same minimum wage and health care benefits equal to the united states including the benefits to veterans federal assistance program. require all members of the board to be nominated by the free selection of the president. require only a simple majority to vote in favor of restructuring puerto rico's debt. again, everybody recognizes this on the island as a critical element. a minority of the board can stop a majority will because the legislation calls for a supermajority of five of seven to cast a vote for restructuring. the people on the island understand that at a minimum, a simple majority should be only

required for restructuring puerto rico's debt. include economic incentives to ensure that puerto rico not only balances its budget but can also grow its economy and eventually pay its debts, ensure that the language that says that puerto rico's pension systems are adequately funded be changed to fully funded in order to prevent over 300,000 retirees and public employees from suffering further cuts to their benefits. it is with great hope that we write this request for support of puerto rico during this time of hardship. they go on to say, as united states citizens, puerto ricans have made enormous contributions to this society. men and women from puerto rico have fought in every war where many gave their lives. they have contributed to science, education, the arts and the economy. we now look to our elected officials to demonstrate their commitment to service as an inequity for citizens and work to amend h.r. 5278 so that any fiscal remedy is not at the expense of the puerto rican

people and does not exacerbate the existing humanitarian crisis. we believe that if these amendments are not included, the bill should not be approved as is, and we would oppose this legislation as we would represent a frontal attack on the island's democratic rights. it would not include any economic development measure that are the only lasting solutions to the crisis. so there is a common thread through all of this. all of these different individuals who have led the 3.5 million citizens of puerto rico, all those who aspire to lead the 3.5 million citizens of puerto rico, all of the civic society groups, they understand the neocolonialism of the legislation. let's put back up e five major problems of the bill. and they understand that there's no clear pathway to restructuring and they

understand to quote this part of that letter, it is a frontal attack on the island's democratic rights. now, the senior member of the senate foreign relations committee, i have heard eloque eloquently many of my colleagues here on the floor, in committee, and elsewhere talk about democratic and human rights globally, worldwide. we are a beacon of light to the rest of the world about democracy and human rights and yet, and yet for the 3.5 million citizens of the united states who call puerto rico home, if we do this, this is not a beacon of light. it is not a respective democracy. yet that's what we're poised to do without amendment, without amendment. the coalition of women's organizations in puerto rico wrote, the puerto rico women's

movement joins many organizations and other sectors that are opposed to a federal fiscal control board appointed by the u.s. government for puerto rico. puerto rico is going through great economic and financial challenges. the puerto rico's women's movement has consistently denounced how austerity measures adopted within the island are already severely weakening the human rights of our population. the federal fiscal control board proposed by the u.s. congress would be staffed by individuals who do not represent puerto rico's interests. this federal fiscal control board will have only one task, ensuring the payment of a multibillion dollar debt at the expense of our people's quality of life, stated josie patoho, fem i.n.s. spokesperson. the preek company women's movement has sent a letter to many of our colleagues requesting that they vote against the current version of

h.r. 5278 which impowers the fiscal control board to supersede and veto the decisions of publicly elected officials in puerto rico. and they go to list the caribbean institute of human rights, feminists and activists denounce that the imposition of such board represents a serious human rights violation against the people of puerto rico, expressed by the spokesperson of the collective. should h.r. 5278 pass in the senate, it will bring untold hardship to the most vulnerable sectors, the elderly, children, poor, women and the works class. with a poverty rate of 46%, where women represent 57% of those living in poverty and a shrinking economy, the idea of imposing austerity measures that

would continue to reduce government services in health, education, access to justice among others is unthinkable. so here we are, puerto rico women's movement that's going to join different strategies of resistance at the people's assembly to be held on saturday, june 25. that took place and to speak out against these injustices. so i ask unanimous consent that all of these letters that i have read be included in the record. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. menendez: i know that there are more. i think the national puerto rican coalition had one and i'll get to those in a few moments. these threads that are constantly seen by the people of puerto rico and by other independents, such as the nonpartisan congressional budget office which states, the control board again would have broad

sovereign powers to effectively overrule decisions by puerto rico's legislature, governor, and other public parties. it could effectively nullify new laws or policies adopted by puerto rico that did not conform to the requirement specified in the bill. that's not i'm saying testimony it's not the residents of puerto rico who say t. it's the congress -- say it. it's the congressional budget office. you do not have to believe me. this is the nonpartisan entity that we do to analyze legislation, and they say that the board has broad sovereign powers to effectively overrule decisions by puerto rico's legislature. you hear these people crying out from the island to their fellow citizens in the united states. don't take away our basic democratic rights to an unelected, unrepresentative control board that can nullify any new laws or policies adopted

by puerto rico that don't conform to requirements specified in the bill. even the bill's own author noted in the committee report, the oversight board may impose mandatory cuts on puerto rico's government and instrumentalities, a power -- i read this before -- a power far beyond that exercised by the control board established for the district of columbia. if the board in its sole discretion, an enormous grant of power, in its sole discretion, what does that mean, in its sole discretion? it's pretty obvious. the seven of them will get together and they'll decide, well, in our discretion this is in fact how this should move forward. the bill cites this 29 times in critical moments in the legislation, in its sole discretion which in essence uses the superpowers in this bill.

it could choose to close more schools, to shutter more hospitals to cut senior citizens' pensions to the bone. i know some people think that won't happen. well, look, already the government of puerto rico has made some very tough choices to do some of that itself. in order to try to meet its obligations. but it came to the conclusion that there's only so far you can go. but an oversight board in its sole discretion could make that decision as well. and the powers aren't limited to just budget and fiscal policy, although i would say those -- just those two alone, let's forget about anything else, budget and fiscal policy, i always think that one of the most important things we do here in the congress is to set the budget for the nation. we all have budgets in our lives. we may not think of them as budgets but we have one. it's our income by however we derive it, by our work, our

salary or our business, by maybe some investments, if we have enough money to make investments. get some interest. the rates are very low now but nonetheless, how we derive it, that's our income. then there's our expenses. the home we keep for our family, the health care we provide for them, the educational opportunities that we want to have for our children to graduate and not graduate under a mountain of debt, taking care of a loved one, a mom or dad or in-law, going ahead and thinking about our own retirement in the future, the church synagogue or mosque that we tie to, the charitable contributions we make to organizations we believe are incredibly important because of the work that they do, those of expressions of our values as individuals. and the nation's budget is an expression of our collective values as a country. what will we provide for the national defense? how will we secure our homeland

against acts of terrorism? what will we spend to educate our children both elementary, secondarily and how are we going to help students not graduate under a mountain of debt but have that human capital that we need to drive america's competitiveness. how are we going to defend our country across the globe, for example, from isis? how much money are we going to spend in research and development so that the alzheimer's that took my mother's life can be cured, that we can find the cause and then develop a cure or cancer or so many other dreaded diseases. all of these things and many more that we decide collectively as a congress and the budget is an expression of our collective values as a nation. and yet the people of puerto rico are not going to have the right to determine their budget and an expression of their values for the 3.5 million

united states citizens who call puerto rico home. so as the bill states in section 205, the oversight board -- they call it oversight. i call it a control board because oversight is one thing but when you have the control to dictate things, that to me is more of a control board. may any time submit recommendations to the governor or legislature regarding and relating to the management of the territories, governments, financial affairs including economic forecasting, multi-year fiscal forecasting capabilities, information technology, placing controls on expenditures for personnel, reducing benefit costs. what does that mean? employees, reducing their benefit costs, maybe to make them pay more of their health care, reduce the amount of sick time or overtime they can have, reforming procurement practices, placing other controls on expenditures, the structural rtle ship of -- relationship of

departments, agencies, the modification of existing revenue structures, existing revenue structures. as a mechanic of of the senate finance committee, i foe what that means. a revenue structure is how we derive the money to run our government. now that overwhelmingly is in federal taxes but there are a whole host of fees and other sources of revenues that we derive. well, this entity is going to be able to modify what that revenue structure is or the establishment of additional revenue structures, additional revenue structures which many here would revolt against in terms of having taxes imposed, taxation without representation. that's what we're going to say to the people of puerto rico. it's not good for the rest of us as american citizens but for the 3.5 million citizens in puerto rico it's okay to say we can have taxation without representation for you. for you. the establishment of

alternatives for meeting obligations, to pay for the pensions of territorial government employees, modifications or transfers of the type of services that are the responsibility of and are delivered by the territorial government, modifications of the types of services that are delivered by entities other than the territorial government, the effects of the territory's laws and court orders on the operations of the territorial government, the establishment of a personnel system for employees of the territorial government that is based upon employee performance standards, the privatization, the privatization and commercialization of entities within the territorial government, that's pretty significant. i know that many of my colleagues, particularly in the democratic caucus, they have a real concern about the privatization of certain governmental services.

well, we're -- we as democrats are going to vote to undo the minimum wage, undo overtime protections, we're going to vote to allow this unelected oversight board to ultimately say that there are entities within the government of puerto rico that should be privatized. i'll talk a little bit later. i know that many of my friends on the democratic side of the aisle are concerned about the environment and environmental citing of sites. we are a going to give them fast track to go ahead and make all kinds of environmental sightings and bypass other laws to preserve the environment. but for the people of puerto rico, we can throw those environmental laws largely by the wayside. while this section some may say but -- it says these comments

are recommendations, the -- of section 201 of the bill allows the board to adopt a appropriate recommendations sup missed by the over-- submitted by the oversight board under section 205a. so these are more than recommendations because it allows the board to adopt appropriate recommendations submitted by the oversight board under a different section. so if the board decides to hold a fire sale and put some of puerto rico's natural wonders on the auction block to the highest bidder, they can. now, i have visited the island of puerto rico many times, and i have seen some of its natural wonders. it has incredibly beautiful places. it has places like vieques which is also incredibly beautiful and was a place for the u.s. military to perform its bombing runs and the people of puerto rico for years and years

supported it on behalf of the national defense but it could take a part of vieques and say, well, this should be sold. it could take another part of the natural wonders of puerto rico and say it should be sold. so the board decides to hold a fire sale and put puerto rico's natural wonders on the auction block to the highest bidder they could. they could decide to sell off the natural reserve or the dry forest or build condominiums in the canyon or hotels, but what is it that the puerto rican people want? is that what we want? or is that what an oversight board is going to want? the enact is, mr. president this legislation -- the fact is, mr. president, this legislation puts balanced budgets and untested ideology above the

health and well-being of families similar to the control board travesty that unfolded in flint exists. do we want to repeat a mistake like that? without their voices represented on the control board, there is nothing that the people of puerto rico will be able to do. the fact that the puerto rican people will have absolutely no say over who is appointed or what action they decide is clearly blatantly colonial imple. i amal afraid we're opening the floodgate gates for puerto rico to be laboratory for right-wing economic policies. puerto rico deserves much more than to be the unological host of untested -- -- the unwilling host of untested experiments. the legislation that i offered

added some oversight powers. i support helping puerto rico make informed, prudent decisions that put it on the path to economic growth and solvency. but despite its name, the oversight board envisioned by this bill doesn't simply oversee. it directs. it commands. it doesn't assist. it controls. in section 201(d(2 promesa make clear -- quote -- "that if the governor fails to submit to the oversight board a fiscal plan, that the oversight board determines in its sole discretion" -- again, undefined but we have a generic sense of what "in its sole discretion means" -- so the governor -- if you read the legislation, the governor can recommend, the oversight board can reject.

but if the governor fails ultimately to submit to the oversight board a fiscal plan that the oversight board determines in its sole discretion satisfies the requirements set forth in that subsection by the time specified in the notice delivered under subsection 8, the oversight board shall -- words of art, "shall" -- mandatory -- shall develop and submit to the governor and the legislature a fiscal plan. and then in section 202(e)4, promesa reiterates that the board has the final say by stating -- quote -- "if the governor fails to develop an instrumentality budget that is a compliant budget by the day before the first day of the fiscal year for which the instrumentality budget is being

developed, the oversight board shall submit an instrumental budget to the governor, including any revision to that instrumentality budget made by the oversight board, and such budget shall be deemed" -- listen to this -- "shall be deemed to be approved by the governor." not that the governor approves it. it shall be deemed to be approved by the oversight board. the subject of a compliance certification issue by the board to the governor and in full force and effect beginning on the first day of the applicable fiscal year. so the oversight board goes back and forth to the governor. the governor is trying to represent the interests of all of the people of puerto rico, the 3.5 million united states citizens trying to balance the responsibility for making its payments but doing it in a way

that can still help the citizens of puerto rico be able to go about their lives, to not have a brain drain, have everybody leave the island because they could find one flight on jetblue to the united states and find a much better life. and yet despite those actions in which he's balancing all of this, as is the legislature of puerto rico, at the end of the day, the oversight board say, you know what? in our sole discretion, that doesn't -- that doesn't meet our standard. so guess what? we're going to give you a budget. we're going to have deemed that the governor approve this budget, which basically whether you approve it or not, no, we take it as a fiction of law, that you approved it. and then it will go into full force and effect. it will go into full force and effect. now, in addition to the power to take the budget, which i

described before as the single most important document that we do as a congress, because it reflects the interests of the american people, our values as a people, how will we do awful those things, which the governor of puerto rico and the legislature have to do the same thing for 39.5 million -- for the 3.5 million citizens of puerto rico, now we've gone from an opportunity of the governor to make what is the best for puerto rico but if it's rejected buy the board, they'll determine what the oversight is, they'll mandate it and it will go into full force and effect. then in section 203(d)promesa allows the tabored make mandatory budget cuts. it says budget reductions by the oversight board, if the oversight board determines that the governor in the case of any then-applicable, certified instrumentality budget and the governor and the legislature in the case of the then-applicable

certified territory -- all that means is instrumentality budgets are subdivisions of the commonwealth of puerto rico, territory budget is puerto rico. so it's either one. virtually total blanket control -- have failed to correct an inconsistency identified by the oversight board, the oversight board shall -- shall, words of art meaning mandatory -- with witrespect to the territory -- territorial government make appropriate reductions in non-debt expenditures. very important. reductions in non-debt expenditures. so those moneys that are going to pay debt, well, oversight board won't touch that. but it can make reductions -- mandatory ones -- in non-debt expenditures. everything else that goes to the

health and well-being of the people of puerto rico, to ensure that the actual quarterly revenues and expenditures for the government are in compliance with the applicable certified budget. the budget, but the way, the certified budget that they didn't -- that the governor and the legislature didn't pass but that the oversight board passed. so not only do they set themselves up as the total control over that budget at the end of the day, they can make the budget, they can make it mandatory, and by the way, after we tell you that this budget should have so much revenue, if that falls short, we have the absolute right to cut the non-debt expenditures -- meaning the expenditures for everyday life in puerto rico and public safety, public health, public education, senior citizens, and others -- they can cut that. and they can do it in a way in

which it will become binding. now, to further go on, section 2 of that reads "with respect to covered territorial instrumentalities at the sole discretion of the oversight board" -- now, territorial instrumentalities or other subdivisions or other government agencieagencies, it can make res again in non-debt expenditures to ensure the same revenues and expenses are in compliance with the applicable certified budget, the budget that the oversight board ultimately created and made mandatory. it can institute automatic hiring freezes at the covered territorial instrumentality. now, what could that be? well, that could be the hospital, if there is a hospital association that is part of the

territorial, they can freeze in the midst of a zika challenge. they can freeze if there is an entity, an instrumentality that deals with the public safety. they can freeze the hiring there even though the government of puerto rico may feel they have a bigger challenge. they could institute automatic hiring freezes. they can prohibit the covered territorial instrumentality from entering into any contract or engaging in any financial or other transaction unless previously approved by the oversight board, which means that they can never at the end of the day act on their own. they have the oversight board that they have to go and ask everything of. in section 204(a)5, the bill gives the board the authority to veto -- listen to this -- "to veto legislation passed by the puerto rico legislature and signed by the governor." stating -- quote -- "the oversight board may take such actions as it considers

necessary, consistent with this act, to ensure that the enactment or enforcement of the law will not adversely affect the territorial government's compliance with the fiscal plan, including preventing the enforcement or application of the law." so, in addition to having the power to basically say to the governor, sorry, the legislature, your budget not acceptable, here's the budget we've determined is acceptable, this budget is now deemed as mandated and it goes into implementation. if we're wrong, by the way -- this is the oversight board -- of our fiscal estimates, we will have the right to cut non-debt expenditures -- meaning the creditors, the hedge funds, awful those, they get their money -- but we can cut non-debt expenditures to ensure that we met those fiscal forecasts, totally in the oversight board's control.

and then if they didn't have enough power as it was, they can veto any legislation passed by the puerto rican legislature and signed by the governor stating that the oversight board may take such actions as it considers necessary and consistent with this act. so, what's the use of having a governor and a legislature if they can't pass their budget, if they can't direct even within a fiscal plan that they come up with? it gets vetoed, it gets imposed, the oversight board can cut non-debt expenditures. so why have a governor? why go through the farce? in section 204(b)5 promesa also allows the board to override contracts, rules, regulations, executive orders. it states that "if a contract rule, regulation, or executive

order fails to comply with policies established by the oversight board under this subsection, the oversight board may take such actions as it considers necessary to ensure that such contract rule, executive order, or regulation will not adversely effect the territorial government's compliance with the fiscal plan." "including by preventing -- preventing -- the excuse or enforcement of the contract, the rule, or the executive order or regulation." so, it sound like a lot of legalistic word. what does that mean? it means that in addition to setting up that budget, passing it, saying no, this is is it, you're going to have to live with i it, we're going to -- in addition to if we're wrong and we make the wrong expectations, we're going to be able to cut. if we you do something that we

think -- if you do something and you pass something, a rule, a rule for which puerto rican society might have to live under or a rule in which an entity might have to be obligated to follow or you pass a regulation that might be in the well-being of the health and safety of the people of puerto rico or if you pass an executive order, if it fails to comply with what we believe are the policies established by us, we have the right to basically override it and to prevent -- to prevent -- the execution or enforcement of it. so this substitutes the oversight board's opinion of what in fact is in the best interests of the people of puerto rico, even though there is no real representation of the people of puerto rico. my first amendment, if i were given the opportunity, would attempt to strike the right

balance and give the people of puerto rico at least some representation on this all-powerful board. the current legislation denies the puerto rican people anything. i repeat, any representation on the board that effectively replaces the decision making powers of the legislative and executive branches of their democratically elected government. why is it that 3.5 million citizens of puerto rico, they are denied the right to put people on this board through a process of advise and consent within their own governor and legislature with certain qualifications, just like we have qualifications of others here, why is it that they can have no say about who is going to dictate their future? and in essence, particularly with such an enormous powerfully-reaching board into

every potential aspect of puerto rican life. our amendment adds two additional voting members chosen by the elected representatives of the people of puerto rico. the speaker would still get his two. the majority leader would get his two. the rest would be the same, but at least the people of puerto rico would have some say. because when you have stakeholders involved in decision making process, you are more likely to be able to have the population agree to the tough choices you're going to make. but when there is no representation, there is revolt. that's the very essence of how this nation came to be. taxation without representation, a desire to have a say, a desire to be governed by those by the consent of the government. that's what puerto rico have had and want to continue to have.

these twaob additional members -- niece two additional members would be chosen from a list with the advise and consent of the legislature of puerto rico. republicans will still appoint a majority of members from an ideological perspective. what's so wrong about that in terms of giving the people of puerto rico some direct say. i personally believe that all members of the board should be chosen by the people of puerto rico or their elected representatives along the standards we set for membership, in terms of background and abilities to make sure these are people who can help puerto rico guide its way for the future. they should come from the island, and that's exactly what my legislation would call for. but i want it to be reasonable and open to compromise which is why my amendment only would require two members of a nine person board to be chosen by puerto rico. certainly we can all agree that the people who will have to deal with this board should have some say over who is making all the

decisions. my second amendment, if we had an opportunity, would keep recommendations made by the control board to be advisory only. if they are called recommendations, the board shouldn't be able to compel them to a fiscal plan as the bill currently allows. besides the fundamental flaws with the control board, there's also the most -- one of the most significant parts other than, of course, representation because the board structure here is so omnipotent, there should be representation from the people of puerto rico. but the fundamental flaw beyond that or the fundamental flaw with the control bill is that this bill also fails to provide a clear path to restructure which is as i've said several times, the whole purpose of this bill to begin with. the unelected control board created in this bill will have

the authority to decide whether puerto rico's debts are worthy of restructuring. so let's not fool ourselves in believing that it's a sure thing that this bill guarantees the island the ability to restructure its debts. indeed, section 206 of the bill lists four gate keeping requirements before any restructuring can occur. section 8 requires the oversight board -- quote -- "prior to issuing a restructuring certification regarding an entity shall determine" -- this is the oversite board. "it shall determine in its sole discretion" -- one of the most important parts of why we are even considering legislation, the only reason we're considering legislation to help puerto rico to getting access to

restructuring in the bankruptcy system, yet we create a bar that says that the control board, this unelected group of seven people with all these other powers, in addition to that, they shall determine in its sole discretion that the entity has made good-faith efforts to reach a consensual restructuring with the creditors, that the he be -t the entity has adopted procedures necessary to deliver timely audited financial statements and to make public draft financial statements and other information sufficient for any interested person to make an informed decision with respect to a possible restructuring. now let's look at the first part of that. the entity has made good-faith efforts to reach a consensual restructuring with the creditors in their sole discretion. so what does that mean? so puerto rico has a wide number of creditors, and as part of

this law, basically the government of puerto rico will have to try to come to an understanding with its creditors, sao -- see if they can work out something, if they could agree before getting access to restructuring. but it's the board in its sole discretion that determines whether puerto rico has actually had a good-faith effort. so if you have members appointed who believe that creditors should get every dime that they invested in, even the vulture funds that senator sanders was talking about, that extremely low, high interest rates and want to maximize their profits, and the oversight board says no, you haven't made sufficient

good-faith effort to reach a consensual restructuring with your creditors. go back. and so the governor of puerto rico goes back, tries again, and he's weighing all of the elements of what's important for him to be able to govern like any governor of any state with all of the interests of its people in every dimension. and so the governor goes back, tries to work with the creditors, but the creditors know at this oversight board, you know, they are e on my side on this -- they're on my side on this question so i can squeeze the governor harder and harder and harder because at the end of the day it's the oversight board in its sole discretion that will make a determination as to whether there have been good-faith efforts to reach a consensual restructuring with the creditors. we'd like to think that this

board is going to be totally aboveboard, that they're going to be totally -- that their only interest is doing the right thing by the people of puerto rico. but when you grab this much power unelected and unresponsive, i think if i read the legislation right, they may have to do a report annually or every so often. but for the most part the control board operates on its own, has that $370 million of dedicated funding, dictates how long it will live because it makes the ultimate discretion as to whether or not after five years, whether puerto rico has created a fiscal stability that meets the standard in their sole discretion and also that determines whether or not they have access to the bond market in their sole discretion. if not, they can extend their life. and when they extend their life, they keep control over the people of puerto rico. so whoever is the governor of puerto rico -- and this will extend far beyond this present

governor. it's not even about this present governor who will be leaving office at the end of this year and there will be elections and there will be a new governor. that new governor is going to potentially have this enormous, omnipotent, powerful board that can squeeze it in a way that is simply unfair to the citizens of puerto rico. so they go on to say in that same vein not only is it about the governor of puerto rico, but it's whether any, the entity is either a covered territory that has adopted a fiscal plan certified by the board, a covered territorial instrumentity that the subject to the territorial fiscal plans certified by the board or a territorial instrumentality that is adopted by the board. and it relates to modify, even if they could come to an agreement, if there is a

mosques, only -- if there is a modification, only the board can determine whether such modification is accepted. but that's not even the tough part. that's not even the tough part. if puerto rico meets -- even if puerto rico meets these metrics, the bill doesn't guarantee restructuring. not even close. instead promesa requires a supermajority 5-2 vote of the control board in order for any of the island's debts or any of the island's debts to be restructured. now it's bad enough that i grew up understanding basically that majority rules. that's a fundamental element of our view. i know in the senate we have the 60-vote requirement for closing a filibuster or coming to an end on a piece of legislation and move forward. but generally we come from the perspective that majority rules.

well, here we have a supermajority that has to determine. and by virtue of insisting on a supermajority, there is another terrible, adverse possibility that a minority -- three people -- of the board. since there's seven, you need five. if three say no, we're not satisfied. we don't believe you should go to restructuring even though four other members of this board has presently determined can say yeah, we think puerto rico has done enough to go to restructuring. but those three stay strong, no, we don't think you've done enough to go to restructuring, the minority can thwart the will of the majority and thwt the whole process of why we are in the midst of having legislation in the first place, which is, again, to give the people of puerto rico the chance for restructuring. so that means that this three people, a minority of the board,

could derail the island's attempt to achieve sustainable debt payments. nour, sustain -- now, sustainable debt payments, that means yes we want to pay our debts, but we have to be able to sustain the health, well-being and protection of our people at the same time that we pay those debts. so that is what restructuring is all about. to permit both to take place. and without any authority to restructure its debt, all this legislation will do is to take away the democratic rights of 3.5 million americans and leave the future to wishful thinking and a prayer that the crisis will somehow be resolved. instead of leaving this critical decision up to the whims of a minority of the board, one of my amendments would provide a clear path to restructuring by removing this arbitrary vote requirement. instead, under my amendment the

government or instrumentality would be able to restructure its debts once it has engaged in good-faith efforts to reach a consensual agreement with creditors, establish a system to develop and make public timely audited financial statements and adopted a fiscal plan that was ultimately approved by the board. but done in such a way that takes into account all of the elements that are important for the governor and legislature of puerto rico to consider on behalf of its people, as we as a legislative body consider on behalf of the american people. when the main purpose of this bill is to give puerto rico the tools to restructure all of its debts, why would we leave that authority to chance or to the sole discretion of a control board for which only three can deny that opportunity? now promesa also doesn't provide

enough protections to ensure the health, safety, and well-being of the people of puerto rico. the bill only requires the board to -- quote -- "ensure the funding of essential public services, quote, which when coupled with creditor priorities throughout the bill leaves the people of puerto rico at the mercy of the control board." because even in this chamber, we have debates as to what is the necessary funding to ensure essential public services. we have debates about that all the time. sometimes it's ideological. sometimes it's partisan, and sometimes it's not partisan. members get together and say we think there should be more for defense, and republicans and democrats might very well come to that. we think there should be more to

deal with the zika virus, and republicans and democrats might come together for that. so -- but sometimes we disagree. so the bottom line is that determination to give to an oversight board instead of the elected government of puerto rico to determine what is ensure the funding of essential public services, well, we have debates about that here all the time, robust debates. why should such a debate and an ultimate determination be left to seven unelected, unaccountable individuals? i have two amendments to fix this if we had an opportunity for amendment. one would strengthen the funding requirement for essential services by requiring funding -- quote -- at a level that increases the safety, health and standard of living of the people of puerto rico. another amendment would require the fiscal plan to reduce factors that lead to economic outmigration from the island. these are two priorities we

should all share as democrats and republicans alike. we saw all too painfully what happened in flint when budgets came ahead of people. we saw it when budgets came ahead of people. balanced budgets don't mean much when children are poisoned by the water they drink. it seems to me that we have to learn from history and balance fiscal responsibility with the well-being of children and families. finally, i would plan to offer an amendment to protect senior citizens and avoid an increase in elderly poverty. promesa currently includes a vague and undefined requirement to -- quote -- provide adequate funding for public pension systems. now, we're having debates here about social security as a form of a pension system and we have

debates in states about what their public pension plans are. to suggest that this oversight board with the words provide adequate funding, it's going to be in their sole discretion what adequate funding means. they may think that adequate funding is enough to pay only half of what recipients are supposed to receive. they may even decide certain categories of recipients may not receive full funding and others may. i mean, what that funding is when you leave the words adequate funding, and that ims undefined with a board that nearly 30 times has in their sole discretion the ability to determine where things are, it's again an enormous grant of power. so those who have worked a lifetime in puerto rico and now are pensioned in puerto rico,

they will be at a lesser standard in terms of protection than the bondholders and the hedge funds and all those entities that made huge investments trying to make a killing. and now pensioners have no real protection at the end of the day. maybe it's true that the president's system doesn't guarantee them all the protections they would want to have, but we do nothing by saying this is a fig leaf, yet we reinforce in the language of promesa the importance of bondholders but deminutize the importance of pensioners. our amendment would ensure that senior retirees and pensioners are better protected from the whims of the control board. after all, retirees in puerto rico who spent 30 years serving the island as police officers, as firefighters, as teachers,

nurses, didn't have any choice but to participate in the pension plan. they have mandatory participation. so you mandated them to participate but now you're suggesting that an uncontrolled board can make a decision of what is sufficient and what is not sufficient. unlike hedge funds who were able to pick and choose what investments to make and often bought bonds at pennies on the dollar, public servants had to invest in the pension system. they had no way of knowing that their nest egg, which they worked their entire lives for, was at risk of being taken away. they didn't contribute to the fiscal problems facing puerto rico. they didn't borrow too much or fail to make annual contributions to the fund. they did all the right things. so why should they lose their retirement funds? this is just a small example of the 30 amendments that i filed

which should give my colleagues some idea of how flawed i believe this bill to be and how extensive the senate debate should be. now, mr. president, i know, as all of us know, that success on amendments is never guaranteed, but at the very least, at the very least the people of puerto rico deserve a thorough and thoughtful debate on the senate floor and the opportunity to offer amendments. they deserve more than the senate holding its nose to improve an inferior solution. and i filed the amendments to show the breadth and scope of what is wrong with promesa, but i would be happy to agree to the most important ones for an up-or-down vote. i think the 3.5 million citizens of puerto rico deserve at least that. and i would hope that the majority leader, senator mcconnell, would stand true to his word when he said as we

began this legislative session we need to open up the legislative process in a way that allows more amendments from both sides and allow us to call this bill up, i would add, for debate so that we can do what we are elected to do. and so here we have a president not even talking about -- a process not even talking about having more amendments, we're not having any amendments to this bill. so somehow we think the 3.5 million citizens of puerto rico don't deserve the debate that we would insist for any of the citizens of our state or of this nation. so i have read through several of the letters that we asked unanimous consent to include, and i think they speak powerfully of the -- of the views that the people of puerto

rico have as it relates to what in fact should be the process here in which that there should be an effort to have amendments and change the law that is being proposed in such a way now. there is a history. i sometimes wonder about our knowledge of puerto rico and its people. when i served in the house, people would ask me whether you need a passport to go to puerto rico. i thought they were kidding me but they weren't. they did not understand that the people of puerto rico are united states citizens, have every right and responsibility as any other citizen of the united states, can come to the united states, the plaind of the united states and have all the full rights and privileges of any other citizen. that goes back to the 1900's

where we -- on april 12, 1900, president mckinley signed the organic act of 1900, also known as the foraker act which established civil government in puerto rico. the president of the united states appointed a governor and executive council. puerto ricans elected their own house of representatives, enjoyed a judicial system with a supreme court, a resident commissioner who was to be sent to the united states congress to advise but not to vote. in addition the federal laws of the united states came into effect for puerto rico while also formally recognizing citizenship. at the same time, some of the time argued that the act of 1900 deny puerto ricans the basic rights guaranteed in the constitution and constituted taxation without representation,

the very essence now quite a long period of time later, 116 years later we're having that same debate here by virtue of this oversight board, and in essence the act made a sham of the democratic principles upon which the u.s. was founded. so in 1917, president mckinley signed the jones-schaffroth act, known as the jones act, into law. that law changed puerto rico's status to an organized but unincorporated territory. at this time americans were still grappling with what their imperialistic empire meant for them and their nation. if puerto rico remained a colony with all the trappings of the old world, the united states was no better than the colonial powers of the old world, so the jones act created a bill of rights which extended many u.s. constitutional rights to puerto rico and that was the beginning

of having a respect for all of the citizens of puerto rico. the bill created a more autonomous government with three branches, much like that of the united states. the governor, the executive branch, attorney general, commissioner of education. the governor appointed remaining heads of executive departments. puerto ricans directly elected the members of a bicameral legislature. most importantly, the jones act stated that all puerto ricans are -- quote -- hereby declared and shall be deemed and held to be citizens of the united states. one immediate result and motivating factor for the change, interestingly enough, was the extension of conscription. the virginia selective service f 1917 drafted 20,000 puerto rican soldiers into world war i. 20,000 puerto rican soldiers into world war i. the great depression severely

affected puerto rico due to its connection to the united states economy. relief didn't arrive in puerto rico until the appointment of governor tubwell in 1941. and governor tugwell was an economics professor at columbia university, part of president roosevelt's brain trust of columbia academics. he was dedicated to bringing economic growth to the struggling island. he first suggested the idea of a popularly elected puerto rican governor to president roosevelt in 1942. the third principle of the atlantic charter prepared by president roosevelt and prime minister winston churchill read they respect the right of all people to choose the form of government under which they will live, and they wish to see sovereign rights of self-government restored to those who have been forcibly deprived of them. on february 10, 1943, the puerto

rican legislative assembly, under the president of their senate at that time, luis munoz marin unanimously adopted a concurrent resolution. quote, to lay before the president and the congress of the united states of america the right of the people of puerto rico that the colonial system of government be ended and to decide democratically the permanent political status of puerto rico as expediently as possible, immediately, if feasible. president roosevelt in 1943 formed a commission to evaluate the jones act. the commission heard munoz marin's grievances but didn't recommend the vast changes he hoped for. instead, it recommended that the puerto rican people must be consulted, must be consulted and agree to any further changes to the former act. the commission also endorsed governor tugwell's original recommendation that the governor of puerto rico be elected by the

puerto rican people, and that first former change to the jones act came with the 1947 elected governor act, and in 1948, luis munoz marin game puerto rico's first popularly elected governor. now, marin was determined to redefine puerto rico's status and his relationship to the united states, and he found a partner in u.s. senator millard tidings. by 1945, tidings was ready to file his third bill for puerto rico independence. president truman sent a special message to congress concerning the status of puerto rico, calling for legislation that would become known as the tidings-pinero bill. he called for a referendum to choose from three options, independence, statehood or commonwealth. that bill died in committee but was an important moment in the history of u.s.-puerto rican relationships. the provisions for an associated state set the foundation for the

eventual commonwealth status of the president of puerto rico. and it is that status which in 1952 the constitution of puerto rico officially established the commonwealth of puerto rico, and following amendment and ratification by the united states congress, governor luis munoz marin enacted the constitution in 1952. why did i share that whole history? because in that whole process, there was a desire to give greater say, greater oversight, give greater consent of the governed to the people of puerto rico. and it builds slowly to the point in which it got to elect its own governor, its own legislature. now we are essentially considering a piece of legislation that snatches that away from the people of puerto

rico. that says no, you don't have the right to the consent of the government. we will govern you as we see fit through an oversight board that is totally unelected and unrepresentative. now is that right for a people who weren't granted u.s. citizenship till 1917 but have a long and proud history of fighting alongside of america long before. i want to talk about that history because, you know, it seems to me that if you're worthy of putting on the uniform of the united states, if you're worthy of fighting for the united states, if you're worthy of taking a bullet for your country, if you're worthy of dying for your country, then you're worthy of having the right of the govern -- the consent of the government to be

governed. this is a long and proud history for the people of puerto rico to the infancy of our government. this goes back before the commonwealth. the people of puerto rico have been there with us. as far back as 1777, puerto rican ports were used by u.s. ships enabling them to run british blockades and keep commerce flowing which was so crucial to the war effort. 1777. in one instance members of the puerto rican militia guided two u.s. warships into harbor shielding them from attack from a powerful british war ship, the h.m.s. glaxo. the break can governor held strong and refused to hand over the ships to the british commander, protecting american sailors from imminent capture or worse. two years later puerto ricans took up arms and joined in an invasion of pensacola which was

then the british capital of its west florida colony. they subsequently defeated a british army 2500 soldiers strong capturing the stronghold and draining resources from the british. it was puerto rican soldiers who took up arms in the u.s. civil war, in the u.s. civil war defending washington, d.c. from attack and fought in the battle of fredricksburg. some served as officers in the union army, as in the case of lieutenant agusto rodriguez. in 1862 agusto rodriguez volunteered for the 15th connecticut volunteer infantry and first held the rank of first sergeant and then promoted to second lieutenant on april 12, 1864. he led his men in the battles of fredricksburg and weiss fork and earned the army civil war campaign medal.

in world war i approximately 20,000 puerto ricans were drafted into the u.s. armed forces. the first shot the u.s. fired in world war i was aimed at german ships sailing out of san juan bay to attempt to supply enemy boats waiting in open waters in the atlantic. and in separate engagements, lieutenant frederick hipo became the first sailor of puerto rican descent to be awarded the navy cross as he dispersioned a boat after a torpedo narrowly missed his ship. lieutenant rifco continued to serve in the navy after world war i and then went on to command a ship that took part in the battle during world war ii. it's estimated that more than 65,000 puerto ricans served in u.s. armed forces during world war ii. many soldiers from the island served in the 65th infantry regiment that was deployed to

the panama canal zone and in germany and in central europe. individual awards earned by the soldiers of the 65th infantry regiment during world war ii include a distinguished service cross, silver stars, bronze stars and 90 purple hearts. the regiment received campaign participation credit for rome, arno, and central europe. korean war. i started at the revolutionary war. we're up to the korean war. 61,000 puerto ricans served in the u.s. military during the korean war. once again the 65th infantry regiment, the segregated military unit composed almost entirely of soldiers from puerto rico played a crucial and prominent role in the korean war just as they did during world

war i and world war ii. their storied history has been described as one of pride of courage, of heartbreak and redemption. after disembarringing in south korea in september of 19 50rbgs the regiment brocked the escape routes of retreating north korean unions and overcame pockets of resistance. in a critical battle near yong, the regiment defeated a force of 400 enemy troops and by the end of october they captured 921 brings nears while killing and wounding more than 600 enemy soldiers. their success led general douglas mcarthur to observe that the regiment was showing magnificent ability and courage in field operations. as the borinqueneers continued the flight and played a major role in the army's operations, general mcarthur further recognized their service by saying -- quote -- "the puerto ricans forming the ranks of the

gallon 65th infantry on the battlefields of korea by valor, determination, and a resolute will to victory give daily testament to their invincible loyalty to the united states and the fervor of their devotion to those immunable standards of human relations to which the americans and puerto ricans are in common dedicated. they are writing a brilliant record of achievement in battle and i am proud indeed to have them in this command. i wish that we might have many more like them." general mcarthur. now, i'm proud to say that i worked with senator blumenthal and others to make sure that the heroic borinqueneers received their well deserved and long overdue national recognition of the congressional gold medal, the highest expression of national appreciation for

distinguished achievements and contributions to the united states. that resolution read by the senate and house of representatives that congress finds the following: in 1898 the united states acquired puerto rico and the treaty of paris that ended the spanish-american war and by the following year congress had authorized raising a unit of volunteer soldiers in the newly acquired territory. in may 1917, two months after legislation granting united states citizenship to individuals born in puerto rico was signed into law and one month after the united states entered world war i, the unit was transferred to the panama canal in part because the united states army policy at the time restricted most segregated units to noncombat roles even though the regiment could have contributed to the fighting effort. in june of 1920, the unit was redesignated as the 65th regiment united states army and served as the united states military's last segregated unit

exposed primarily of hispanic soldiers. in january of 1943, 1 months of a the attack on -- 13 months after the attack on pearl harb harbor, the regiment again deployed to the panama canal zone before deploying overseas in the spring of 1944. and it goes on to speak to a lot of what i previously said as it relates to the incredible elements of it. and goes on to say although an executive order issued by president truman in july of 1948 declared it to be united states policy to ensure equality of treatment and opportunity for all persons in the armed services without respect to race or color, implementation of this policy had yet to be fully realized when armed conflict broke out on the korean peninsula in june of 1950. in both -- and both african-american soldiers and puerto rican soldiers served in segregated units. brigadier general william harris

who served as the rentalment's commander during the early stages of the korean war later recalled that he had initially been reluctant to take the position because of prejudice within the military and the feeling of the officers and even the brass of the pentagon that the puerto ricans would make a good combat soldier. i know my contemporaries felt that way and all honesty i must admit that at the time i had the same feeling, that the puerto rican was a rum and coke cola soldier. one of the first opportunities the regiment had to prove its combat worthiness arose on the eve of the korean war during operation poretrax, one of the largest military exercises that had been conducted up to that point where the regiment distinguished itself by repealing an offensive consisting of over 32,000 troops from the 82nd airborne division in the united states marine corps supported by the navy and air force, thereby

demonstrating the regiment could hold its own against some of the best trained forces. in august 1950 with the united states army situation in korea deteriorating, the department of the army headquarters decided to bolster the third infantry division and owing in part to the 65th infantry regiment's outstanding perform machines during operation portrax, it was among the units selected for the combat assignment. the decision to send the regiment to korea and attach it to the third infantry division was a landmark change in u.s. military's racial and ethnic policy. as the regiment sailed to asia in september of 1950, members of the unit informally decided to call themselves the borinquene borinqueneers, a term derived from the word for puerto rico meaning land of the brave lord. the story of the 65th infantry regiment during the korean war has been aptly described as one of pride, courage, heartbreak and redemption.

fighting as a segregated unit from 1950 to 1952, the regiment participated in some of the fiercest battles of the war and its toughness, courage, and loyalty, loyalty earned the aberration many had previous harbored reservations about puerto rican soldiers based on the lack of previous fighting experience and negative stereotypes including brigadier general harris whose experience eventually led him to regard the regiment as -- quote -- the best damn soldiers that i had ever seen. after disembarking in south korea in 1950, the regiment blocked the escape routes of retreating north korean units overcoming pockets of resistance. those most significant battles took place as i said and general mcarthur's statements about showing magnificent ability, courage in field operations became well established. i share this because here we are

hearing a great general like douglas mcarthur saying the puerto ricans forming the ranks of the gallant 65th infantry on the battlefields of korea by valor, determination, a resolute will to victory give daily testament to their invincible loyalty to the united states. so where is our invincible loyalty back to the people of puerto rico? promesa? a control board with no representation? one that will determine every aspect of its life that supersedes the duly elected governor and legislature of puerto rico and virtually every significant way? their invincible loyalty to the

united states. where's ours to them? and the fervor of their devotion to those immunable standards of human relations to which the -- i wish that we might have many more like them, he said. so i look at this now -- i was really thrilled to go to the congressional gold medal ceremony. it was a fitting and appropriate moment to recognize the borinqueneers, the 65th infantry regiment, but the way we really would honor them and their sacrifice on behalf of our nation would be to say that you fought for our collective freedom and we will fight for your rights to ultimately govern

by your will, not by will of the public by us. it's pretty amazing if you were to go with me to the vietnam memorial, you would see an estimated 48,000 puerto ricans who served in vietnam. the contributions of those brave soldiers are notable, the highest declaration of the medal of hoenor was awarded to staff sergeant felix m. falcone, specialist for heblghtor santiago cologne, captain rubio, private first class carlos losavo and captain hugo rosas . one of the most decorated service members of the vietnam war was jorge roberto.

he served five tours during the war. he participated in 200 combat missions. he earned 38 military deck rations including three bronze stars, five purple hearts, five air medals. to this day more than 10,000 sons and daughters of puerto rico continue to proudly serve in the united states armed forces following in the legacy of those who serve before and in the spirit of the borinqueneers. in just -- in fact, in just over two years ago, congress passed a resolution honoring them for their heroism. during operation desert shield and desert storm, 1,700 puerto rico national guardsmen were deployed. four brave puerto rican soldiers paid the ultimate sack face to the nation in the gulf war. captain manual manueva was the

first to die in operation desert shield. the far in afghanistan was fraught with as many as 800,000 puerto rican service members. we honor their sacrifices on memorial day. we pay tribute to their dedication, but we are here going to take the rights away from their sons and daughters to have a say over their future. to have the basic concept of what it is to live in a democracy, to have the consent of the governed. we're going to give that away. so i share this long history from the revolutionary war to today to right-to-work and afghanistan -- to iraq and afghanistan so that my colleagues understand that the people of puerto rico have been just as american as anyone from colorado or new jersey or

california or new york or mississippi. they have served on behalf of the nation, and they have shed blood on behalf of the nation, and many of them have committed the ultimate sacrifice on bast nation. we all on veterans day and memorial day rightfully honor those who have served and those who committed the ultimate sacrifice. but how is it that we dishonor their memories by taking away the consent of the governed? why can't we have a simple opportunity to show the rest of the world that we are not colonialists in our views, that we can have amendments to improve the opportunity for the people of puerto rico to feel that i've got some say about my future? these are tough times and we'll make tough decisions, but we'll come to it together as we always have, and we will have a say in it.

why can't we do that? what is the urgency, especially with retroactivity in the bill, what is this false urgency of july 1? i think july 1 is important, mind you. but it is a false urgency at the end of the day to suggest that you can't get it right and to in my view dishonor the sacrifices that so many puerto ricans made. we remember 20-year-old sergeant private -- excuse me, s.p.c. frances march reca none, a 31 native, ellen in a gonzalez, 33 years old who grew up in vieques and gave their lives in iraq and i'm afraid this bill doesn't honor them. so mark my words, if we don't

seize this opportunity to behave don't seize this opportunity to address this in a meaningful way, we will be right here next year picking up the pieces. but there will sadly be pieces because we have not done in this legislation what is necessary to help the people of puerto rico. you know, there's a reason that we call this country "the united states of america." whether it's the terrible flooding that's taking place in west virginia -- and i think of my colleagues, senator manchin and senator capito; i know what that can do after super-storm san divment i lived it in new jersey and our region. or when i've cast votes for wildfires in the west or flooding in the mississippi or what went on in katrina. there is a reason we call this country "the united states of america."

and there is a reason that we are united states citizens. the people of puerto rico are also united states citizens. and they need to be treated no less. they need to be treated as citizens, not subjects. so i would once again just to highlight the major problems with the legislation and what we can do about it -- five critical flaws that we can correct here in the senate. and undemocratic, neocolonialist control board, a majoritiate pointed by our republicans, none by the people of puerto rico, with the gallantry, the devotion

that they've had to our country. they should have representation on the board. not too much to scvmen ask. prioritization of hedge funds over retirees and essential services. nothing is wrong with that. lack of a clear path to restructuring. that's the only reason we're considering this legislation. the only reason we are even considering a bill is to provide a pathway to restructuring. there is no clear pathway. we need a supermajority vote of the board. the majority is supposed to rule, not super majority. and that means that when you require a super-majority, a minority of the seven-member board, three could stop the pathway to restructuring. a continued disparity in health care funding and tax credit thaz -- it doesn't even talk about that in this legislation. and, by the way, the way in which we grow prosperity, i'm

sure americans watching tonight's debate would say to themselves, wow, cut the minimum wage to $4.25 per hour. that's really going to make knee more prosperous, that's really going to help me sustain my family, it's a really going to be able to help me educate my kids, help me keep my home, be able to take care of mom or dad, it's really going to help me retire. i don't think they'd say that. but for the people ofppreciation that's good enough. and if they have to work long overtime, protection -- we don't have any reason to have that. i want to go through some of the specific language that this bill has and talk about the consequences of that language one more time, because my colleagues have an opportunity to change this and to be able to do it in such a way that we can get it right and do it well and in time -- and in time.

i have some is understanding that the house is considering a pro-form that session. there is no reason that we have reasonable amendments here supported by some of our republican colleagues hosmly and they could get this adopted in a pro forma session. or there are retroactive provisions of the law and that retroactivity could encompass any period of time that there is a gap here. it goes back retroactively to freeze actions going back to december of last year. so it would capture anything. the board would have, unfortunately, under this legislation broad sovereign -- sovereign is important. it means "unto itself" powers to effectively overrule decisions by puerto rico's legislate tiewrks governor, and other public authorities. and other public authorities. so what's the use of electing our leadership, what's the use of electing a governor and a

legislature and a state if we can have a control board that says, sorry, governor, sorry legislature, this is what the people of puerto rico may want. this is when you may represent. but, no, we know better. we know better through this control board. and -- which doesn't represent you, by the way. and in fact we will ultimately be able to overrule decisions that you make. which one of our states would be willing to accept such a -- if our states were ever in a precarious economic problem, that we would accept that as a control board? the oversight board can effectively nullify any new rules or policies adopted by puerto rico that did not conform to requirements specified in the bill. they can nullify -- nullify -- it means that the governor of puerto rico, proposes -- maybe the legislature comes up with legislative ideas. you send it to the president. in this case, they send it to the governor. he signs t guess what?

the oversight board can effectively nullify any proposed new laws or policies if they do not conform to requirements specified in the bill, a bill which says nearly 30 times in the control board's sole discretion, which is an enormous grant of power, an enormous grant of power, without defining what that means. but weigh know what the general use of "in your sole discretion." it means i get to decide, as i see fit. well, how could we accept such an enormous grant of power for such an important part of being able to nullify any law that the elected representatives of the people of puerto rico, the governor and its legislature, adopt? but that's exactly what this legislation that we're going to vote for -- and a vote for this is a vote to do exactly that. to give this oversight control board the power to nullify whatever the people of puerto

rico want to see by virtue of their elected representatives as the governor and legislature. i don't know who among us would cast such a vote if it meant that our states would have the will of the people nullified through its elected representatives. there's other provisions here as well. "the oversight board" -- i'm reading to you, by the way, from the house natural resources committee language, so this is not because i'm saying t it's not my interpretation of the bill. no, it is what the majority in the house natural resources committee put in their bill language, that at the end of the day says, "the oversight board may impose mandatory cuts on puerto rico's government and instrumentalities -- a power far beyond that exercised by the control board established for the district of columbia."

so they can make decisions that, you know what, you're spending too much on education. you can do with less teachers. you're spending too much even in the midst of the zika health crisis. you've put too much in that budget for health care. yes, there is a challenge of crime in puerto rico, particularly in its urban asian but you'll have -- urban areas, but you'll have to do with less police. tourism is important to you as a revenue source, but you're doing too much advertising to try to get people to puerto rico, especially in the midst of people's concern about the zika virus, but for you to say it's still safe to puerto rico, you are aide spending -- you're spending too much. the list is unlimited, unlimited. the oversight board can impose

mandatory cuts on puerto rico's governments and instrumentality, meaning not just the main government but all its subdivisions, a power far beyond that exercised by the control board established for the district of columbia. that is a pretty powerful board. so they pride themselves on saying, whoa, this power we gave? it's even greater than what the district of columbia has. it's like pounding on year chest. neither the governor nor the legislature may exercise any control, any control, supervision, oversight, or review over the oversight board or its activities. no power whatsoever. no power whatsoever.

this is one of the ones that is the most amazing to me, because a budget, as i've said several times here, is in essence the single most significant thing that we do as legislators. how do we provide for the common good? how do we provide for education, how do we provide for health care? how do we provide for retirement? what incentives do we give to business? what do we ultimately do to protect our country in the homeland? what do we do to defend our country abroad? how do we promote our foreign policy? autumn of these things and -- all of these things, and so much more. what tax credits do we give to families to be able to raise their families? what benefits so there can be homeownership? all of these are contained in the bucket. which we -- in the budget, which we provide by the consent of the

governed. we provide these -- they may not like some of ow decisions, but they get that chance to change it when it is time for elections. but here it doesn't matter, governor. doesn't matter, legislature. yes, you were voted by the people. but the oversight board shall determine in its sole discretion again an enormous grant of power whether each proposed budget is compliant with an applicable fiscal plan. and then i think we have a chart that speaks to the fact that if in fact there is a back and forth and there is a decision that the governors' budget is not sufficient, then at the end of the day, the oversight board can knack determination. so the oversight board can go back and forth with the governor. the governor as the representative of the puerto rican people is going to think about how much money do i need

to educate our people. how much money do i need for the health care, especially in the midst of the zika virus. how much money do i need to protect the citizens of puerto rico? how much money will we be able to provide for higher education so we have the human capital to fuel the economy of the commonwealth? but -- but he does that in conjunction with the legislature. he has the checks and balances that we do as an executive of the legislature. in this case it's the president. in their case it's the governor. and all of those considerations go back and forth. but at the end of the day if the oversight board doesn't like any of the budgets that have been sent to them, they can say, okay, we will deem -- we will, first of all, devise a budget. we will say that the governor has in essence approved this

budget, even though he didn't, and we will deem it to go into full force and effect. and by the way, if the revenue projections that we made, the oversight board, in that budget are wrong, we will be able to make mandatory cuts in the non-debt obligation -- non-debt expenditures, which basically means the money to pay the debts won't be touched. but everything else, even though they are the ones who created the budget, if they fall short they can arbitrarily and capriciously decide to make cuts in nondebt expenditure. with respect to the government, they can make appropriate reductions in non-debt expenditures. that means they're going to make decisions about health and welfare and public safety and

education and retirement and all the things critical for the lives of the 3.5 million citizens of puerto rico. so that clearly is an incredible grant of power to have mandatory budget cuts. the other thing is this legislation fast tracks developments on the island as it relates to energy. now, many of my colleagues have been so rigorous in their advocacy for making sure that we get our energy policy right, that we have the right balance, that we have the right laws to observe the right citing. let's see if we're going to have a new energy plant. what does that energy plant look like? is it gas-fired? is it coal-fired? is it some other fuel source?

where is it going to be located? what are the air quality emissions that are going to be acceptable and nonacceptable? if the government of puerto rico on the island that knows this best establishes certain standards, those standards can largely be waived by the control board in a effort to site locations where in fact they think it's going to be good for the energy needs of puerto rico, but it may not be good for the environment. why would we delegate on such critical issues that we care about on the environment, on education, on the health and well-being of our citizens? why would we never be willing to delegate that ourselves as a senate and a congress to any other entity, make those decisions ourselves but we would

never delegate it to a control board elected by any of us or our people who we represent. but we're willing to do that with respect to the territorial governments of puerto rico and make those decisions. why would we be willing to go ahead -l and at a time that this congress is seeking, at least i know the democrats are seeking to raise the minimum wage, to raise the standard of living for all americans, to see higher incomes because many americans feel that regardless of all these macroeconomic numbers, i can tell people all the time that the g.d.p. has grown, that we have the lowest rate of unemployment, that we have seen x number of consecutive years, i think six or seven of private-sector job growth, of a whole host of economic indicators that would say, wow, things are moving in the right direction. but in the average life of many

americans, they feel their wages are stagnant. i think that has given great rise to the unrest that exists in our national politics. because you can tell people that look at all these macroeconomic numbers. they say, yeah, but in my life my wages are stagnant. i haven't seen growth in my wages, in my income. i have seen a growth in my challenges in educating my kid and making sure they don't graduate under a mountain of debt, in preparing for retirement which i'm putting off because there is no way i can retire in this period of time, in taking care of a loved one who increasingly families take care of older members of their family. on a whole host of issues. but the people of puerto rico will ultimately have less of a minimum wage for a young part of the population, and they will have less in terms of overtime protection. that's not a way. why would we, the party that wants to see raising and rising

wages and overtime protections, why would we say to the people of puerto rico, you deserve less? why would we say as guardians of the environment who want to see a better environmental quality for all of our citizens, why would we say to the people of puerto rico they deserve less? why would we be some of the strongest advocates of democracy here at home in our own elections and in the world and say to the people of puerto rico, they deserve less? why do we work so hard to honor the men and women who serve our country in uniform and we want to see their, the best health care for them, which they deserve, we want to see them taken care of if they have a disability, we want to take care of their survivors if they ultimately commit the ultimate sacrifice but for the people of puerto rico, they don't get the

same democratic rights. they don't get the same respect. they're citizens. they're citizens. so i don't want to see puerto rico's natural wonders be subject on the auction block because an uncontrolled board says you need to sell that. i don't want to see an oversight board that doesn't represent the people of puerto rico ultimately to be able to say to its governor this is what you're going to have to do if you want to get access to restructuring if that determination is really arbitrary and capricious. because the standards here are not clearly defined and the whole reason to get access to restructuring is the reason for this bill. and without it, without that clear access and with a minority

representation, this bill is so undemocratic in so many ways. it's undemocratic in the way that it imposes upon the people of puerto rico a board that will control their destiny without any say in it, without any representation in it, with a control board that can determine and dictate what its future will be in fiscal policy, in cuts to expenditures, how it will be able to deal with citing environmental issues, how it will be able to create the pressure because this control board is the gatekeeper to restructuring, so it can say sorry, you know, you really should use those provisions that the congress gave you to lower the minimum wage, to provide for exemptions from overtime protections because that's really the pathway to prosperity in all these respects this bill is so undemocratic, and yet it's

further exacerbated by the fact that we have an undemocratic process here. so i hope that my colleagues will -- i understand sometimes when the deck is stacked against you, i've been long -- around long enough in the legislative process in the house and the senate to understand those moments. but there are moments you have to stand in the way. i believe that while the deck may be stacked, it can be reshuffled and it can be reshuffled by voting against cloture so that we can have -- not to kill this bill but to improve it, to make it more democratic, to have it live within the ideals that we all share, republican and democrat alike, about what representative democracy is all about. about jeffersonian principles, about the founders with the consent of the government. puerto ricans have no less right to be part of the consent of the governed and to be governed by

their consent. so we can make this better. now if a majority of the senate, if 60 members of the senate vote for cloture, there is one other procedure that i will pursue after cloture which would still allow us the opportunity for amendment to be offered. and while i would like to see a process that would allow us to consider a series of amendments, i would certainly seek to embody the major elements of what i think is wrong with the bill in that amendment and to seek that opportunity. and i would hope in the first and foremost instance that we don't have cloture and that voting against cloture means voting for democracy. it means voting for an opportunity. it respects the will of the citizens of puerto rico, the ones i read collectively, former governors, present members of the congress, of the puerto

rican congress and legislature, of civil society, of all those elements that actually believe that they deserve a better day, treated better by the united states senate, treated better by the congress, treated better by their country. and that gives us an opportunity to do that, and we can do it posthaste. i'm ready to stay as long as it's necessary to do because i must be honest with you, i know we all want to rush off to independence day, but this isn't independence for the people of puerto rico. this is how we treat subjects, not citizens. so i'm willing to stay for whatever necessary to work on amendments to get this process resolved so that we can have the right bill at the end of the day. now if i fail convincing enough of my colleagues to vote against cloture, then i do hope that they will join me in a procedural move that would allow me to offer an amendment.

i'll explain that tomorrow when i come to the floor, to allow me to do that. and i would hope that at that moment at least we would have the option of voting on an amendment where we can make this bill better, less colonial, more democratic, more respectful of the rights of the citizens of puerto rico, so that in fact we can honor their fealty, their loyalty, what macarthur said about them in their service to our country, and be seen throughout the world for the values that we want everybody else, we tell be everybody else to promote -- democracy and human rights. we need to govern by example and the way you govern by example is making sure that you have a democratic process and a democratic piece of

legislation -- small "d" -- that allows the people of puerto rico to have their say. i see my colleague, the distinguished ranking member of the natural resources committee, is here. i'm happy to recognize my colleague from washington state. i yield for a question. ms. cantwell: mr. president, i see my colleague from new jersey has been out here for several hours talking about this very important issue that, frankly, deserves a lot more discussion in the united states senate. it's an issue of great importance to the people of puerto rico, a territory within the united states. and it certainly is an important issue to the people of the united states of america, whether they understand that or not, because the success of puerto rico financially also is tied to how well, you know, the united states as a partner with this territory continues to be successful as well.

so everybody thinks of this situation with greece and the european union. well, you should be thinking about the situation with puerto rico and the united states of america. because if it doesn't go well for puerto rico, i guarantee you it's not going to go well for the united states of america. so my colleague has been here on the floor now for hours trying to talk about the structure of what would be a fair way to enter into a reorganization of the debt. and i just thank him for coming out here and doing this. i think it was probably seven-plus months ago we had one of the first hearings on this issue to really try to get people to focus their attention on a territory and what kind of authority the territory has today and what kind of structure should we honor as they are in this financial crisis. so i just wanted to put up a couple of charts. i'm going to have to ask that we turn it a little differently here so that my colleague can ask a question and he can actually see it.

i tried to position myself here on the floor so you might be able to join in this question. but i know you've had many charts here about the structure but i just wanted to make sure that i'm thing about this in the right way because part of the issue with the debt crisis is my understanding is that, you know, they have 45% of the country living in poverty, including 58% children, 12% unemployment rate, nearly double that of our highest state, sales tax 11.5%. people say okay, let's have -- stop government spending. well, we've done that. that part is being achieved, but the per capita income is almost half of the poor estate in the innocence, so i don't think anybody has any idea when they look at this debt issue and they think okay, well, this is where we're going to get money, this is a very difficult situation. part of the discussion we're

going to have next and that's what my colleagues i hope understand is that whatever happens tomorrow, this issue is not going away. the financial stability of puerto rico is going to be a question mark for a long time, and we're going to have to figure out how a country that has 45% of the population living in poverty and these rates of unemployment, how we're going to put them back on the right path which is the fundamental question here, how do you get back on the right path. i know probably out of a hundred members of the united states senate, there would probably be a hundred opinions about whether you do the earned income tax credit, go back to tax breaks for manufacturers, whatever the ideas are, but we're not even at that stage. we're just at the financial crisis stage. and the fundamental question is how do you get out of financial crisis when the economy of the country is in this hard of a spot. so as my colleague, mr. president, from new jersey, is he aware of these numbers and these statistics?

mr. menendez: i appreciate the senator raising the numbers and statistics. unfortunately, i am aware of them. and they dramatize why what we do here is so critically important for the 3.5 million united states citizens who call puerto rico home when per capita income is almost half of the poor estate, when nearly 50% of the population lives in poverty, including 58% of children. that's why i worry when the control board can have the decisions to make mandatory cuts because how do you help those children? how do you help create rising income? how do you ultimately in a -- in the commonwealth of puerto rico that has double the sales tax to 11.5% to get income and at the same time has the lowest spending levels since 2005 as you rightly point out. with public employment down by

20%, they've made cuts so it's not that they're not being responsible towards making cuts, but a control board that can make even greater cuts without any say as to how it happens, where it happens, and what not is undemocrattic. so i agree. ms. cantwell: i wonder between my colleague from new jersey is aware of this point which i find the most interesting trend to understand because he's been talking about this control board and all the power they're going to have. do you understand this house bill, the members of that control board won't be paid but the measure allows them to accept, use and dispose of gifts, requests, devices of services and property both real and personal for purposes of aiding and facilitating their work so literally the board can accept gifts? what kind of gifts is this board -- mr. menendez: is a real concern. it is one of the many ill defined parts of the -- il-defined parts of the legislation and especially when you have seven unelected members ultimately having the fate of

3.5 million people in their hands, you worry about what are the provisions that the bill seems to allow them to be able to make, those type of choices and those -- and accept those types of potential gifts in a way that can ultimately lead them to the wrong decisions. so, yes, i am concerned about that. ms. cantwell: as i brought it up, this is a provision that i'm just getting familiar with and obviously very concerned about it, and through the chair would say that i'm very concerned about the fact that now we're going to turn over all this authority to people who can accept gifts. i don't even know what that means and from who as a board and who's going to oversee that because they're going to be appointed in a process i believe that would probably be challenged as unconstitutional which also will take the bill to a whole other level of legal uncertainty. but i wanted to go over this point and ask you about this, because my understanding is that it's -- there are about 72 --