except compared to every other alternative. the caller wants congress to do a better job and i think all of us do. host: what do think about the time line for this legislation? guest: in the senate, anything can be ground to a halt by just 41 members and it is hard to see whether things will go forward on an orderly basis or not. the country wants to see reforms in these areas. they want consumer protection. they want derivatives control. they want higher capital requirements. and they do not want to see tax payer money put at risk to bail out private interests, whether those be shareholders or creditors. and if those basic views of the american people cannot be translated into legislation,

that our democracy is not working hos. host: congressman brad sherman of the financial services committee. we will take you now to the house of representatives for live coverage of today's session. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010] . . holy name, o lord, for you alone are holy. all nations shall come and worship in your presence. your mighty deeds are clearly seen both now and forever. amen. the speaker pro tempore: the chair has examined the journal of the last day's proceedings and announces to the house his approval thereof. pursuant to clause 1 of rule 1 the journal stands approved. the pledge of allegiance will be led by the gentlewoman from florida, congresswoman kosmas. ms. kosmas: i pledge allegiance

to the flag of the united states of america and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. the speaker pro tempore: the chair will entertain up to five requests for one-minute speeches on each side of the aisle. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from florida rise? ms. kosmas: to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. ms. kosmas: it is my distinct honor and privilege to recognize on the floor of the united states house of representatives dr. pamela carbonier for her extensive community spirit and volunteerism. she has dedicated her life's work to helping those in need with a particular focus on women and children. she's the co-founder and member of the community outreach to prevent eating disorders, medical supervisor for victims of assault, medical supervisor

for the rape crisis county and board and coalition member for healthy start. she also serves as the chair of daytona state college women's advocacy board. she practices at halifax ob-gyn associate in daytona beach, florida and resides with her husband, frank, and three children, sarah, katie and charly. her contributions to halifax health and their board of directors, which is the governing body of the largest health care provider in the area, are numerous, generous and invaluable. today, i'd like to thank her for her tireless work and dedication to the health, well-being, safety and care, not only of her patients but also to the countless citizens who are affected by her volunteerism and her work in the community. she is recognized as an accomplished and outstanding community leader for the greater halifax region. congratulations, doctor. the speaker pro tempore: the time has expired. for what purpose does the

gentleman from pennsylvania rise? >> to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. pitts: this week i received a letter from a friend who works for a medical device company who is looking to expand the company by attracting an angel investors. who are they? they are wealthy individuals who invest in companies with promise. they are not speculators, they are not brokers, they are individuals with vision who seek out entrepreneurs with creative ideas. new regulations proposed in the senate financial reform bill would require a 120-day waiting period for startup seeking funds and add more restrictions on the minimum assets or income needed to become an angel investor. angel investing is not what brought down our economy. in fact, startups funded by such investments provided 10% of all new jobs even though they count for 1%. starbucks, costco, facebook, google, the list of successful angel companies is long. in my friend's case, if his company is not able to attract new investment, they are unable

to hire new workers or invest equipment. we should not cut short job growth with excessive regulations. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania rise? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. altmire: mr. speaker, yesterday i introduced two bills to invent advise small mod lahr re-- incentivize small mod ue lahr reactors. -- mobular reactors. they provide additional safety benefits. the nuclear power 2021 act is modeled for small reactors after the successful nuclear power 2010 program. and the nuclear energy research initiative improvement act requires the doe doe to develop a -- the department of energy to develop a license for reactors, including small

reactors. i introduced these pieces of legislation working in concert with commers ranking member joe barton -- energy and commerce ranking member joe barton and many other members. i ask my colleagues to help bring these small reactors to the market. with that i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman rise? >> i ask the distinguished speaker pro tempore for -- to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> last month the greek government lost its a.a.a. credit rating. greece will have to pay $10 billion in loans that it does not have the money to cover. the market will only lend now at a 24% interest rate. estimates are that an i.m.f. greek bailout will cost $100 billion. mr. kirk: on monday, portugal lost its a.a.a. rating and this news triggered a sudden loss in

its own stock market. the spanish problem is five times the size of the greek problem. italy and ireland may be next. we may soon face a sovereign debt crisis. c.r.s. reports that the i.m.f. has $268 billion to lend, an amount that could quickly be exceeded by a european debt crisis. the i.m.f. may not have the resources to handle this crisis and the fed and the u.s. taxpayer may be called on to bail out these irresponsible governments. few in congress even know of this danger. to our economy and to our family. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from california rise? >> mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. baca: i stand this morning in solidarity for all those who respect fairness and justice in opposition to the arizona state bill, 1070. this is unconstitutional law

that is inspired by racism and will lead to racial profiling of hispanics and people of color. we must do all we can to stop this law. that's why i'm calling for an economic boycott of arizona. i also encourage all those to oppose this kind of hate and to wear the red, blue and yellow bracelet to express opposition to this bill. we must all remember that immigration is not a latino issue, it's an american issue. this misguided law is another reason why america needs comprehensive immigration reform to fix our broken system. i call my colleagues, the republicans, to have courage and to work with us on immigration reform. the american people need this reform. we cannot do this alone. again, i say to the republicans, step up to the plate and together let us pass real comprehensive reform. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from south carolina rise? mr. wilson: mr. speaker, i ask permission to address the house

for one minute and to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. wilson: mr. speaker, as a trusted ally, israel and the united states has ensteroid a striegic part -- enjoyed a strategic partnership. it has strengthened over the last 62 years and it's critical that america continues to promote this friendship. fostering this important relationship means beginning the process of relocating the u.s. embassy in israel to jerusalem and celebrating reunification. that is why i'm introducing legislation today with over 20 co-sponsors to commemorates the 40-year anniversary of the reunification of the embassy in israel. in my visits to israel, i've been impressed withth dynamic multicultural citizens inspired by prime minister benjamin netanyahu. america must ensure that jerusalem, led by the mayor, continues to be at its shrine open to all cultures. also, congratulations to

patricia as she becomes a u.s. citizen this morning. in conclusion, god bless our troops and we will never forget september 11 and the global war on terrorism. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from illinois rise? >> to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. >> thank you so much. well, today we are going to have puerto rico as the 51st state bill. it's designed to get one thing and one thing only and that is to have the people of puerto rico accept statehood for themselves. seems to me when i checked the history books in 1967, they said no. 1993, can puerto rico have it, they said no. millions of people tried to get to tchun, tried to get to america. we have four million american citizens and we said no. mr. gutierrez: why do we have to have this artificially crafted bill which has a predetermined objective

statehood for puerto rico? it's wrong. we should not impose statehood or any other alternative on any people, especially when they said no, no, no. and just so we get it clear, it's spelled the same in english as in spanish, n-o, no, no. thank you so much, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas rise? mr. smith: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. smith: mr. speaker, during the presidential campaign, then senator obama made a firm pledge that, quote, no family making less than $250,000 a year will see any form of tax increase, end quote. the nonpartisan fact checkers of politifact said they broke

that promise. but the american people have yaund in response. in comparison, when george h.w. bush had his read my lips, no new taxes pledge, they heavily criticized him. "the new york times" said president bush's six words of his presidency helped -- "the l.a. times" said it ended the g.o.p. strangle hold on tax policy. the national media should hold president obama to the same standard, not give him a free pass. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from new york rise? >> mr. speaker, unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. hall: thank you, mr. speaker. we must reform wall street and end the risky practices that have caused millions of americans to lose their jobs, their homes and life savings. the house passed a financial

reform bill that will protect consumers and prevent the irresponsible behaviors and practices that caused the financial crisis. this is the 21st century. it's the government's responsibility to regulate product that are dangerous, to prevent the sale of cars with faulty brakes. they regulate the auto industry. to prevent the sale of toys containing lead, we have a consumer product safety commission. complex financial products are no different. as this week's hearings have shown. which is why we must have commonsense financial regulations to protect consumers. h.r. 4173, which we already passed from the house, reforms wall street while helping main street. i urge the senate to pass this critical bill, and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas rise? mr. poe: i ask permission to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. poe: mr. speaker, america's a nation founded on the rule of

law and not the rule of men. that's why we have a constitution and not a king. law must apply to everybody and it must apply equally, regardless of race, color or creed. people don't get to pick and choose which laws are enforced. they don't get to decide which laws they like and which ones they don't. that would cause chaos. federal law requires people to sign the guest book when they enter our country. otherwise they're here illegally. there's a lot of fear mongering, political hype and misinformation about the state of arizona trying to legally protect itself from illegal entry into its state. arizona acts because washington is blissfully silent and sleeps. rather than join this rant, the white house should grant the request of border governors and send the national guard to the border to enforce the rule of law. after all, that is the government's job. and that's just the way it is. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back.

for what purpose does the gentleman from colorado rise? mr. polis: mr. speaker, by the direction of the committee on rules, i call up house resolution 1305 and ask for its immediate consideration. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the resolution. the clerk: house calendar number 187, house resolution 1305. resolved, that at any time after the adoption of this resolution the speaker may, pursuant to clause 2-b of rule 18, declare the house resolved into the committee of the whole house on the state of the union for consideration of the bill h.r. 2499, to provide for a federally sanctioned self-determination process for the people of puerto rico. the first reading of the bill shall be dispensed with. all points of order against consideration of the bill are waived except those arising under clause 9 or 10 of rule 21. general debate shall be confined to the bill and shall not exceed one hour and 30 minutes, with one hour equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the committee on natural resources and 30 minutes controlled by representative velazquez of new

york or her designee. after general debate the bill shall be considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. it shall be in order to consider as an original bill for the purpose of amendment under the five-minute rule the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the committee on natural resources now printed in the bill. the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be considered as read. all points of order against the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute are waived except those arising under clause 10 of rule 21. notwithstanding clause 11 of rule 18, no amendment to the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be in order except those printed in the report of the committee on rules accompanying this resolution. each such amendment may be offered only in the order printed in the report, may be offered only by a member designated in the report, shall be considered as read, shall be debatable for the time specified in the report equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent, shall not be subject to

amendment, and shall not be subject to a demand for division of the question. all points of order against such amendments are waived except those arising under clause 9 or 10 of rule 21. at the conclusion of consideration of the bill for amendment the committee shall rise and report the bill to the house with such amendments as may have been adopted. the previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to final passage without intervening motion except one motion to recommit with or without instructions. . section 2, the chair may entertain a motion that the committee rise only if offered by the chair of the committee on natural resources or his designee. the chair may not entertain a motion to strike out the enacting words of the bill as described in laws 9 of rule 18. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from colorado is recognized for one hour. mr. polis: for the purposes of debate only, i yield the customary -- for the purposes of

debate only i yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from florida, mr. diaz-balart. all time during consideration of the rule is for debate only. i yield myself such time as i may consume. i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks on house resolution 1305. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. the gentleman is recognized. mr. polis: mr. speaker, house resolution 1305 provides for consideration of h.r. 2499, the puerto rico democracy act of 2009, under a structured rule. the rule provides one hour and 30 minutes of general debate with one hour equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority members of the committee on natural resources and 30 minutes controlled by representative velazquez of new york. the rule makes in order those amendments printed in the report of the committee on rules. the amendments made in order may be offered only in the order printed in the rules committee report, may be offered only by a member designated in the report, shall be considered as read, shall be debatable for the time specified in the report, equally divided and controlled by the

proponent and an opponent, shall not be subject to amendment, and shall not be subject to demand for division of the question. finally, the rule provides one motion to recommit with or without instructions. the rule is a fair rule. there were 35 amendments submitted for this bill. 13 of which were found to be nongermane. of the remaining amendments, eight are made in order under this rule. three authored by republicans. and five offered by democrats. mr. speaker, i rise today in support of house resolution 2499, the puerto rico democracy act. i'd like to thank speaker pelosi who has been an unrelenting champion of this important issue and leader hoyer whose strong support of this bill helped bring the legislation to the floor. i also want to recognize resident commissioner pierluisi. this bill is based on the most fundamental democratic principle, the right of self-determination.

puerto rico has been as you us territory for over 100 years. yet during that time congress has never bothered to determine whether puerto ricans are actually satisfied with the status quo. h.r. 24999 -- 2499 aims to fix that by offering fellow citizens this basic right. puerto ricans have been american citizens since 1917. during that time they have contributed to our country's culture and economy while also serving proudly in the armed forces. in fact puerto rico has historically ranked alongside the top five states in per capita military service in defense of our nation. yet in spite of the contributions puerto ricans have made to this country, they do not receive all the benefits that are due to them as american citizens. their representative in congress is a resident commissioner who works tirelessly for their interests yet has limited voting rights instead of self-congresspeople with full voting rights that puerto ricans deserve. while they pay many taxes, federal programs treat puerto

rico less than equally when compared to the 50 states. as i mentioned before, while they have courageously served in the military and at a higher rate than many other states, they do not yet have the right to vote for the president of the united states, the commander in chief. it's imperative that congress act to right these wrongs which puerto ricans have had to live through for so long. the puerto rico democracy act would do that. if enacted, this bill would authorize a plebiscite process which would offer the puerto rican as chance to vote on the future of their island. the pleb side would ask the un-- plebiscite would ask the unambiguous question are you satisfied with the status quo? if they vote yes, then the government would hold pleb scythes every eight years to ensure voters have the opportunity to express themselves democratically over time. if a majority vote is against the status quo, if it decides they are tired of their being treated as second-class

citizens, the plebiscite will ask them to choose between nonterritorial status options -- indpent, statehood, and free association. this pleb scythe -- plebiscite represents the straightforward determination of puerto ricans to finally express their wishes to congress and i for one will support the express wishes of the puerto rican people as a member of congress representing colorado. like any important piece of legislation, this bill has some critics. you'll hear from them today. opponents claim the bill favors statehood and they take issue with how the plebiscite has been constructed. it's imperative our fellow americans be give the opportunity to express whether or not they im-- approve of their status quo. i urge and encourage my colleagues to support the rule. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time.

for what purpose does the gentleman from florida rise? mr. diaz-balart: i'd like to first of all thank my friend the gentleman from colorado, mr. polis, for the time. i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. diaz-balart: the underlying legislation, h.r. 2499, the puerto rico democracy act of 2009, is a fair and appropriate way for the people of puerto rico to express themselves at the ballot box regarding the critical issue of their permanent status. the legislation would allow a plebiscite whereby the people of puerto rico will decide whether to maintain their current political status or have a different status. if a majority favors a different status, the government of puerto rico would be authorized to conduct a second plebiscite

among three nonterritorial status options. recognized under united states and international law. independence, united states statehood, or sovereignty in association with the united states. they would obviously have to be worked out between sovereign puerto rico and sovereign united states. the legislation does not dictate an outcome for the people of puerto rico. congress will not take sides by voting for this legislation. congress will only be asking the puerto rican people to vote on the issue of their permanent status. this process is absolutely respectful of the puerto rican people's right to decide their

future status. i wish to commend resident commissioner ped row pierluisi -- pedro pierluisi and my dear friend and former colleague, the governor, fortuno, for extraordinary leadership on this issue. both of them have earned the admiration of both sides of the aisle in the united states congress and deserve commendation for their leadership. mr. speaker, i understand that some members of congress have concerns that the results of the election would be automatically implemented. i was discussing with my colleague, ms. ros-lehtinen here, some faulthood --

falsehoods, falsehoods being said on radio and other media that the vote today is one that would set up a process that would automatically be implemented. that is not the case. the results of the plebiscites are nonbinding on congress. so in order for the results to be put into effect, whatever the results of the referendum would be, congress would need to debate again and again pass legislation. in other words, new legislation. my position with regard to the status of puerto rico is that the people of puerto rico have the right to decide the political and legal status of their wonderful island through a

fair, neutral, as well as federally recognized plebiscite. i have ultimate admiration for the people of puerto rico. they are a wonderful people. if the people of puerto rico ultimately vote to request admission to the united states of america as a state of the american union, there will be no stronger defender of their right to be the 51st american state than me. if they vote to remain in their current status, there will be no stronger defender of their decision than me. and if they vote for independence, there will be no stronger defender of their

decision than me. this legislation is a self-determination vehicle and i support self-determination. i support democracy everywhere. the puerto rican people should be able to decide their permanent status themselves. the house last addressed this issue in 1998. i remember, mr. speaker, that i had the honor of chairing that debate. in the house. on h.r. 856 the united states-puerto rico political status act. after much leadership and advocacy by member resident commissioner was brought to the floor under a republican majority. i was a member of the rules committee at that time and i'm

proud to say, our majority, republican majority, allowed that bill to proceed under an open rule, a rule that allows members from both parties to have their amendments to the legislation debated on the house floor without having to get approval from the rules committee. this is an important issue. and if there's legislation, if there's ever been legislation that deserves an open debate process, it's this legislation. i remind the house of the process that we used when we were the majority because today the current majority has decided to restrict debate on this issue. on this very same issue that we allowed an open debate process on in 1998. and not only on this legislation, but on every piece of legislation brought before

this congress. this majority has not allowed any open rules, any open debate process in over 2 1/2 years. since they regained the majority, they have allowed only one open rule apart from appropriations bills, and even on appropriations bills they have restricted debate. . now, i disagree with some of the amendments that were presented before the rules committee yesterday, and if by chance the majority would have allowed their consideration by the full congress i would have voted against those amendments. i may have even debated against those amendments, but just because i disagree with amendments that were brought before the rules committee asking the rules committee to

allow consideration by the full house does not mean that i believe that those members of the house do not deserve the right to be heard. i believe the house should be allowed to work its will. now, unlike the current majority, i believe in open debate. let amendments stand or fall on their merits. just about every week i have the honor to come to the floor of this house to help manage rules debates on behalf of my party, and pretty much every time i come to the floor i criticize the current majority for systematically blocking open debate with ruthless efficiency on every bill we consider. even on appropriations bills, which have long been brought to the floor under a tradition of

open rules, they have blocked debate. today, they could have easily upheld the traditions set by the republican majority to allow an open debate on the extremely important issue of puerto rico's political status. yet, the current majority, they can't bare to do something so abhorrent to them, to permit an open debate process. they cling, mr. speaker, they cling to restricting debate, restricting debate. they have done so again today. now, that doesn't negate the historic nature of what the congress of the united states is doing today. today, whatever the outcome of this legislation, congress will send its greeting, its support

and admiration to the people of puerto rico. i reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the chair will receive a message. the messenger: mr. speaker, a message from the senate. the secretary: mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: madam secretary. the secretary: i have been directed to inform the house that the snass has passed h.r. 5147, a cite known as the airport and airway extension act of 2010. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from colorado is recognized. mr. poe: mr. speaker, i -- mr. polis: mr. speaker, i yield 2 1/2 minutes to the gentleman from puerto rico, the sponsor of the bill, mr. pierluisi. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from puerto rico is recognized for 2 1/2 minutes.

mr. pierluisi: thank you, congressman polis, and thank you for your explanation as to why h.r. 2499, the puerto rico democracy act, is a fair bill and necessary bill and a bill that is long overdue. i'm also thankful for the kind words given by the gentleman from florida, congressman diaz-balart, and for his support for h.r. 2499. i'm so grateful to you and to the hundreds of my other colleagues on both sides of the aisle who support h.r. 2499. i cannot cast a vote this afternoon, but please know that your vote will give voice to the aspirations of four million men, women and children from puerto rico who i'm honored to represent. i'm also grateful for the support of diverse

organizations, such as lulac, the nation's oldest hispanic organization, the young democrats of america and the puerto rico democratic party. i want to say a special thank you to majority leader steny hoyer. the majority leader has been a champion without peer for the u.s. citizens of puerto rico. my constituents and i owe him a debt of gratitude that no words, however sincerely honored, can ever repay. mr. speaker, this has not been easy, but i am a firm believer that nothing truly worth doing ever is. the fundamental justice of our cause to enable a fair and meaningful self-determination process for the people of puerto rico after more than 110 years of inaction is beyond question. patience is a virtue but my

people have been patient enough. h.r. 2499 is a simple bill designed to address a long -standing problem. since joining the american family at the end of the 19th century, they have enriched this nation for many years. they have fought proudly alongside their fellow citizens of the states to protect freedom and democracy around the world. many have given their lives in defense of these values. many more have borne the scars of the service to this country. mr. polis: i yield 30 seconds. mr. pierluisi: notwithstanding their contributions, my people have never expressed their views in a fair process authorized by congress as to whether puerto rico should remain a u.s. territory or seek a nonterritorial status. if the majority of the voters express a desire for a

nonterritorial status, the bill would authorize the government of puerto rico to conduct a second stage among the three alternatives, independence, free association and statehood. the bill before us would for the first time provide the people of puerto rico with the opportunity to be heard on the fundamental question of their political destiny. this bill does not favor -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. polis: i yield an additional 30 seconds. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized has 30 second. mr. pierluisi: thank you. this bill does not favor or exclude any status options and claims to the country without merit. in the 21st century. shouldn't this congress at least ask the people of puerto rico, the four million citizens living in puerto rico, whether they want to continue to be treated differently, different their -- than their fellow citizens in the united states? that is the question posed by h.r. 2499. i ask for your support. i yield back the balance of my

time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the chair lays before the house an enrolled bill. the clerk: h.r. 5147, an act to amend the internal revenue code of 1986 to extend the funding and expenditure authority of the airport and airway trust fund, to amend title 49, united states code, to extend authorizations for the airport improvement program and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from florida is recognized. mr. diaz-balart: mr. speaker, it's my privilege to yield three minutes to my dear friend and colleague from florida, ms. ros-lehtinen. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from florida is recognized for three minutes. ms. ros-lehtinen: thank you so much, mr. speaker. and i'd like to thank my dear friend and colleague, congressman lincoln diaz-balart, for yielding me the time. i rise in strong support of the underlying legislation, the puerto rico democracy act. and i commend the bill's author, we just heard from him, resident commissioner pedro

pierluisi, for bringing this important resolution to the floor this morning. and i would be remiss if i did not also recognize the efforts of our former colleague, luis fortuno, now the governor of puerto rico. with a population of nearly four million people, the people of port reek deserve the opportunity to -- puerto rico deserve the opportunity to decide their faith. they have been under the u.s. flag for 111 years, and its residents have been u.s. citizens for more than 90 years. since the extension of u.s. citizenship to its residents in 1917, puerto rico has maintained one of the highest per capita rates of participation in the u.s. armed forces. puerto ricans have fought and have died in every armed conflict since the first world war. and yet while puerto ricans

have fought valiantly for self-determination overseas, they have never been given the opportunity to participate in a federally sanctioned vote to determine puerto rico's political status. that is until today. h.r. 2499 authorizes the government of puerto rico to conduct an initial plet site. in this process eligible voters will be asked whether they wish to maintain the current political status or to have a different status. the rational for this is simple. in accordance with the american principle of government by consent, congress should seek the meaningful consent of puerto rico with the political status that they've had for over 110 years. the citizens of puerto rico have the right to determine their political future. this bill does not exclude any viable status option, nor does

it provide for a change in status to be automatically implemented. under the initial bill, eligible voters will be asked whether they want to maintain the current status or have a different status. the government of puerto rico will be authorized to ask voters this question again in eight years. if a majority of voters cast ballot in favor of a different political status, then the government of puerto rico would be authorized to hold a second plebiscite on the three status options, independence, statehood and free association. after 111 years under the u.s. flag, our founding principles dictate that the people of puerto rico be allowed to determine -- if i could have an additional -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman is recognized. ms. ros-lehtinen: thank you, mr. speaker. i thank the gentleman. after 111 years under the u.s. flag, our founding principles

dictate that the people of puerto rico be allowed to determine their political future in a fair and orderly vote sponsored by the federal government. and it is for those reasons, mr. speaker, that i urge my colleagues to vote yes on h.r. 2499, the puerto rico democracy act, and i thank the gentleman for the time. thank you. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman yields back the balance of her time. the gentleman from colorado is recognized. mr. polis: mr. speaker, i yield five minutes to the gentleman from illinois and the author of two of the amendments that are -- made in order under this rule, mr. gutierrez. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from illinois is recognized for five minutes. mr. gutierrez: thank you so much. and i thank the gentleman from colorado for allowing me the opportunity. first of all, i really think that if you're going to talk about democracy, that if you're going to talk about freedom, that if you're going to talk about self-determination, then you have to deal with the process.

and this process is just patently unfair. i thank the majority for two amendments. that was nice. but isn't it interesting that as a democrat, 100% democrat, one that has been consistently a senior democrat, that when i came down here in 1998 when it was gingrich's bill, when the author was young, when it was a republican sponsored bill and i went before the rules committee i had seven amendments ruled in order. each amendment was given 30 minutes. that's 210 minutes of debate time. and now when my party, the party that says they're fulfilling this legislation to foment, to foster, to encourage and to engage the people of

puerto rico in a democratic process, the democratic majority has decided to give me two amendments, and then 10 minutes each. well, you do the math, that's 10:1. 10 times more. and that's on my side. i think it's kind of sad. there's a wonderful ceremony, i would have liked to have been at that ceremony. here's a woman who gave everything for freedom, for civil rights, and this congress couldn't wait until after the funeral arrangements were completed to begin this debate? you don't want people on this house floor to hear this debate. you don't want a full, compelling, articulate debate on this issue. you want this issue done today. you want it done quickly. you want it done swiftly. i am telling you this is going to blow up just like the goldman sachs derivatives blowup that don't have any

transparency. and then everybody will say, what, that happened? we don't know what room that was put together in. we don't know who put it together. well, we are going to make a case today. a case today that this bill is just not what it pretends to be. it is a bill. i mean, listen to yourselves. you say, well, we got to stop the current system. i agree. . i don't like the current colonial system of puerto rico, either. i think it's a bad system, too. i would like to make sure it ends in puerto rico. but you want to know something? i want to do it with respect to the people of puerto rico? i want to make sure that as we engage in this process -- i want to read something to you. here's what it says. it says that the people of puerto rico will be able to vote for statehood, but guess what? we don't define what statehood means. i think statehood, they should continue to have their olympic team.

i think statehood should continue to speak spanish and be the predominant language, which it is today. under statehood. i think that's fine. we don't get to debate it or discuss it. i think there are many issues that we should look at, but we are not going to define statehood, because you know what? the proponents don't want a definition. independent? we don't need to define that, either. what's the one alternative that we define? the current status. you know that's like -- can you imagine barack obama going to john mccain and say would you set my platform for me so when we run against each other i have to articulate what you have said my platform is? that's really what's happening here today. moreover, this is what's going to happen today. the people of puerto rico are going to be engaged in the process in which, you know, one of the attorneys is going to be

sovereignty in association with the united states. let me repeat that. sovereignty in association with the united states. people of america call in if you know what that means. call in right now if you figured it out. i'm sure there's political scientists all over the country, you know what? it's not -- it's ok if we don't understand it. the congressional research service, that's what they are paid for, they got smart people there. you know what they said? it's ambiguous at best. and this is going to be a congressionally sanctioned and one of the alternatives our congressional research service says they don't even have an explanation for? let's make sure -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. gutierrez: vote no. thank you so much. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for an additional 30 seconds. mr. gutierrez: look, we had a debate the last time. if statehood wins, i'll support

it. i'm going to support it. but it's got to win in a fair way. it's got to win in a fair way. you know what? the people of puerto rico since 1967, 1993, 1998, they had a chance. why is it we are advancing this? what happened to the people of the district of columbia who on numerous occasion have begged and implored this congress to take action to american citizens and we have done nothing? and the people -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. gutierrez: thank you so much. the speaker pro tempore: the chair will remind members to address their comments to the chair. the gentleman from florida. mr. diaz-balart: it's my pleasure to yield three minutes to my good friend from the state of washington, mr. hastings. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from washington is recognized for three minutes. mr. hastings: thank you, mr. speaker. i thank my friend from florida for yielding me the time. and, mr. speaker, as today's debate begins on this very important issue, where opposition is obviously on both

sides of the aisle, there are two basic points that i wish to make. first, to express the fundamental unfairness of this rule for debate, as my -- the previous speaker just pointed out. and second, to explain why the underlying bill violates this nation's established precedence when it comes to admitting states into the union. first, this rule is unfair to both republicans and democrats. it's astonishing to me to see how the democrat leaders are denying the amendment proposed and offered by members of their own caucus. senior democrat members are being limited. their amendments were blocked. their ability to speak and engage in debate is being restricted. and for what possible reason, mr. speaker? by what justification is this necessary? and how is it fair? in 19 the -- 1998 when the house last debate add similar puerto rican bill, there was an open rule as mr. gutierrez

mentioned. that rule was supported by both the republican chairman and ranking democrat at that time. and it resulted in a full all day debate on this very important issue. so what's wrong with an open rule and a fair debate in 2010? this bill isn't to name -- about naming a post office. it's a bill that congress is asking puerto rico if they want to become the 51st state. this is an important issue. amendments of importance -- of ensuring second amendment rights by puerto rico if it were to become a state were blocked. amendments to address the issue of english as official language, that, too, was blocked. mr. speaker, this rule should be defeated. actually the previous question should be defeated. and if the house is going to consider this bill, it should do so under an open process. second, mr. speaker, the reason why such a thorough debate is necessary is that this bill is a

dramatic departure from past procedures by which a state has sought and been admitted into the union. look at alaska. look at hawaii just in the last century. look at numerous other states. they all held local referendum on the question on the desire to become a state. when a strong majority expressed their desire to become a state, the results were communicated to congress and it was then that congress responded to those referendum. this bill, in this bill that process is exactly backwards. this bill is asking if puerto rico wants to become a state. additional minute? mr. glart: additional minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for an additional minute. mr. hastings: this bill has congress blessing before puerto rico even expressed its will. this bill isn't needed for puerto rico to hold self-determination of what they

desire of their future political plans. puerto rico can conduct a vote right now just like they have done three times previously. mr. speaker, it's wrong to deviate from the precedent of alaska, hawaii, and other states where those territories self-initiated the communication to congress and congress responded by making them a state. mr. speaker, i oppose this unfair rule for those reasons. i think that republicans and democrats on this important issue ought to have as much time as we had in 1998 to debate this issue. with that, i thank my friend for yielding and yield back the time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back his time. the gentleman from colorado. mr. polis: brief response to the gentleman from washington. all states certainly including the rest dents of puerto rico if they become a state would have the protections of the second amendment as well as all the other amendments and protections of our constitution as interpreted by the supreme court. and of course it is entirely up

to states with what they do with regard to recognizing official languages. my own state of colorado has no official language. other states do. certainly any state can establish english, spanish, french, whatever language they want as an official or official languages. mr. speaker, i would like to yield five minutes to the gentleman from new york, mr. serrano. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new york is recognized for five minutes. mr. serrano: i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. serrano: i thank the gentleman for the time. my colleagues, i come to you today in a unique situation. for you see i was born in the territory of puerto rico and by being a resident of new york and having been raised in new york, i'm able to be a member of congress. not a resident commissioner with all due respect to my brother but a full voting member of congress. so i come fully understanding how it is to be able to look at yourself and to wonder what if ever will be resolved when it

comes to the status of puerto rico. this is a very significant moment and a very significant bill. for the first time in 112 years the congress of the united states will ask the four million american citizens in puerto rico what they wish their relationship to the united states to be. and it is done, i believe, in a fair way. now, many will argue today that it is not binding on the congress. that's a good thing because congress can then take the results and analyze them and determine how it wants to apply the results yes or no. whether it wants a higher vote for independence if that's what they choose or a higher vote for statehood. congress can make that determination. but i believe the process is fair. it says in the initial vote, do you wish to remain as you are or do you wish to change your relationship to the u.s.?

and then in the second vote if they choose for change, it says, do you wish to become the 51st state? do you wish to become an independent nation? or do you wish to go and being an associated republic. we have that. some people they don't know what this means. we have that. micronesia is an associated republic of the united states. the marshall islands is an associated republic of the united states. so we know what that means. i would argue for those who support commonwealth that the next natural step of the commonwealth is free association unless they have notice it is statehood or been misled and it is independence. i think the next step is free association. why are those the three options available? because all three options will remove puerto rico from the territorial clause of the constitution of the united

states. meaning it will no longer be a territory. and then we can decide what to do. it has been said here that puerto ricans have served in our armed forces. that means a lot to us. it means a lot to be able to say to those veterans who are now in puerto rico that they will have a chance to express themselves. now, many have asked me, joe, if it doesn't do all the things some people claim it does, why do you support this bill? because it begins a process. because it allows people to speak. because we would have heard for the first time that we, we know that they have something that they want to change. now, the opponents claim that this bill pushes puerto rico to statehood. now, i grew up in new york but i can tell you one thing as a fact that i know about the puerto rican community in puerto rico, they know the status issue through and through.

i think from the time you are 10 years old all you debate in puerto rico is the status and baseball. and the status is bigger than baseball. so no one in puerto rico will be forced to vote for statehood unless they want it. nobody will be forced to vote for independence unless they want it. no one will be forced to vote for anything unless they want it. they are very adamant. you think i'm excited now? you should see the way they speak about those issues in puerto rico. nobody will force them into anything. at the same time the opponents tell you there's no majority support for statehood in puerto rico. but they'll be forced to vote for statehood. i don't understand that. if there's no support, then they won't vote for statehood. that's a fact. now, briefly, some of the commonwealth people, with all due respect to them, have propose add new commonwealth, but they never presented it in legislative form. they have had years, the 20 years i have been here, they never presented their commonwealth in a legislative form.

we have presented many bills that speak to self-determination. what they propose is, are you ready for this? puerto rico will remain american citizens. puerto rico will get more federal dollars. puerto rico would be able to choose and pick any federal law it wishes to follow and not follow. and puerto rico would be able to exchange ambassadors with other countries. that's the commonwealth that has been proposed. i want that for the bronx. that's a great deal. and i'm sure the gentleman wants it for florida and the texans would jump at it immediately. but that's not what it is. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. serrano: give the people of puerto rico the opportunity to express themselves. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from florida rise? mr. diaz-balart: mr. speaker, i yield two minutes to my friend from utah, mr. chaffetz. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from utah is recognized for two minutes. mr. chaffetz: i thank the gentleman for yielding. i thank the chairman. i believe this is a rushed process. this should be considered under an open rule as it has in the

past. even louise slaughter the chairwoman of the rules committee was cited in congress daily today she didn't know why the house was taking up the bill. i offered an amendment that said 2/3 of the people of puerto rico should vote affirmatively for statehood in order to move forward. yet that was not ruled in order. believe me, we want to make sure that more than 51% of people want this before we should move forward. you don't want to get married to somebody who is only 51% sure. nobody even necessarily knows what is in this bill. sovereignty in association with the united states. it's been pointed out i don't think the people understand what that necessarily means. certainly in this body. and there's no need for a federally sanctioned vote. in 1967, in 1993, in 1998 the people of puerto rico voted. they voted against statehood. there is no reason that the heavy hand of the united states congress needs to come down and force the people of puerto rico to vote on this. they can do it themselves. and if they do it, they should

do it in a very simple question. are you in favor of statehood? yes or no. that simplestity would go a long ways with people like me and a lot of others. let's have that kind of straight vote. we love the people of puerto rico. they are fellow citizens, they served in our military. there's a great kinship, but it doesn't necessarily mean that the people of puerto rico want statehood. . if they are going to have a vote they should do so in puerto rico. they don't need the heavy hand of congress. let them vote on that straight vote. i stand in opposition to this rule and in opposition to this bill. i urge my colleagues to do the same. i yield back. thank you. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from colorado. mr. polis: mr. speaker, i yield one minute to the gentleman from maryland, the distinguished majority leader, mr. hoyer. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from maryland is recognized for one minute. mr. hoyer: i thank the gentleman from colorado. i rise in strong support of the

bill. i rise in strong support of the legislation. i am pleased to join my colleague from puerto rico, mr. pierluisi, in support of the rule and the bill. i know that mr. pierluisi, who was elected to represent puerto rico in the congress of the united states as their representative, has worked long and hard on this bill. as has so many of his predecessors. when i came to congress, carlos beserro was the representative of puerto rico and he was for this. that was 30 years ago, and we are still talking about this. the gentleman from puerto rico and mr. serrano make the points i want to make. now the gentleman who preceded me said that we're rushing this bill. this bill was reported out of committee last july, 30-8.

this bill has 181 co-sponsors. broad bipartisan support in this congress. and so we have brought this bill to the floor for consideration. it offers amendments to those who are opposed to this bill. it offers amendments, frankly, that i think are extraneous to the basic premise of this bill as well. the fact of the matter is that america prides itself on being the beacon for democracy. what this bill does is celebrate democracy in puerto rico. i read some of our fellow american citizens in puerto rico talk about the united states treating puerto rico as a colony. i don't know about the rest of you, but i'm not interested in having colonies. i don't per receive, have never

perceived the united states as an imperial power with colonies. i perceive the united states of america as priding itself on being supportive of self-determination, of being committed to the premise that people freely ought to be able to come together and determine their own status. that's what this legislation does. i don't think it does more than that or less than that. unlike previous legislation, it does not say that if in fact the voters of puerto rico vote one way or the other that action will automatically follow by this congress. this congress will then have to make a determination as to what relationship we want to have to puerto rico in a democratic fashion in this house and in the senate as should be the case. but the president of the united states has said he would want to see the status of puerto rico resolved. i want to see the status of puerto rico resolved.

and, yes, if the citizens of puerto rico under this bill decide that they want to remain a commonwealth and vote not to change, that would be the conclusion. if on the other hand they decide they want to have change, then they will have the options that the united nations has set forth for colonies to become free nations. i don't refer to myself to puerto rico as a colony. some in puerto rico do. the fact of the matter is that it gives three options which are the three options sanctioned by the united nations and that is for a free people to self-determine that they want to be an independent nation or alternatively that they want to be a state or alternatively they want to have a free association with the united states. that latter category is, i suppose, similar to the relationship that england has

to australia or great britain or micronesia or some other entity that has its own independent laws. it's a sovereign nation, as is canada. but the queen of england is the head of their government. that may be somewhat like a free association. but whatever the people of puerto rico decide it seems to me i would be, as one member, prepared to honor. i am hopeful that today after 111 years that mr. serrano spoke about and that mr. pierluisi talked about that we do in fact give to the puerto rican people the option that they deserve to have and that our principles demand they have. i hope my colleagues will support this rule. i hope they will support the bill, and i hope they will oppose amendments that will undermine this opportunity that can be an historic opportunity,

not just for the people of puerto rico, but for the people of the united states of america to live out its pledge to people that have an association with us and indeed the principle that we ask other nations to honor as well of self-determination. and i thank the gentleman from colorado, mr. polis, for yielding, and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from florida. mr. diaz-balart: mr. speaker, it's my pleasure to yield two minutes to my friend from georgia, dr. broun. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from georgia is recognized for two minutes. : i thank the gentleman for yielding. mr. speaker -- mr. broun: i thank the gentleman for yielding. this offers the first step that offers puerto rico an invitation to become a full member as a state in the greatest nation of the world. it is near the onerous or unfair to require that english be the only official language as a precondition for its

admission. i introduced an amendment that would have accomplished this on two separate occasions. unfortunately, the democrats in this body rejected my amendment on both occasions, both in the committee as well as in this rule. without this commonsense amendment, this legislation is fundamentally flawed. throughout our nation's history, the common thread that has united individuals of diverse backgrounds has opinion the common use of english -- of the english language. it is the glue that holds us together as a nation, and this amendment would help unite the island with the rest of the other 50 states if it is admitted as a state. president ronald reagan once said, quote, by emphasizing the importance of a common language we safeguard a proud legacy and help to ensure that america's future will be as great as her

past, end quote. no territory with an official language other than english has ever been admitted to the union. in fact, there are a number of former territories that had to comply with english preconditions before they were admitted to the union, including louisiana, oklahoma, arizona and new mexico. all of these states agreed to the condition, that their schools shall always be conducted in english. and puerto rico should be no exception. my amendment does not prevent the puerto ricans from speaking spanish in their home, church, business or on the streets in san juan. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. diaz-balart: an additional minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is yielded an additional minute. mr. broun: i thank the gentleman. it simply requires english to be an official language in public schools, local and state courts, state and government agencies and the puerto rican legislature.

this should not be a huge problem because since 1900 english has been taught from kindergarten through 12th grade in puerto rico. without this amendment, children in puerto rico will never have the opportunity, never have the opportunity to participate fully and equally with their fellow citizens. it is my firm belief that insisting puerto rico's adoption of english as its only official language should be a minimum requirement of its inclusion into our sacred union. since the democrat leadership of this body rejected my amendment on two separate occasions, i urge this body to vote no on the rule and no on h.r. 2499. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from colorado. mr. polis: in response to the gentleman from georgia, we live in a federal system, states have the ability to determine

what languages are recognized in an official capacity. i think it would be misleading to the people of puerto rico in the context of a vote to insinuate that there is a federal tyranny with regard to language. we live in an affiliation of states. a federal system that reserves power for the states, and i know that the gentleman from georgia has generally been a standard bearer of the prerogative of states. and in fact the ongoing battle against the overreach of federal powers. and this is certainly an example of that. states have the ability to decide what languages so print things in, language or languages. certainly the ability to set the language at their own state legislature meets in and this would be an example of an overreach of the federal government where they to dictate that. mr. broun: will the gentleman yield? mr. polis: i'd like to inquire of the gentleman from florida if he has any more speakers.

mr. broun: will the gentleman yield? mr. polis: i'll yield briefly. mr. broun: i believe firmly that the only way we are going to incorporate people in this country -- and we have been a nation of immigrants and i believe very fully that we should continue to allow responsible immigration into this nation. but english has been the common thread that has bound us all together. it should be the official language of america, and we have required oklahoma, louisiana, arizona and new mexico to accept english as the official language to be admitted in -- mr. polis: reclaiming my time. i think it's a very appropriate discussion to have. it's a discussion at the state level. and i know that some states have done precisely that. but, again, this would be an example of an overreach of the federal government where they'd actually be involved in dictating states that here you must speak spanish, here you must speak french, here you must speak english. although the gentleman has argued there are many at the state and local levels that they have advocated on behalf of states. i'd like to inquire of the

gentleman from florida if he has any additional speakers. mr. diaz-balart: yes, two speakers. mr. polis: i am the last speaker. i will reserve until the gentleman has closed and has yielded back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from florida is recognized. mr. diaz-balart: i would have opposed amendments like dr. broun's on the floor, but i think that everyone should have an opportunity to be heard. even with ideas that i think are premature. i don't know how the people of puerto rico are going to vote. and, you know -- so it's premature to say at this stage, ok, you have to speak this language or the other language because you are going to vote this way or the other way. no, all of this does is start a process that will allow the people of puerto rico to speak. and it's the first time that there's been a federally authorized referendum for the people of puerto rico. and i think it's fair. at this time i yield two

minutes to the distinguished gentleman from california, mr. rohrabacher. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california is recognized for two minutes. mr. rohrabacher: mr. speaker, i rise in opposition to the rule and the underlying bill, but it could have been otherwise, i might add. the major flaw in h.r. 2499 is that it never allows an up and down vote, a yes or no vote on statehood or on any of the other status options presented to the people of puerto rico. if is a skewed process. it is designed -- it is a skewed process. it is designed to have a poll that will have a predetermined outcome. i submitted an amendment to the rules committee that would have fixed this fundamental flaw. unfortunately, the rule now before us does not make my amendment in order. so now if this bill becomes law it will not find out whether the people of puerto rico supports statehood. all the plebiscite will tell us

is whether the people of puerto rico prefer statehood to independence. i can save us all a lot of trouble to that point. i can see the most -- my friends will concede pretty much that everyone involved in this issue will concede that the puerto rican people would prefer statehood to independence or free association. so if everyone is willing to concede, the only point that will be established in this bill, then why bother passing this bill and having two separate plebiscites just so we can find out what we already know? we also know when people had a chance just to vote on statehood they voted against it. well, the answer is that the proponents want to get the results that -- and we get the results of this system that's been set up this way so they can paint the people's opinion in puerto rico a different way. they want to try to convince congress and the american people that it means that the puerto rican people want

statehood. but they're not being given the chance to vote up and down on statehood. it's only statehood and the relationship to the other options. now, the other options that are offered on the ballot, i might add. if the puerto rican people really wanted statehood, that could be demonstrated by a yes or -- i ask for an additional one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. diaz-balart: an additional 30 seconds. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for an additional 30 seconds. mr. rohrabacher: it could be demonstrated by a yes or no vote on statehood, which my amendment would have provided. but the sponsors of this legislation don't want an up and down vote on statehood apparently because they don't think they can get that outcome in a fair vote. so they want to set up a scenario, the only scenario where they can win which is a popularity contest between statehood, independence and free association. the people of puerto rico have a right to have an and down vote on whether they want statehood right now as compared

to their own status. this is a skewed poll. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. rohrabacher: and it's stacking the deck. we should vote against this mis-- this attempt to misrepresent the people of puerto rico. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from florida is recognized. mr. diaz-balart: it's my pleasure to yield three minutes to the -- my friend, the distinguished ranking member of the rules committee, mr. dreier. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for three minutes. mr. dreier: mr. speaker, who's on first is the natural question that comes to mind on this issue. as we said in the rules committee last night, we saw luis gutierrez, and others join up with virginia foxx. we had concern on the floor raised by dan rohrabacher and doc hastings, and lincoln diaz-balart, mr. pierluisi, the former governor, and number of members of republican leadership joining in support of this, and the bottom line, mr. speaker, is

that we should do exactly what mr. gutierrez argued both in the rules committee and here on the floor last night. now, i have stood in this well repeatedly saying that i could have done a better job. well, i had the privilege of serving as chairman of the house rules committee, i could have had more open rules. i could have had more free flowing debate. in fact i was criticized as this new majority was attempting to emerge to that majority status, and it was justified in some ways. we were promised, though, as i and others were being criticizeds -- criticized, mr. speaker, that we would have an entire new direction for america. there would be an open, free wheeling debate. well, there is no issue where it is more apparent we should have a free wheeling debate, open amendment process than this issue that is before us today. now, mr. speaker, as we look at

where it is we are going, i will say that i was troubled by the arrogance, the arrogance that was exhibited in the rules committee last night. there were attempts made by people like mr. gutierrez who submitted 16 amendments, and two of those 16 amendments made in order. ms. velazquez six amendments, three of hers made in order. and attempts made to make more amendments in order. and they were denied. in 1998 as has been pointed out, we had a completely open amendment process. let me say that last night in the rules committee, mr. speaker, when we made an attempt to put together a bipartisan amendment, we saw the arrogance of the rules committee demonstrated when there was a complete denial of even a chance to recess for 10 minutes so the democrats and republicans could come together and offer a proposal. mr. speaker, i will make a pledge that if i am fortunate

enough to hold the gavel again, that if a request is made by the minority to cobble together a bipartisan amendment to deal with an issue that's before us, i will assure the members that i would recess the committee and allow members to come together and work on that package. we are going to have an opportunity in just a few minutes, mr. speaker, to defeat the previous question. if we do that, mr. diaz-balart will offer an open rule. democrats and republicans alike have been arguing for an open amendment process on this, mr. speaker. so i urge my colleagues to vote no on the previous question so that we can have the free flowing debate that this institution and the american people deserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. -- the gentleman from florida. mr. diaz-balart: i support the historic underlying legislation being brought to the floor

today. again i commend governor fortuno, in order to right the return set by the republicans in 1998, i will asking for a no vote on the previous question so we can amend the rule and allow the house to consider the puerto rico democracy act under an open rule. mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the amendment and extraneous materials immediately prior to the vote on the previous question. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. diaz-balart: i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from colorado. mr. polis: thank you, mr. speaker. i would like to emphasize this bill is revenue neutral for the federal government. that all cost of the plebiscite will be paid by the puerto rican government. the united states is committed to democracy. and this bill gives us the opportunity to respect the democratically arrived upon decision of the people of puerto rico. and i join the number of sentiments that have been expressed today, including those from my friend and colleague

from florida that should puerto rico decide to seek independence, i will support that as an individual member of congress. should they decide to seek status as an associated republic i will support that. should they choose to join us as a state i will support that. during this recent health care debate, i think it helps show the people of puerto rico some of the advantages that might be attained. their resident commissioner, pedro pierluisi, was a great advocate but he was but one vote. the people of puerto rico, apportioned under a census, should have six members of congress. six members of congress, probably members on both sides of the aisle, advocating for their interest alongside members of congress representing other parts of our country. the current territorial status

of puerto rico would end under any of the three options. no options would be subject to the territorial clause of the u.s. constitution. as my colleague from new york has mentioned, this is a topic that is discussed constantly around dinner tables in puerto rico. and as a member of congress from colorado, i respect the voice of the puerto rican people, the resident commissioner, pedro pierluisi, who has been elected with this as part of his platform. given the current hyper partisan environment under which congress works, it's very good to see a bill with such strong bipartisan support. it's important to point out this bill has over 180 co-sponsors and was voted out of committee with a strong bipartisan majority. in addition, the highest of puerto rico's elected officials from both parties, including it's representative to congress and governor luis fortuno, along with a sizable majority of both

chambers of its legislature also support this bill. the reason so many of my colleagues here do is because they understand this bill upholds the most basic democratic tradition of which our country was founded. today we can offer millions of people the right to self-determination. for too long we denied our fellow citizens this right and we are now faced with an opportunity to fix this grievance injustice and give the people of puerto rico the ability to self-determine. therefore i urge my colleagues to uphold this country's commitment to democracy and vote for the underlying rule which is a fair rule. i urge a yes vote on the previous question and on the rule. i yield back the balance of my time. and i move the previous question on the resolution. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the question is on ordering the previous question on the resolution. so many as are in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it.

the gentleman from florida. mr. diaz-balart: we request the yeas and nays. the speaker pro tempore: the yeas and nays are requested. those in favor of a vote by the yeas and nays will rise. a sufficient number having arisen, the yeas and nays are ordered. pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20, further proceedings on this question are postponed. pursuant could clause 12-a of rule 1, the house will stand in recess subject to the call of recess subject to the call of the chair.

[applause] >> again, you can follow this live on our companion network, c-span 2. >> the people who are coming to us for the housing market wanted to have the security that fwafe them exposure to the housing market and that's what they got. >> the senate hearing with goldman sachs executives went nearly 11 hours. see the key moments. see every moment. it's washington your way at the c-span video library. every program since 1987 free online.

>> c-span 2, one of c-span's public affairs offerings. weekdays, live coverage of the u.s. senate and on weekends, "book tv." connect with us on twitter, facebook and youtube and sign up for scheduled alert emails on c-span.org. >> so with the house in recess, we'll take the opportunity now to show you democratic national committee chairman tim kaine last night. he talked about the party's get out the vote effort for 2010 this is an hour. >> all right. thank you all so much for coming to the democratic national committee. i am nate jenkins. i am one of the political directors here and we're excited to everyone in the building here. do one quick favor. everyone pull out your cellular phones real quick. pull out your cell phones.

i know all of you have cell phones so people who aren't moving you're cheating. can you text 2010 -- i know you have good text packages. text 2010 to 62262. text 2010 to 62262. and then as soon as you finish that turn your cell phone off and put it in your pocket. text 2010 to 62262 and turn your cell phone off. i need you to turn the phone off because we have some camera feeds in here that might conflict with.

2010 to 62262. i am not seeing people texting any more so i assume you are done. please refeign from taking photographs. other ground rules. there will be a question and answer session towards the end. so if you have questions, just hold those until we have the q&a session so we can get your question answered, ok? also, directly after the program today we'll have a phone bank in the training room down the hall. so those interested in making phone calls, please join us for a phone bank. we will call some first-time voters. and now without further adieu we want to introduce our introducer. her name is laura kliner, and she is a first-time voter from

the great state of virginia. laura kliner, come on up. [applause] >> good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. i am laura kliner. i grew up in veafment i was raised in blacksburg, virginia, and i currently attend mary baldwin in stanton, virginia. and i've always had an interest in politics, but it wasn't until 2008 when obama really inspired me. i got involved in the campaign for obama for america and i worked in the conservative area of augusta county. and i tried to get others inspired as well. i really care about how obama cares about all people. he really cares about everyone, the young, the old, you and me. i won't forget my first vote

for barack obama. [applause] >> thank you, yes. and he's the first democratic nominee to win virginia since 1964. [applause] >> like so many other volunteers from the campaign, i want to do all i can to make sure president obama suck seeds. that is why i continue to work in organizing for america as an intern. i am very excited by the work i do in noafea, especially as we head into the 2010 mid-term elections. it's going to be so important that young people like me continue to get out and to vote this fall. today we will hear from the chairman of the democratic party and the former governor of my home state, tim kaine. lay out the vote 2010, campaign of -- for democrats and plans

to make sure the young, first-time voters, like myself and other first-time voters who might not have been engaged in politics until 2008 campaign to return for another vote. governor kaine served as the 70th governor of virginia until 2006 until this year. he took a year off from harvard law school to work at a missionary -- as a missionary in honduras. where he reinforced his beliefs for the power of education and the need to serve his community. after law school, he moved to richmond where he spent 17 years as a civil rights lawyer working on housing, discrimination, other issues before serving successfully as a city councilman, mayor, lieutenant governor and the governor of the commonwealth. serving 15 years overall in the public office. now, please join me in

welcoming governor kaine. [applause] >> that's very, very nice. thank you so much. thank you all so much. this is great. this is great. so if i ever complain about my job, tell me i'm nuts. i have a great job. i have an absolutely wonderful job. lawyer awea, you standing up here and telling about your experience, being a first-time voter in 2008 is the reason i have such a great job. meeting with folks like you from all over the united states and talking about the change agenda that we supported in 2008 and then what we can do to change that change support in support of our president is as good as job that anybody can have. thank you for your work and for your nice introduction and for all of you being here today. we have folks in here that are dedicated state and local party

activists who are staff members from all over, but especially virginia, maryland, d.c. and pennsylvania. and it's great to have a group where we can talk candidly about the 2010 mid terms, about the challenges. there are big challenges. but also what we are going to to make sure that it will be as such to carry out the agenda that the president campaigned on and the americans want him to be successful on. thanks and this will be a good visit. i will talk to you for about 15 minutes about our midterm plans. we can tell but things we can do to maximize our chance for success. so, first, laura's told you everything about me. i was a civil rights lawyer. i was an elected office holder for 15 1/2 years. i was the national co-chair for obama for america. when the president asked me to lead the party, you know, i wrestled with, hmm, the party has been -- for six of the eight years for both the houses of congress being a republican. so we were kind of the loyal

opposition. but we're no longer the loyal opposition. we have the white house, we have both houses. we've got a majority of governorships which means we're now the governing party, the american people took the keys, put them in our hands, said we don't like the other guys are running things. we want you to run them. we tried to build the d.n.c. it is to take this historic election and to convert it into a transformative presidency. that's what america needs. that's what the world needs. and the better the president does the better it is for democrats everywhere. and so we're working not just with democrats but with independents, politically unaffiliated, disillusions republicans who want to see the change agenda that the president campaigned on made real. it's been a very exciting year and a half and a challenging one. we've seen, you know, some huge, huge victories. the president walked into the toughest economy since f.d.r. in 1933 with two wars to boot. and after a lot of very, very

tough work and heavy lifting with congress what we see is, you know, jobs, the stock market, economic growth, g.d.p. from the last 18 months of the bush administration to the first 15 months of the obama administration, we are climbing, climbing sharply but we recognize that we still have a long way to go. we're doing key things in international diplomacy and in security, making america safer, smart diplomacy is helping us take out key elements of the al qaeda and taliban leadership in pakistan and afghanistan and iraq. that's been verks very important to help keep the region -- that's been very, very important to help keep the region and our country. we've tackled challenges like advancing policy on stem cell research or better use of science or saving the american auto industry or really trying to tackle mountain top mining. so many things. and the thing that gives me the most pleasure is the work that so many of us did around health insurance reform. you know, i know -- i'm not going to ask you to raise your hands but i know all of you in your own way and in your own

networks through phone banks and letters to the editor and talking with members of congress, you helped put this thing over the goal line. i do want to step back because now since it it happened in march you're used to it, but i want you to step back and just think about this and then i'll talk about the midterms. when people ask you as democrats like, who are we and what are we proud of? it's like you walk into a house, you look at somebody's mantle, what they have on their mantle is usually something important to them, like family pictures. what is on our mantle is social security, medicare, medicaid, the civil rights acts. those are things that democrats through democratic presidents and democratic congresses that are important to. yeah, we worked with americans to change the basic fabric of american life. with health insurance reform, we put another one up on the mantle. we put a robust, comprehensive plan up on the mantle to make

sure that insured americans gets protections from abuses, that uninsured americans get a path toward affordable coverage for the first time in their lives and overall we can start to do to rein in the costes that are breaking the banks for families and businesses and even governments. 50 years from now people say, you're democrat, what are you proud of? they are going to point to health insurance reform. and then the kids will ask them, you mean, it was the case in the united states that 700,000 a people a year went bankrupt because of health bills? they won't think. you know, we let 23,000 people die every year because they lacked access to medical care for easily treatable conditions? they won't believe it. we changed a fundamental fact of american life and there's more work to implement it, also refine it and make it stronger. but the president told me two days before the vote, he said,

we will not be on the verge of this vote if it were not for our dedicated volunteers and activists all over the country who persuaded members of congress, some who were going to vote no to vote yes. who convinced some members of congress who weren't sure how they were going to vote to vote yes. and frankly, you also did something else. you helped some members of congress who are always going to vote yet, be able to vote yes with confident and a smile on their face rather than feeling like they were walking out in front of a firing squad. give yourselves a round of applause for doing something really, really good. [applause] so whether it's economic recovery, health insurance reform, you know, a much better posture of america, vis-a-vis the rest of the world, we have a lot to be proud of in this administration. we see the seeds of a historic election converting into a transformative presidency. but the extent to way we make it transformative is largely on our shoulders, the president said, i can't get sent to

washington, good luck, go sleigh the dragons. my success will be a function of how much people are willing to go out and sleigh those dragons with me so -- and slay those dragons with me so midterms. no sugarcoating challenge, right? since teddy roosevelt was president, the average president in the first midterm loses 28 house seats, loses four senate seats and loses governor races too. and that's the average. and we're not living in average times. so when you're living in the second toughest economy since the 1930's, those averages don't apply. there's more economic anxiety, people are hurting. that means there's more volatility in the electorate. and so that means the traditional midterm head wind which we start to set in virginia governor and massachusetts senate race. that normal head wind, we have to assume it's different this year. we have to assume that the race is more uphill this year. and so that's where we begin.

when people are hurting they want to see change and they sometimes want to see it faster than you can produce it. so even those accomplishments that i laid out, they haven't yet penetrated to every american and they haven't yet changed everybody's circumstance to the degree they hoped would happened. so that's the challenge. i am convinced we are going to exceed expectations for the midterms, that we are going to hold the strong majority for both houses, that we have the thing the president needs for the second two years of his term and beyond and i'm convinced of that for three reasons. the third of the reasons is the plan i am going to lay out for you today. reason one, we have a successful president. so those building blocks of the success story from economic recovery to health insurance reform to the wall street reform that we're going to get. you know, they can try to filibuster every day but they're not going to be successful. [applause]

and, you know -- and for our young voters, student loan reform with greater pell grant access or the ability to stay on health insurance policies for your family until you're 26 and not 21, we will make that a cornerstone for us. second issue -- reason we are going to be successful -- i'm traveling all through the united states and working with good candidates. we have a lot of great candidates out there. both current elected office holders are looking for re-election. sometimes the majority party plays defense. we're playing offense. we are going after races to win senate races and house races all over the united states and that's important. but the third reason i think we will do well in the midterm is we have a pretty good plan. and so the reason for today is for me to talk about it a little bit with you. i have been having meetings with folks in the press. i've been having meetings with some of our significant donors, with members of congress to talk about the plan. but anytime i travel i don't just do fundraisers or press.

i always talk to activists and o.f.a. that's why we want to have you here today to talk about the midterm. the plan is a messagend the plan is a set of strategies. on the message side, democrats are the results party, folks. it's pretty simple in a time of significant and difficult national crises at home and abroad we came into a tough circumstance willing to roll up our sleeves, willing to do the heavy lifting, willing to make tough decisions even whether they were popular or not in the short term to get results for the american people. so i've walked through some of what the president has accomplished. but, i mean, there is just a very, very significant body of results this president is putting on the table and that's who we are as democrats. we're not in this, the democrats i know, just for politics. i know i'm not. politics isn't an end. politics is the means to an end and the end to serving people, helping them out, finding ways to improve their quality of

life, finding ways to improve the quality, that's what this president has done working with members of congress. and we will tell that results story and we will tell it very cleanly and clearly and show americans how these results are getting us out of this tough situation we are in a sustainable way going forward. and then we're going to contrast with the other side. they're about obstruction pure and simple. you know, press has come out recently that have explained some behaviors that we've been seeing, behaviors like people shouting at the president on the floor of congress or shouting down members of congress as they're voting. 100% of republicans in congress voting against health insurance reform. nearly every republican, all in the house and most in the senate, voting against economic recovery. 90% of republicans voting against equal pay for women. 90% of republicans in congress voting against health insurance for low-income kids. 75% of republicans in the senate voting against sonia

society meyer to be named to the supreme court -- sotomayor to be named to the supreme court. their strategy is an obstruction strategy. my counterpart, michael steele, head of the r.n.c., wrote a book this year. i can't remember the title but the subtitle is 10 ways to stop the obama agenda. the republican party is a party with a pretty ven herbal history. if abraham lincoln would think, what does my party stand for? economic empowerment, education, opportunity. what they stand for is ways to stop president obama. you see that in their votes. you see it in their behavior. you see it in members of congress putting in bills to challenge the -- whether the president is a united states citizen or complaining if the president wants to speak to kids on the opening day of the school year. we are going to paint that

picture. the results party versus those who just want to obstruct. and my sense is this, it won't be easy. times are tough and it's challenging. but we paint that picture again and again and again with examples. in a time of crisis, what americans want from their elected officials is people who are willing to do the heavy lifting, to come together and solve problems and move the nation forward and that's what we've been doing. the other guys have been standing in our way and trying to trip us up. they've said they want to break the president politically. they've said this they're hoping that health care is this waterloo. even despite that we have been successful. so between now and november it's results versus obstruction and the american public get to make a choice between a party and a president that is enabling us to climb the ladder out of the ditch or putting the keys back in the hands of the guys who put us in the ditch. that's the choice, pure and simple, that our voters will be faced with and will be making that choice. [applause]

so how will we do this? we have a great message to you on the choice side and we are going to be working very closely with the white house and our elected officials to tell that story there are things we can do in every community in america and here's where you come in. what can we do at the d.n.c. to help our candidates out in the field, folks who want to run to be good partners with this president? every candidate, you know, usually knows how to run a race more or less and has good people working for them and reach out and energize folks in their communities and there is no one size fits all in this room. you can't have a single campaign that's going to play the same in every single community, so we have a lot of good candidates who will be doing their thing. we've asked ourselves over the course of the last couple of months, what is that we from the d.n.c. can do in a unique way in a unique way that will really add value to these candidates? and this is what we've basically conclude. folks like laura who in 2008, first-time voter. we know that there's a lot of

people just like you who voted for the first time in a presidential race in 2008. in fact, in the united states, there's 50 million of you. and of the 15 million is overwhelmingly young people, african-americans, latinos, women, other new americans. that's who's in that group of 15 million. that's a sizeable, sizeable number. we know some things about you. we know where you live. we know where you vote because you've registered and you voted in 2008. we know that there's a strong desire of those 15 million who voted in this historic election to see the president succeed and that there's still a strong belief in the president and a desire for him to succeed. but we also know something else about the 15 million that's a challenge. in a midterm election where there's not a presidential name at the top of the ticket, turnout is an awful lot lower and especially for first time or new voters. you know, there are regulars who will vote in every

election. god love them. i know i love them. there is also periodic voters who vote in presidential elections and don't vote in nonpresidential years. and the first-time voters in 2008 if we didn't do anything in particular, if we didn't pay particular attention to them, we know state to state that the turnout rates of those first-time voters would be very low. so what we decided what we can do at the d.n.c., that we can put behind all of our candidates all over this nation is a way to communicate in an intense and personal way for these first-time voters and get them engaged so that they will turn out in numbers that will surprise people. we are not going to get them to turn out at the same level as the presidential election. let's be realistic. no election ever is at the same level as a presidential election. and let's be honest. 2008 was a historic and cathartic election and you can't live in a cathartic pinch in every election cycle. we have to acknowledge that. but if we can take what we think would be a normal

participation rate for these firsttime voters and they increase it by 10%, 15 million, an additional million and a half voters who won't normally be out there, we can make a real difference for an awful lot of our candidates all over the united states. let me give you a couple of examples. it's not a national election. the elections takes place in states. of these first-time voters, the 15 million, 750,000-plus in ohio, increase that participation rate by 10% from, you know, the mid 30's to something to 10%, that's 70 or more votes. there's a governor race in ohio. to put 70,000 votes out there that wouldn't normally be in a midterm election would be good good. colorado. an additional 40,000-plus votes in a state where we have an important senate race, an important governor's race could be huge in terms of producing wins for our team.

texas. 1.3 million. 1.3 million first timers in texas. 130,000 additional votes if we do our work right. so that could be huge in texas. we have a very important governor's race, probably the best chance we have to win the governorship of texas for a very long time. and so this is going to be kind of our sweet spot at the d.n.c. taking those first-time voters for 2008, using the virtues of the personal -- the personal contact that our o.f.a. and our local activists and volunteers can engage, making folks say, there's a real connection between those elections and the success of the president's agenda that you supported and so that's what we will be doing all over the country. we will be working to increase their participation rates above what the norm would be in significant enough percentages to affect races. we'll do this through a whole lot of ways. we're doing this through polling and focus groups for

voters to see issues they care about a year and a half into the administration. we'll do it throughout direct outreach, phone, person to person, at the door, emails, the kinds of things you guys have done in o.f.a. that we've been doing around health care. we'll see the same techniques to reach these voters. we will do more voter registration. you know, we did great job with voter registration in 2008, but there are many more people to register. we definitely know that. and we will do voter registration through the d.n.c. we will roll out a campaign that will be by far beyond anything we've ever done in a nonpresidential year. we will do it through voter modeling using the data that we have collected through some of your work to really help our candidates find voters. you know, there might be a zip code or neighborhood that seems a lot of -- not a lot of democratic voters but we will

find them so we will use those tools to put to the service. this is really the sort of the guts of the plan. we will be able to put a plan in the field and spend about $50 million on it. $50 million that we're raising into the d.n.c. without a penny of lobbyist money. [applause] for the first time in a long time because of the way the president ran the campaign, we said we will not take pact and lobbyist money. that was writing a big chunk of the revenues we had before. we had ambitious plans. the first thing we did was write off some of the revenues we were making. we have a feeling if we do this we might be more convincing when we go to folks and say it's all about individuals now. will you invest for us to be successful? we will be able to put about $50 million into this. $20 million will go trectly to candidates and campaigns. about $30 million will go to

programs like voter modeling, voter registration. we are doing a significant voter protection effort, to educate voters, to make sure that people understand that they shouldn't be intimidated and that they understand how to use the newest technologies, voter machines, things like that. we've already started that training. so it will be a sizeable, sizeable campaign. and it will largely focus what we think is our added value to help these first-time voters and your participation in it will be absolutely critical. we think in order to do this right it has to be hand to hand. one of the things i love about this job, you know, i was a civil rights lawyer and in local office. when i ran in local office you didn't raise money. you knock on everybody's door. i started in politics on the grassroots side. i despair of politics that is increasingly about who can run the most tv ads and i loved about the 2008 campaign that we got away from just how many ads we could run and we went back to building out this

person-to-person capacity where it's neighbor talking to neighbor and phone call persuading call recipient and i want to make sure we are doing the same thing here. and that grassroots kind of effort is what we can do with our first-time voters. we will help our candidates, for sure, communicate with the regular and reliable voters who vote every year. that our candidates are pretty good with that with voting lists, etc. we will do everything we can to help. but the first-time voters will be our sweet spot. and we are going to tell all voters the same story. we don't have different messages for different audiences. we are going to tell voters all the same story. i'll conclude with the story and then we'll open it up and take questions. and it's story i told you at the start. this has been a tough time. americans have been hurting. i've seen it in my state. you've seen it in your state and the districts and communities where you live. when people are hurting it's a very, very tough time and people want to see change and they want to see it fast. and people have seen change.

many haven't seen it as quick as they would like. we will go to them and in this person-to-person way we will remind them of the accomplishments of this president, of his courage in tackling tough issues. we're going to tell them that washington and many people thought couldn't work, couldn't address the big issues anymore is now able to. and we're going to give them that fundamental choice. you see that turning around. you see it climbing out of the problem. the right answer is not to say we're there yet. but the right answer is to definitely keep climbing. it's not to change direction. it's not to hand the keys back to the guys. it's to keep climbing with this president. that will be the basic message we'll tell. so we need your help. those of you involved with o.f.a. volunteers and activists and those of you involved in -- as volunteers with state and local parties, we're going to be calling on you to do that person-to-person thing you do so very well. i'll say this and then i'll stop. the more we make politics about the person to person, the stronger we're going to be as a

party and the stronger we're going to be as a nation. and i'll tell you what i mean when i say that. a lot of folks think about campaigns, you just raise a lot of money and then you put it all on tv. but i tell you this. a tv ad disappears the minute that you run it. and especially when a campaign is over, it's all out on the ether and the only people who benefit is those who own tv stations, right? but if you put your resources into building peem, building up the capacity of people to organize their own communities, to persuade others, building up the sense that people have that, hey, you know what, i may be one person but i can be make a difference to health care reform and i can make a difference to an election and i can make a difference to economic recovery. the more you build up that capacity to young people that's an investment that won't go away when an election is over. that's an investment that stays right in place, that builds a platform, that builds higher and higher and higher. you give those people those skills. you're creating your next generation of candidates. maybe among people who never

thought they would run for office but say, hey, i have a skill. i have something to bring to the table. so we're really trying to do politics in a different way here. taking advantage of what we learned in the campaign and really making it about -- even in a nation of 300 million-plus people person to person and we'll build a plass form for political engagement. all kind of success across all all kinds of areas. i want to thank you for being part of this today. i want to thank you for sticking with this. a lot of times we elect people and wave good luck but you didn't do that. you didn't do that. you helped elect this president and you're sticking with it to make sure that we can accomplish the agenda that he campaigned on and that america needs. i appreciate that. what i'd like to do now is open it up. i'd like to take your question or take your advice. thank you very much. [applause]

nate, do you want me to call on folks? ok. i am going to take one right here. the person with the mike is the person i should call on. >> i'm from maryland. >> carl? >> carl. >> and we have a problem, i think, is typical of a lot of southern counties and we are the south. we are a regiment to the confederacy and they're still there. obama did very well in our county because we inspired the african-american vote. but we have a problem in that our congressman, the first democratic congressman in many years, mike kratovil, is a blue dog democrat and he voted against the health care bill. i and many of my african-american friends felt that this was a traitorist act. and so how do we take your strategy, which is building on success, and apply it to someone who is a democrat, good

democrat in most ways, but he's not inspiring some of the first-time voters and african-americans? >> it's a question i get asked, as you would imagine, all over the united states because there are very similar situations. so let me kind of just address it the way we're looking at it all over the u.s. the -- the republican party is a party that is -- kind of a litmus test party. so if you don't vote the right way on choice or if you don't vote the right way on taxes they kind of throw you over. a sitting republican governor today tipping his hand that he's now not going to run as a republican but as an independent in florida is kind of throwing him out. that's not us. we are the big ten party. it's a strength and it's a challenge. the strength is you walk into a democratic party meeting anywhere in the united states -- and now i've been to anywhere in the united states

-- you're going to find somebody like you. age, race, national origin, religion, gender, sexual orientation. you are going to find somebody like you and that's a great thing about our party, that's the great thing about our country. however, the challenge it creates for us is diversity we have in our party is an ideological -- i know the president's attitude and mine too is we don't want to be the party that you vote wrong in this we're pitching you over the side. we're looking for people who are willing to do heavy lifting with the president to move this forward but we're not going to have everybody onboard 100% of the time. we understand that and that's a reason we're a stronger party than the other guys. that does mean, though, key votes, a lot of key votes really matter to folks. so somebody who maybe hasn't cast the vote we wanted on a particular issue, that can be a little bit deflated. what i'd ask you to do and what

the white house certainly believes, what -- look at the whole spectrum, look at economic recovery, look at health care, look at wall street perform, look how people are going to vote on wall street reform. look at equal pay for women or health insurance for low income kids. look at all these issues and the president is real practical about this. he says, look, i don't expect 100%, i just want people i know are willing to do the heavy lifting for me and we're going to be out there for him. so in your particular case with respect to frank, he and i don't know each other personally but we've met a couple of times, i think the president would say he's been an ally in most of these issues. health care, for some reason he felt like either unconvinced or not able to do it, but he's been an ally on many of these issues and the president, he would much rather have him coming back than somebody else. so that means we have to, you know, help the campaign tell the story, emphasize the points where he's done the heavy lifting for the president, and that's a challenge that we face in a lot of races all over the u.s. but thank goodness that we are the party that is the bigger 10

party. we could get narrower if we wanted. but i don't think we get strong father we got narrower. it's about addition, not subtraction. we need to keep that breadth in our party that's so important and so, you know, within reasonable boundaries we're going to. arlen specter switched from an r to a d because the other party got so narrow that they chased him out. and he came over and joined the democratic party. we want to see more of that. so we'll keep getting broader and letting the other guys get narrower. so great question, thank you. i'll probably go back and forth, out and back. let me adhere to the audience right now. yeah.

>> i have a question. what is the democratic party -- >> please tell me your name. >> nina. i was wondering what the democratic party plans to do for veterans and their benefits. i think a lot of them get left behind and they've served their country and we tend to leave them for their republicans to sweep up. and we shouldn't. >> good. very good question. and so here's the recent history on this. it is the case that, you know, veterans and military voters have often been or been assumed to be strong on the republican side. i'll never forget the night of the primary election in virginia and in virginia you don't register by party. so you can walk into a booth and ask for a republican or a democratic ballot. everybody's technically an independent. presidential primary, an awful lot of people, we're probably about the most military and veteran-heavy state in the united states, more than one in 10 virginians is a velt ran, not one in 10 virginia adults, more than one in 10 virginians is a veteran. an awful lot of people on that primary in february, 2008, walked into a voting booth and

could have asked for a republican primary ballot to vote for a decorated war veteran who was a republican candidate but instead they asked for a democratic ballot and they voted for barack obama in a primary. that convinced me, you know, we can win in this very military state and president obama got huge support among veterans and military families in virginia because he was laying out commonsense strategies dealing with defense issues. we've also seen democrats like jim webb tackle things like a new g.i. bill to make sure we're treating our veterans right. we can't necessarily change the conditions of the people facing harm's way but we can darn sure change the conditions that they face when they come back to this country or how their families are treated while they're serving this country. in recent years i think democrats have started to pick this up. you see members of the military, recent veterans, running as democrats and big, big numbers in a way that you didn't before.

so i think we got to tell the success stories, things like the g.i. bill, the president has done some very good work with general shinseki on the v.a., even at a time when we've been wrestling with needing to make cuts for deficits, etc., the v.a. is one that has been strong under this president. we'll tell the story about, we're making smart policies about how the military's oosed. we're putting benefits in place that are important to military families and veterans. we're doing the right things by the v.a. i think the democrats have a really good story to tell to our military families and veterans and will tell that story. great question. come back, please in the white shirt. >> thank you. i'd like to comment on what you were just talking about. >> please and introduce yourself. >> lawrence from bethesda, maryland. i happen to be a retired military, i spent 25 years in the navy. and continue to be active within the military organizations.

one of them tracks what happens, who votes for what. republicans don't have a very good record when it comes to the human side of the military. so this leads into my next point. how much effort are we going to be putting into really exposing -- you talked about how we're the party who wants to get it done, they're the party of no. how much effort are we putting into educating the public as to the real negative things that the republicans are doing and have been doing and the way they twist the truth and so on and so forth? calling them out for what they're really doing. >> yeah, great question. very good question. to be candid, on the communications side, talking, the message, i think we beat the republicans in the first half of 2009 but i think they beat us in the second half of 2009.

i think since the state of the union we've been back on the offensive in good ways but at the end of 2009 we sat down and asked -- >> we're going to leave this with a reminder you can see this at our video library on c-span.org. white house meeting coming up momentarily about the gulf spill with homeland security secretary janet napolitano. the house coming back in 10 minutes or so. >> i'm going to -- i've got a few remarks on what the president has been working on the b.p. oil spill but i want to -- we've got several people here at the briefing to give you an update on where we are. our homeland security secretary will give us an update on the overall situation. admiral sali bryce owe hara will give us some details on the response on the ground and the water. to the spill. deputy secretary of the interior

will give us an update on the joint investigation and on the pressure on industry to clean up this spill. secretary salazar is at the b.p. command center currently in houston. e.p.a. administrator will give us an update on air monitoring and preparations for the spill reaching the shore. we also have assistant to the president for energy and climate here also to answer some questions if need be. so let me start with a few words of the president's involvement. the president's been actively following the b.p. oil spill in the gulf of mexico, receiving multiple updates and consulting on the response since the incident occurred. the president started his daily intelligence briefing in the oval office this morning with an update and last night onboard air force one on the way back to washington the president was briefed on the new information regarding the additional breach. the president urged that an abundance of caution and mindful

of the new information that we must position resources to continue to aggressively confront this incident. following that, admiral landry you a nounced that while b.p. is ultimately responsible, the administration will be aggressive in our response and we will use all available resources, possibly including those at the department of defense, to see if there are technologies that might be used that surpass the capabilities of the commercial and private sector. again, in accordance with the 1990 oil pollution act passed after the exxon valdez, b.p., as the responsible party, is required to fund the cost of the response and clean up operations and they are doing so. the president has also asked that homeland security secretary napolitano, interior secretary salazar and e.p.a. administrator jackson go to the gulf coast to ensure that b.p. and the entire government is doing everything possible to respond to this incident. in addition, the president's

directed responding agencies to devote every resource to not only respond to this incident but determinity cause. earlier this week, secretary in a pal -- napolitano andal czar laid out the next steps for that investigation. we have a lot of folks up here. we have a couple of slides that we will put up. this is the satellite picture as of 6:00 a.m. this morning. you see where the b.p. deep water horizon was and the area that we're monitoring. with that let me turn this over to secretary napolitano. >> well, thank you. i'd like today to update you with the latest information about the b.p. oil spill. the steps b.p. is taking to minimize the environmental and other risks of this incident.

last night b.p. alerted us to additional oil leaking from their deep underwater well. they are working with our support to estimate the size of this breach. as has just been mentioned, the president has urged out of an abundance of caution and mindful of new and evolving information that we must position resources to continue to confront this spill. that being said, we have been anticipating and planning and today i will be designating that this is a spill of national significance. what that means is that we can now draw down assets from across the country, other coastal areas, by way of example, that we will have a centralized communications because the spill is now crossing different regions. in addition to the command

center that we have operational in robert, louisiana, we are opening a second commander center in mobile, alabama, for the b.p. spill. as was mentioned as well, as part of our oversight of the response, i will be going to the gulf coast tomorrow along with secretary salazar, e.p.a. administrator jackson to inspect ongoing operations. we remain focused on continued oversight. we'll be taking a very close look at efforts under way, particularly to minimize the environmental risks in the area affected by the leaking oil. we'll be meeting with other federal, state and local officials deployed to the area and helping in the response effort and we will be meeting again with b.p. officials to discuss cleanup planning and operations. as the president and the law have made clear, b.p. is the responsible party, it is required to fund the costs of

the response and cleanup operations. but our visit to louisiana and the affected areas tomorrow will also help inform our investigation into the causes of this explosion which left 11 workers missing, three critically injured in addition to the ongoing oil spill. meanwhile a coordinated group of federal partners, including the departments of homeland security, defense, interior and the e.p.a., continues to work and oversee b.p.'s deployment of a combination of tactics above water, below water, dozens of miles offshore as well as closer to coastal areas. as you know, yesterday b.p. began a controlled burn designed to remove large quantities of oil from the open water in an effort to protect shoreline and

marine and other wildlife. the trapped oil was consumed in about 28 minutes. b.p. continues to use chemical dispersians which along with national dispersians of oil will address a large portion of the slick. nearly 100,000 gallons of dispersian have been used today. among other response activities are onwater skimming, subsurface well head operations, continued efforts to see if they can get that shutoff valve to close, and significant booming efforts under way to protect vital shoreline. right now at least 174,000 feet of boom have been deployed and other boom will be deployed at six staging areas and they are ready to be deployed right now.

in addition, approximately 1,100 total personal he -- personnel are currently working the spill and 685,000 gallons of oil and water have been collected so far using nearly 50 vessels and multiple aircraft who are engaged in the response. we will continue to push b.p. to engage in the strongest response possible. we will continue to oversee their efforts to add to those efforts where we deem necessary and to ensure again that under the law that the taxpayers of the united states ultimately are reimbursed for those efforts. but that is not the key focus, i must say, right now. our key focus is making sure that people know what is going on, they understand what relief efforts are under way, what the extent of the response is, what

we know, what we don't know about -- [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] >> we'll show all of this later. live house coverage on c-span. conducted as a 15-minute vote. the second electronic vote will be conducted as a five-minute vote. the unfinished business is the vote on ordering the previous question on house resolution 1305 on which the yeas and nays are ordered. the clerk will report the title of the resolution. the clerk: house calendar number 187, house resolution 1305. resolution providing for consideration of the bill h.r. 2499, to provide for a federally sanctioned self-determination process for the people of puerto rico. the speaker pro tempore: the question is on ordering the previous question. members will record their votes by electronic device.

this will be a 15-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 218. the nays are 188. the previous question is ordered. the question is on adoption of the resolution. so many as are in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the gentleman from california. >> i ask for the yeas and nays. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman asks for the yeas and nays. the yeas and nays are requested. those favoring a vote by the yeas and nays will rise. a sufficient number having arisen, the yeas and nays are ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a five-minute vote.

[captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]