or becoming a "sovereign nation, either fully independent from or in free association with the United States." Were Puerto Ricans to choose statehood, independence, or free association, the US Congress would have had six months to act on the wishes of the Puerto Rican people. The Act had bi-partisan support in the House of Representatives, with 129 co-sponsors, and was introduced in the U.S. Senate as S. 1936 with bi-partisan support on August 2, 2007 by Sen. Ken Salazar (D-CO) with 15 co-sponsors. The bill was never voted on before the 110th Congress ended. Puerto Rico Democracy Act of 2010 The 2009 bill (), was introduced in the United States House of Representatives on May 19, 2009 by Pedro Pierluisi (D-Puerto Rico) who is the Resident Commissioner of Puerto Rico to the United States Congress (not a voting-member of the House of Representatives). The bill would provide for a referendum giving Puerto Ricans the choice between the options of retaining their present political status, or choosing a new status. If the former option were to win, the referendum would have been held again every 8 years. If the latter option were to win, a separate referendum would be held where Puerto Ricans would have been given the option of being admitted as a US State "on equal footing with the other states," or becoming a "sovereign nation, either fully independent from or in free association with the United States." The bill enjoyed bi-partisan support in the House of Representatives, with 181 co-sponsors. Key issues before Congress The key issues of this bill that are considered "debatable" are: plebiscite vs. constitutional convention participation of Puerto Rican population not living in the Island exact meaning of "Sovereignty in association with the United States" Plebiscite vs. constitutional convention H.R. 2499 proposes to take the question directly to voters in at least one plebiscite. For those who believe that direct democracy is the best method for readdressing the status issue, the plebiscite approach could be preferred. Plebiscites, however, necessarily include pre-determined questions and answers (i.e., the options listed on the ballot). Other proposals (e.g., H.R. 110-1230) suggest a more grassroots-oriented approach involving constitutional conventions without preconditions on the issues to be considered or options to be proposed. The plebiscite approach is perhaps a more efficient way to ascertain the electorate's views on specific questions, but plebiscites do not allow for modification of the questions