[Pages H772-H812]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
UNITED STATES-PUERTO RICO POLITICAL STATUS ACT
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Pease). Pursuant to House Resolution 376
and rule XXIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the
Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the
bill, H.R. 856.
{time} 1212
In the Committee of the Whole
Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the
Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill
(H.R. 856) to provide a process leading to full self-government for
Puerto Rico, with Mr. Diaz-Balart in the chair.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered as having
been read the first time.
Under the rule, the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young), the gentleman
from California (Mr. Miller), the gentleman from New York (Mr. Solomon)
and the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Gutierrez) each will control 22\1/
2\ minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young).
(Mr. YOUNG of Alaska asked and was given permission to revise and
extend his remarks.)
Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Chairman, this is a very historical moment, one that is long
overdue. In debate on the rule, there were some statements made that I
think should be clarified before I go into the full text of my
presentation today, why I support this legislation.
The Northern Marianas were mentioned and other territories were
mentioned, and how they came into this great united part of our United
States, even as territories are separate governments. But, for
instance, the Northern Marianas, the Government of the United States
and the Government of the Northern Marianas will consult regularly on
all matters affecting the relationship between them. At the request of
either government, and not less frequently than every 10 years there
shall be an additional consultation taken.
Mr. Chairman, over 100 years ago, this Congress was passionately
discussing the 400-year-old colonial grip that Spain had on the islands
adjacent to and south of Florida. Just over 2 weeks earlier, on
February 15, 266 American servicemen lost their lives in Havana harbor
with the explosion of the United States warship, the Maine.
[[Page H773]]
{time} 1215
The monument to these gallant mean stands highest above all else in
Arlington National Monument. Many others lost their lives in the
ensuing Spanish-American War amid the cries of ``Remember the Maine.''
But why?
This Congress declared war and sent Americans in harm's way in the
defense of the sacred ideal: self-determination. America won the war,
and assumed sovereignty over Cuba, Puerto Rico, and some of Spain's
Pacific possessions. All but one are no longer territories. Only Puerto
Rico still stands, after 100 years, a territory.
Mr. Chairman, Congress promptly delivered on its promise of self-
determination to the people of Cuba by providing for a process which
permitted Cuba to become a separate sovereign after a few brief years.
In contrast, the Rough Rider who had charged up San Juan Hill to
ensure the United States' victory in the Caribbean had become President
of the United States and urged Congress to grant United States
citizenship to the people of Puerto Rico in his 1905 State of the Union
address. Quote, ``I earnestly advocate the adoption of legislation
which will explicitly confer American citizenship on all citizens of
Puerto Rico. There is, in my judgment, no excuse for the failure to do
this.''
I believe President Teddy Roosevelt's words are even more true today
to this bill as when he spoke them in 1905.
Our fellow Americans in Puerto Rico, now numbering some 4 million,
have been loyal to this Nation and have valiantly fought in every major
conflict. We have all benefited in ways that cannot be calculated from
the bravery, the loyalty, and the patriotism of over 200,000 Americans
from Puerto Rico who have served in our Nation's Armed Forces.
It is clear that a heavy price has been paid by Puerto Rico for this
country, which has yet to fully deliver on the promise of the U.S.
General Miles when he landed in Puerto Rico 100 years ago this year:
``In the continuation of the war against the Kingdom of Spain by the
people of the United States, in the cause of freedom, justice and
humanity, their military forces have come to occupy the island of
Puerto Rico. They come bearing the flag of freedom. They bring you the
encouraging strength of a Nation of free people whose greatest power
consists of justice and humanity for all those who live in their
community. The principal objective will be to give the people of your
beautiful island the largest extent of freedom possible. We have not
come to wage war, but to bring protection, not just for you but for
your property, in order to promote your prosperity and in order to
obtain for you the privileges and the blessings of our government. It
is not our purpose to interfere with any of the laws and customs
present that are wise and beneficial.''
The Congress provided Puerto Rico with increasing levels of self-
government for the first half of this century, culminating with the
authorization in 1950 for the process of a development of a local
constitutional government.
By 1952, Congress conditionally approved a draft constitution
submitted by the legislature of Puerto Rico. After those changes were
made by Puerto Rico, the new constitutional government of the territory
became effective under the name declared by the constitutional
convention as the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico.
The establishment of local constitutional self-government did not
alter Congress' constitutional responsibility under the Territorial
Clause for Puerto Rico. However, it was under the first years of the
commonwealth that President Eisenhower established the Eisenhower
Doctrine regarding Puerto Rico which is still in effect today and is
reflected in the United States-Puerto Rico Political Status Act.
After the local constitutional government of Puerto Rico was
established, Puerto Rico was removed from the United Nations'
decolonization list, prompting questions as to whether Puerto Rico was
still a territory under the sovereignty of the United States and
subject to the authority of Congress. President Eisenhower, a
Republican, acted decisively by sending a message to the United Nations
that he recommended that the United States Congress grant Puerto Rico
separate sovereignty if requested by the Puerto Ricans through the
legislature of Puerto Rico.
While the legislature has never petitioned for separate sovereignty,
the legislature sent joint resolutions to Congress in 1993, 1994, and
1997 requesting congressional action. Keep that in mind, because I have
heard time and again that the Congress, by doing this, is dictating to
the Puerto Rican people. But the legislature sent to this Congress in
1993, 1994, 1997 requesting congressional action to define the
political status and establish a process to resolve, establish the
process to resolve Puerto Rico's political status dilemma.
Although in recent years the Puerto Rican legislature formally
requested the Congress to resolve Puerto Rico's political status, U.S.
citizens in Puerto Rico had been advocating action for over a decade. I
remember the submission to Congress in 1985 to 1987 of over 350,000
individually signed petitions for full citizenship rights. This
incredible grassroots effort was led by Dr. Miriam Ramirez of the
nonprofit, nonpartisan civic organization, Puerto Ricans in Civic
Action.
Mr. Chairman I believe this initiative influenced the then president
of the Senate to include in his first State of the Union address as
President on February 9, 1989, the following request: ``I've long
believed the people of Puerto Rico should have their right to determine
their own political future. Personally, I strongly favor statehood. But
I urge the Congress to take the necessary steps to allow the people to
decide in a referendum.''
Mr. Chairman, about the same time as President Bush requested
Congress authorize a political status referendum in Puerto Rico, the
three presidents of the three principal political status parties in
Puerto Rico asked Congress to help resolve Puerto Rico's political
status, as Puerto Rico has never been formally consulted as to their
choice of ultimate political status.
While Congress has yet to formally respond to the request of the
President, the leaders of Puerto Rico, and the petitions of the
Americans in Puerto Rico, this bill will do just what has been asked by
the people of Puerto Rico in numerous years and numerous times by the
president of the Senate, by the Presidents in the past in their
platforms.
The United States-Puerto Rico Political Status Act, H.R. 856,
establishes in Federal law for the first time a process to resolve
Puerto Rico's political status. I remind my colleagues it will not
happen overnight, regardless of what we do here today. This is just a
process that will take place.
My colleague who was speaking on the rule said that the public is not
aware of this action today. May I remind my colleagues that if we were
to pass this bill today, and I hope we do pass this bill today, it must
be passed by the Senate and the people of Puerto Rico must also pass it
in 1998. It comes back to the Congress in 1999, and by 1999 we again in
Congress must act. We must pass a bill approving the transitional
stage. Then it goes back to the people of Puerto Rico. And, by the way,
the start of the transition period begins in the year 2000.
But this more than anything else is a bill that establishes the right
to determine for the first time in 100 years their self-determination.
It is a fair and balanced process that has been developed with an
enormous amount of input. Mr. Chairman, I resent certain Members saying
that this has not been fair. We asked all of those people involved, all
three parties, to submit what their definition should be in this bill.
We have in my substitute recognized commonwealth. We recognize
independence. We set forth a process which will create a State.
Mr. Chairman, if it does become a State, I am one of the few people,
along with the gentleman from Hawaii (Mr. Abercrombie) that has gone
through this process.
I have heard some statements here today about English language only.
When Alaska became a State, that was not a requirement. We had 52
different dialects in Alaska. People speak English. They also speak
many other languages. It was not a requirement. Hawaii has two official
languages. They have English and Hawaiian. New Mexico has two official
languages, English and Spanish.
The concept of the amendments that will be offered to this bill,
especially the amendment of the gentleman from New York (Mr. Solomon),
he is my
[[Page H774]]
good friend and we talk about what good friends we are, it is a poison
pill amendment. America is a melting pot. It is a group of people
coming together under one flag. We all speak different languages at
different times. Some of us are more fortunate to speak more than one
language, but we must always recognize the cohesive part of the United
States, and that is being an American. English will come. But to pick
out one part of this bill and to say this is a requirement before it
ever happens is a poison pill amendment to this legislation.
Let us talk about history again. This is the last territory of the
greatest democracy, America. A territory where no one has a true voice,
although our government does an excellent job, but there are
approximately 4 million Puerto Ricans that have one voice that cannot
vote. This is not America as I know it. This is an America that talks
one thing and walks another thing. This is an America that is saying,
if Members do not accept this legislation, ``no'' to who I think are
some of the greatest Americans that have ever served in our armed
forces and are proud to be Americans but do not have the representation
that they need.
This legislation is just the beginning. It is one small step of many
steps. It is a step for freedom, it is a small step for justice, it is
a small step for America. But collectively it is a great stride for
democracy and for justice.
This legislation should pass. The amendment of the gentleman from New
York (Mr. Solomon) should be defeated. We should go forth and show the
people of America, show the people of Puerto Rico, that our hearts are
true, so that the rest of the world will follow the example of the
great United States and free their territories and free the people so
they can have self-determination. This is what this bill does, and that
is all it does.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the
gentleman from Puerto Rico (Mr. Romero-Barcelo).
Mr. ROMERO-BARCELO. Mr. Chairman, I would love to be able to speak
for 30 minutes, an hour or two hours on this subject, but there are so
many other people that want to speak on this subject, and many of my
colleagues have heard me over and over on this, that I am going to
yield some of the time that I would have been allotted so that other
Members of this Congress can address the House in support of this bill
which is a very, very important bill for the people of Puerto Rico, for
the 3,800,000 U.S. citizens in Puerto Rico.
Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 4\1/2\
minutes.
(Mr. MILLER of California asked and was given permission to revise
and extend his remarks.)
Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, the Committee on Resources of
the House of Representatives had an obligation to report to this floor
a fair and accurate plan for the citizens of Puerto Rico to choose
their status. I believe that this committee has met that obligation.
Mr. Chairman I thank the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young), chairman
of the committee, for leading us through what has been a difficult
process. I also thank the gentleman from Puerto Rico (Mr. Romero-
Barcelo), our friend, for all of his help in this process.
Mr. Chairman, the people of Puerto Rico, if this bill is passed, will
be given the opportunity by the Congress of the United States under the
laws of this Nation to choose their status. They can choose to continue
in the commonwealth arrangement, they could choose to become an
independent nation, they could choose to become one of the States of
the United States of America.
Our obligation was to see that when this process went forward to the
people of Puerto Rico, that it was a fair process, that it was an
accurate process. We had had an earlier plebiscite where the parties
wrote their own definitions and the people voted, and the Congress has
done nothing because the Congress knew in fact those definitions,
whether they were of statehood or of commonwealth, were, in fact, not
accurate and would not be supported by the Congress of the United
States and did not reflect the laws and the Constitution of this
country.
In the committee, I was very distraught at beginning of this process
because I felt that those who support commonwealth were not able to
present their definition to the Congress, to the committee. I worked
very hard so that that definition could be offered. I offered that
definition. It was turned down overwhelming on a bipartisan basis. It
was something called ``enhanced commonwealth.'' It was sort of a make-
believe status of commonwealth.
{time} 1230
The suggestion was that if you voted for commonwealth, you would then
be empowered to pick your way through the Constitution of the United
States and the laws of the United States and pick and choose which laws
you wanted to apply and not have apply, and that you did not have to
live under the power of the Congress of the United States or of the
Constitution of the United States. That simply was unacceptable to the
overwhelming majority of the committee. I believe it is unacceptable to
the overwhelming majority of this House. Someone can certainly come
forward and offer that amendment this afternoon, should they choose,
and I believe it would clearly be unacceptable to the people of this
country.
So what we put forth is a definition of commonwealth that recognizes
their current status today, that they live in a commonwealth
arrangement. It says Puerto Rico is joined in relationship under the
national sovereignty of the United States. It is the policy of the
Congress that this relationship should only be dissolved by mutual
consent. That is the situation that we have.
We went on to say that in the exercise of the sovereignty, the laws
of the commonwealth shall govern Puerto Rico to the extent that they
are consistent with the Constitution of the United States. There is no
other way to do business, consistent with the Constitution of the
United States, treaties and laws of the United States, and the Congress
retains its constitutional authority to enact laws that it deems
necessary relating to Puerto Rico.
That is the burden of commonwealth. That is why some people do not
like it. Some people would prefer independence over commonwealth, and
some people would prefer statehood. There is a certain burden to
commonwealth. We cannot pretend that there is not. But the people of
Puerto Rico ought to be able to choose that. They have to be able to
choose the status that they want.
That is what this legislation does. It enables the people of Puerto
Rico to make their choice; not our choice, their choice. And hopefully
under this legislation, the Congress would then honor that choice after
the President and others have worked out a plan to enable that choice
to go forward. That is what this legislation does. Nothing more,
nothing less.
I think it is an important piece of legislation. I think it is
recognized that the people of Puerto Rico are entitled to and must have
a free and fair vote on this matter. I would hope that my colleagues
would support this legislation to allow that to happen.
Mr. Chairman, the House today considers H.R. 856, a complex bill that
has, at its core, a very basic concept: the right of a free people to
determine the political system under which they live.
Puerto Rico has been a part of the United States for a century. Its
residents, whether they live in San Juan, Mayaguez, New York or San
Francisco, are United States citizens. H.R. 856 gives those 4 million
Americans the right to decide their future status relationship to the
rest of the United States: to become an independent nation, to become a
state, or to remain in commonwealth status.
Unlike some of my colleagues who have worked on this issue over the
past decade, I do not have a personal preference. I believe status
should be determined by the governed. Our obligation is to present fair
and accurate status options to the voters of Puerto Rico--options that
reflect Constitutional and political reality--and to honor the choice
made by a majority of the voters.
During much of the consideration of this legislation by the Resources
Committee in this Congress and the previous Congress, I could not
support the legislation because I did not believe that the very
sizeable number of Puerto Rican voters who support the Commonwealth
option were treated fairly. Originally, this bill did not even contain
any Commonwealth option.
But I am pleased to say that Chairman Young worked closely with me
and with others to ensure that each of the political parties
[[Page H775]]
was heard, and that we ultimately agreed on definitions that are fair
and accurate. They are included in Mr. Young's substitute, and I
support that substitute strongly.
Rarely have we seen more intense lobbying on an issue. It is obvious
that opinions are divided on Puerto Rico's status and on this
legislation. But let them address some of the misconceptions and
misrepresentations that are being circulated about this bill, because
Members should not be confused and should not be deceived into voting
on this subject based on inaccuracies.
No one in this Chamber is more qualified than I to speak about how we
addressed the Commonwealth issue. I so strongly advocated inclusion of
a Commonwealth option that I was accused of being pro-Commonwealth. The
definition of Commonwealth supplied by that party, which is similar in
many respects to the definition on the ballot during the 1993
referendum in Puerto Rico, is not accurate and is not acceptable to the
Congress. It is not acceptable that Puerto Rico would be eligible for
full participation in all federal programs without paying taxes; it is
not acceptable that Puerto Rico would pick and choose which federal
laws apply on the island; it is not acceptable that Puerto Rico would
be free to make its own foreign treaties.
I appreciate that this is what the supporters of ``enhanced
Commonwealth'' want. But the Congress is not prepared to give such
unprecedented rights to Puerto Rico while denying them to every state
in the Union. Nevertheless, I offered that definition in the Resources
Committee so that it would be clear what is and is not acceptable to
the Congress. It was overwhelmingly, and bipartisanly, defeated. And
Congress should not offer an option to the voters of Puerto Rico that
we are not prepared to embrace.
The definition of Puerto Rico now included in the substitute by Mr.
Young may not be utopian, but it is historically and Constitutionally
accurate.
There are some who argue that this bill is unfair because it fails to
recognize that Puerto Rico is a ``nation.'' Puerto Rico, like many
other areas of the United States, has a unique history and unique
culture; that is in part what makes our country so remarkable and
enduring. But Puerto Rico is not a nation in any sense under U.S. law
or international law. Our refusal to recognize Puerto Rico as a
``nation'' in H.R. 856 is not a slight; it is accurate.
There are some who oppose this bill because they do not want America
to ``wake up tomorrow'' and find out Puerto Rico is going to be the
51st state. This bill provides for a plebiscite to choose among three
options, only one of which is statehood. Even if that option is chosen,
there is a transition period of up to a decade during which a plan for
achieving statehood would be developed, and then voted on in the
Congress and in Puerto Rico. And Congress also will vote on an
admissions act. So no one should be under a misimpression that this
legislation railroads statehood.
Some have raised concerns that admitting Puerto Rico at some point in
the future will cost some states seats in this House. I personally
support increasing the size of the House to 441 seats to accommodate
the 6 new seats Puerto Rico would occupy. In any event, that is a
statutory decision to be made by the Congress, just as Congress
increased the size of the House permanently when other multi-Member
territories were admitted in the 19th and early 20th century.
There are those who argue that Puerto Rico would cost the federal
government money were it to become a state. I would hope that the
financial status of citizens would not be an issue in determining
whether they are accorded the full rights of citizenship. I thought we
had resolved that issue by declaring the poll tax and properly
ownership unconstitutional. And we should be careful about applying
such a standard: as of FY 1996, 29 states--more than half--received
more federal expenditures than they paid in taxes. Let's not impose a
standard on Puerto Rico that we wouldn't apply to other states.
I also have noted some questions as to why the bill calls for
periodic referenda should either permanent status--independence or
statehood--not be selected. Let us be clear that the bill authorizes
additional referenda, it does not mandate them. The purpose of the
referenda is to determine a permanent status, and commonwealth is
generally recognized not to meet that test. Should the voters of Puerto
Rico decide to continue as a commonwealth, they could do so
indefinitely.
Lastly, let me address what has unfortunately become a centerpiece of
this debate: whether we should, in this legislation, mandate English as
the official national language.
The House voted on that legislation in 1996; the leadership could
bring it before the full House again at any time. But this is not the
time or place to do it. The Solomon amendment declares English to be
the national language, but it imposes a series of additional
unconstitutional burdens on the people of Puerto Rico, requiring that
``all communications with the federal government by the government or
people of Puerto Rico shall be in English''; requiring that ``English
will be the sole official language of all federal government activities
in Puerto Rico''; imposing English as the ``language of instruction in
public schools.''
We don't need to single out Puerto Rico like this, to inflame this
debate and insult the 500-year-old culture of 4 million Americans. We
have a reasonable alternative amendment that is going to be introduced
by Congressmen Dan Burton, Bill McCollum, Don Young and myself that
takes a different, and fairer, approach. The Clinton Administration
supports our substitute.
Our amendment says Puerto Rico, if it becomes a state, will be
treated exactly like every other state. If Congress decides that
English is to be the official language and passes a comprehensive law
to that effect, then Puerto Rico will be covered Just like every other
state. But let's not single out Puerto Rico in a divisive and
unconstitutional manner for special treatment.
Our amendment also calls for Puerto Rico to promote the teaching of
English because that language is clearly the language that allows for
the fullest participation in all aspects of American life. And we call
for inclusion in any transition plan of proposals and incentives for
promoting English proficiency in the schools and elsewhere in Puerto
Rico. Surely, we can reasonably address this issue in an equitable
manner without passing a confrontational and unfair insult to our
fellow countrymen and women.
The time has come to tell the people of Puerto Rico that the rest of
the nation of which they are a part is prepared to hear their views and
respond to their desires. That we will stand by our historic and legal
tradition that inclusion in America is not dependent on one's
background or ethnicity, but on a common allegiance to this nation and
its Constitution. After being a part of the United States for 100
years, after sending its sons to war five times in this century, it is
time that this Congress recognized the right of Puerto Rico to
determine its future in a democratic fashion. That is the purpose and
the policy contained in H.R. 856, and I call on the House today to pass
this bill, and defeat the divisive Solomon amendment.
Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
In April of 1775, hundreds of brave men stormed the bridges of
Lexington and Concord, setting in motion a revolutionary struggle for
liberty that culminated in my hometown of Saratoga, New York, in the
greatest victory for individual freedom and democracy in all of human
history. That blood-stained victory of our forefathers has left the
legacy that you and I and all of us call America.
Liberty and justice and democracy, these are words that do more than
describe our Nation's ideals and principles. They are the very essence
of this country of ours. These ideals are able to thrive and to
dominate the political and economic landscapes of the United States
because of the people's devotion to its unit as a Nation, to an idea
that there is something unique, something distinct about being an
American.
Throughout my military service, my small-business career and the last
31 years in public office, I have dedicated my life to further the
principles of freedom and democracy and self-determination throughout
this world. Like all of my colleagues, I have been blessed to live in
this most free and democratic Nation in the world, and sometimes you
ought to travel overseas into the former Soviet Union and see how much
they respect this democracy of ours. It was a product of blood and
sweat and commitment to principle, of those who have gone before us.
While serving in the United States Marine Corps during the Korean
era, I was privileged to serve side by side with so many Puerto Rican
Americans, great people, great personal friends of mine, and to be
stationed for a time on the island of Viacus in Puerto Rico where I
made some of my closest friendships that today still exist, and during
that time I was able to gain a personal affection for the people of
Puerto Rico and for their love of liberty and their distinct culture.
As a result Puerto Rico and its people hold a very warm space in my
heart.
Today the House considers a bill which may lead to a dramatic and
permanent change in the lives of these U.S. citizens. It is billed by
its supporters as a bill to permanently resolve the political status of
Puerto Rico through a process of self-determination. But however lofty
and worthy the objectives of this bill, it is a flawed measure
[[Page H776]]
that flips the very principles of self-determination and democracy on
their heads, Mr. Chairman. In establishing a self-determination process
for Puerto Rico, Congress, under the U.S. Constitution, must answer to
two distinct yet equally important interests, my colleagues should
listen to this, the citizens of Puerto Rico and the citizens of the
United States. I believe this bill as currently drafted fails to answer
to either interest, either the Puerto Rican citizens or the American
citizens on this mainland, for this bill actually violates self-
determination. Read the conference, read the report of this bill which
was authored by the gentleman from California (Mr. Miller).
I strongly support allowing the citizens of Puerto Rico to vote on
the future of their political status. In fact, they actually do not
need to get permission from this Congress of the United States to do
so. In fact, they already did in 1952, in 1967, and again in 1993.
However, I firmly believe that in order for a political process to
deliver self-determination, it must always allow for the participation
of all of its citizens, not just some. This bill as currently drafted
not only requires, but listen to this, it demands that Puerto Rico hold
a plebiscite before the end of this year, 1998. Who are we to tell
them? In that referendum the citizens of Puerto Rico will be asked to
choose between commonwealth, between separate sovereignty and
statehood. This seems to be simple enough. However, Mr. Chairman, there
is a catch to it.
Members of this House should be aware that the Statehood Party of
Puerto Rico supports the ballot definition of statehood in this bill,
and the Puerto Rican Independence Party supports the ballot definition
of independence in this bill. However, the Commonwealth Party, the
party that actually won every past referendum on political status, does
not support the definition of commonwealth in this bill. And ask
yourself why not?
In fact, the definition of commonwealth was written not just once but
twice by the supporters of the statehood option without the approval of
the vast majority of the people in Puerto Rico, the Commonwealth Party.
What this means is that the largest political party in Puerto Rico is
faced with a grave choice under this bill. They can either choose to
campaign, to support, to vote for a ballot definition that directly
contradicts the very premise of their political party's existence, or
they cannot participate in the referendum. They have chosen not to
participate, and that is a terrible shame.
So first and foremost, the House is debating a measure designed to
determine Puerto Rico's political status in which one of the three
local political parties, in fact the largest in Puerto Rico, will not
even participate. How is that going to take an accurate and democratic
measure of the political choices of those 3.8 million U.S. citizens
there? The fact is, it is not.
Mr. Chairman, back in 1990, the last time this House considered
similar legislation, all of the parties were supportive of the process
and supported that bill because it was a fair bill. I voted for it. It
sailed through the House under suspension of the rules only to be
stalled in the other body. Today we debate a controversial bill not
just here in the United States, but also in Puerto Rico.
One final comment on this bill's self-determination problems, Mr.
Chairman. As this bill currently stands, it requires Puerto Rico
permanently to hold this referendum every 10 years until statehood gets
50 percent plus 1. Then the transition and implementation process
begins. Since the current support for independence hovers around 5
percent and for statehood around 45 percent, the likely outcome of a
forced decennial vote seems likely to be statehood with hardly half the
population supporting it.
This bill also contains certain constitutional pitfalls. Mr.
Chairman, Members should listen carefully to what I am about to say
because their constituents want to know this. Under this bill, if the
citizens of Puerto Rico choose statehood in the first referendum, the
constitutional protections given States begin to apply to Puerto Rico
upon the President's submission of a transition plan taking Puerto Rico
from commonwealth to statehood.
What this means is that the process of integrating Puerto Rico into
this Union begins with a vote of the transition bill. Members better
remember that. According to the Supreme Court in Balzac v. People of
Puerto Rico, way back in 1922, once the process of integration begins,
it is very difficult to reverse, and we will not reverse it.
The catch with this provision is that under this bill, Congress will
be required to vote on this transition plan as early as early next
year. While Puerto Rico may not officially join the Union for another 5
or 6 or 7 or 10 years, the vote to begin the admissions process could
take place as early as next year, and there would be no turning back at
that point.
Such a voting strategy is almost identical to that done when we gave
away the Panama Canal to Panama and when Great Britain gave Hong Kong
back to China. Members better start thinking about that because their
constituents are thinking about it. A vote to do it occurs now, while
it actually changes hands sometime in the future. That is what we are
voting on here today.
Mr. Chairman, our constituents want to know, they want us to listen
and to be careful about this. With the referendum required to be held
before the end of this year, this bill requires the President to send
Congress transition legislation within 180 days of that referendum.
That means if that referendum is held in December, as late as December
of this year, within 180 days the President is ordered to send us a
transition bill. Within 5 days of the receipt of that bill, the
majority leaders of the House and the Senate are required to introduce
the bill. And within 120 days of introduction, a vote occurs on the
bill on the floor of this House of Representatives, which could happen
next July or August or September or October or November or December of
1999. That is how close this is.
In essence, this bill sets up a process whereby the citizens of
Puerto Rico are forced to vote until they choose statehood, and then
the process kicks in to high gear under expedited procedures as I have
just outlined.
Yes, it is true that it may take up to 10 years, as the bill says,
for the process to run its course, but the bulk of the actual process
occurs up front, and Members had better understand it.
The most serious constitutional reservation of this bill involves the
treatment of the rights enjoyed by the people of Puerto Rico currently
under the commonwealth status. The ballot contained in the bill states
that Congress may determine which rights under the United States
Constitution are guaranteed to the people of Puerto Rico.
This statement is wrong at several levels. First, it rests upon the
remarkable proposition that Congress has the authority to deprive the
people of Puerto Rico of any and all of their constitutional rights.
This provision of this bill is demonstrably false, Mr. Chairman,
because even Puerto Rico, if it were an unincorporated territory, the
people of Puerto Rico would be still guaranteed fundamental
constitutional rights. That is why so many people in Puerto Rico
support commonwealth.
The description of the citizenship rights of Puerto Rico is similarly
flawed. It states that Puerto Ricans are merely statutory citizens and
implies that their citizenship may be revoked by Congress. Well, the
people of Puerto Rico are United States citizens within the meaning of
the 14th amendment. Get the amendment out. Read it. The 14th amendment.
These points were clearly enunciated yesterday by our colleague, the
chairman of the House Committee on the Judiciary, Subcommittee on the
Constitution. We have it over here, if Members want to read it.
Third and finally, this bill fails to clearly lay out how
assimilation would occur under the bill for either Puerto Rico or the
United States, and this is the most important part of this entire
debate. As I stated earlier, I have a great deal of respect for the
pride and for the culture of the people of Puerto Rico. They are
wonderful people. I believe, as do many of my colleagues, that Puerto
Rico is a nation, it is unique and distinct in its own right, and
Puerto Rico has every right to preserve and enhance this rich heritage
of culture and history. That is their right.
But if the citizens of Puerto Rico freely choose to seek statehood,
they should understand clearly, and I think my good friend the
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Gutierrez) made this point
[[Page H777]]
earlier, what are the assimilation expectations of the American people,
of the 260 million Americans in this country? Puerto Rico deserves a
clear, concise and direct discussion of these issues. They have not had
that. They do not know what the assimilation would be. Admitting a
State requires the assimilation of a territory within the Union of
States, and language differences are the number one barrier to actual
assimilation. The bill before us today contains the most vacuous
statement of language policy that I have ever seen.
{time} 1245
How will the average citizen of Puerto Rico understand what this
means if we cannot even understand what it means ourselves? And I would
ask every Member back in their offices to pick up the bill and read it.
In this regard, the bill's language regarding English is weak, it is
inadequate, and must be clarified for the benefit of the people of the
island of Puerto Rico because they need to know what they are getting
into.
My fellow colleagues, it was Winston Churchill who stated that the
gift of common language is a priceless inheritance and, Members, not
explicitly stating what role Puerto Rico's inherited Spanish language
and our common tongue, English, would play in a State of Puerto Rico, I
believe, would be a grave mistake for everyone.
To rectify this I intend to, later in the debate, offer an amendment
regarding the role of the English language, which I believe very
clearly explains this issue to both the American people and to the
people of Puerto Rico.
Now, some of my friends are going to argue that I have specifically
selected the statehood option for the bulk of my criticism with this
bill and that it is merely a process bill which includes that as an
option. Let me make something perfectly clear. For my constituents in
upstate New York, who are wedged between Canada and New York City,
between Quebec and New York City, the statehood option for Puerto Rico
is the choice with the most far-reaching and permanent consequences. It
is a permanent relationship that requires assimilation, and that choice
needs to be decided by an overwhelming majority of the citizens of
Puerto Rico before my constituents and before my colleagues'
constituents will agree to let them join the Union.
It must be clear to our good friends in Puerto Rico that if they
choose statehood, it is still within Congress' powers as
representatives of this country to say no. Statehood may be an option
at some point in the future, but the American people are going to have
to examine that situation at that time, and that time is today. We
cannot force a decision on the citizens of Puerto Rico and the citizens
of Puerto Rico cannot force the United States to accept a decision.
The Puerto Rican people deserve to know exactly what they are voting
on and the American people deserve to know the ramifications of each of
those options. Until this bill becomes an actual self-determination
bill, passes constitutional muster in all of its components, and
fundamentally addresses the issue of assimilation, I will oppose this
bill. And I hope we can clarify it by adoption of my amendment later on
this afternoon.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Chairman, I rise as the designee of the gentleman
from Illinois (Mr. Gutierrez), and I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Chairman, I rise today to express my strenuous opposition to H.R.
856, the United States-Puerto Rico Political Status Act. Mr. Chairman,
I think that we can all agree that the people of Puerto Rico must be
given the right to self-determination. Unfortunately, H.R. 856 does not
accomplish this.
This bill is the product of a flawed legislative process that was
designed to produce a very specific result. It was written without
consulting all the parties that have a very real interest in its
outcome.
Proponents of H.R. 856 will try to say that this is a bill about
self-determination. They are misleading their colleagues. Instead, H.R.
856 is a one-sided bill that is biased in favor of Puerto Rican
statehood. It was written by the party that supports statehood in a way
that promotes statehood without consulting all the participants in this
very, very sensitive process.
Under H.R. 856, Puerto Ricans will be given the choice between
statehood, Commonwealth status or separate sovereignty, yet the
Commonwealth option does not even guarantee citizenship. Why was
citizenship not statutory back in 1990 when this House voted for this
bill? I do not understand what happened since 1990.
The authors of this legislation have said that our citizenship is
statutory. Simply put, this means that our citizenship can be taken
away. Tell that to the widows of men who fought and died in foreign
wars so that citizenship of all Americans will be guaranteed. Mr.
Chairman, tell that to my uncle, who fought valiantly in Korea for my
colleagues and for me and for all Americans everywhere.
Furthermore, if the people of Puerto Rico were to choose Commonwealth
status, the bill will require further plebiscites until either
statehood or separate sovereignty wins. This double standard applied to
Commonwealth shows how the deck is stacked in favor of statehood. Under
those conditions, not even the most forceful defender of Commonwealth
status will vote for it.
Many people forget that the original version of this bill did not
even include a Commonwealth option. The party that supports
Commonwealth status had no input in the drafting of H.R. 856 and has
been repeatedly shut out of the process. Amazingly, the president of
the Commonwealth party learned about the bill's definition of
Commonwealth from a reporter.
In fact, the statehood party had to rewrite the Commonwealth
definition after a poll in a major Puerto Rican newspaper showed that
75 percent of Puerto Ricans supported the inclusion of a fair and
balanced Commonwealth option, which this bill lacks. Today, and I
repeat, today in Puerto Rico a new poll was released that shows that 65
percent of the people of Puerto Rico reject this bill.
Mr. Chairman, it is an outrage to the democratic process that the
definition for Commonwealth status was written by the very party that
opposes it. It is like allowing Republicans to decide who could appear
on a Democratic ballot.
Five years ago, the people of Puerto Rico held a plebiscite on this
issue and chose to maintain their current status. This is a situation
that the losers in that contest do not seem willing to accept. Yet the
outcome was an important one. It reaffirmed the permanent United States
citizenship of the people of Puerto Rico that is guaranteed under the
Constitution. It acknowledged the bilateral nature of the U.S.-Puerto
Rico relationship. It confirmed the autonomous status of Puerto Rico,
which can only be changed by mutual consent.
The supporters of H.R. 856 are rejecting each and every one of these
arguments when they say that citizenship can only be protected under
statehood. Puerto Ricans are American citizens and we are proud to be
American citizens. We do not need a plebiscite to prove that we are
Americans any more than the people of Massachusetts or Virginia do.
This bill is not the result of a democratic process. It does not
define all the choices to the satisfaction of the very people who will
participate in this plebiscite. By defeating this bill we will be
sending a message that we truly honor the idea of self-definition for
the people of Puerto Rico.
Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to not be fooled by the arguments
of the other side. A vote for H.R. 856 is a vote for statehood, not a
vote for self-determination.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the
gentleman from Florida (Mr. McCollum).
(Mr. McCOLLUM asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, we have embarked on one of the more
significant debates this Congress will have in this 2-year period,
maybe one of the more significant debates that we can have because we
are trying to find a way to resolve concerns we all have about a part
of the United States. Make no mistake about it, Puerto Rico is part of
the United States.
In my State of Florida, which is right next door, it is a neighbor,
it is a very
[[Page H778]]
friendly neighbor, the people of Puerto Rico are citizens of the United
States. There are no Customs checks or boundaries between our country
and theirs or my State and Puerto Rico.
Puerto Rico is a Commonwealth. It is a funny kind of status to most
of us because we do not think of it in that way very often, at least I
do not. I know that anybody who lives in Puerto Rico can come live at
my State or Texas or Minnesota or New York, anywhere, any time they
want to. That is fine.
Travel is free. People talk to each other all the time. There is a
common bond that is there. And I think it is important for us as we
debate this bill today to recognize the depth of this relationship and
the importance of it and the tenderness of it.
The people of Puerto Rico have sacrificed many times over for the
United States. Many men have given their lives in the service of this
country from Puerto Rico over the years. We have been partners for
years and years and years.
I believe it is very, very important that we give the people of
Puerto Rico, as this bill does, an opportunity to determine what they
wish us to consider in this Congress in the coming years regarding
their future status.
It is not, as has been said before, that this legislation would
determine whether or not Puerto Rico were to be a State or not. It is
to give to the people of Puerto Rico a plebiscite, a vote, an
opportunity to say yes to statehood, we would like you to consider
that, Congress, or, no, we would rather stay in the Commonwealth
status, or possibly we would rather be independent.
If this is not resolved in favor of statehood or independence now, it
provides a vehicle for there to be future opportunities for the people
of Puerto Rico to speak out on this issue and to debate all of those
things that have been discussed today that need to be debated. There
needs to be that kind of debate. That is what it is all about.
Yes, if Puerto Rico becomes a State, there will be expectations on
both sides. We need to have a further airing of that. That is what the
plebiscite debate in Puerto Rico would be all about.
Certainly assimilation in that broad sense of the word has always
been part of the American tradition. But we assimilate immigrants into
this country, and Puerto Ricans are not immigrants. They are citizens.
But we assimilate immigrants into this country, and, ultimately, make
them citizens every year, every day. We have done it since the
beginning of the nations history.
We should not be concerned about the challenges involved in it. I do
not think either side should be concerned. But we should be open about
it. We should discuss it, and we should have a fair debate about it.
But above all else, we need to be sure that the people of Puerto Rico
get the chance to have that debate first.
So I urge my colleagues in the strongest sort of way to vote for this
resolution today to give the Puerto Rican people that opportunity.
I would like to make a couple of comments, too, about who has
supported this in the past. We have heard people debate, what did
Ronald Reagan or George Bush say about it? Well, when the Puerto Rican
statehood plebiscite was being discussed in November 1993, Ronald
Reagan said,
My friends, as you consider whether or not you wish to
continue being a part of the United States, I want you to
know one thing, the United States will welcome you with open
arms.
We've always been a land of varied cultural backgrounds and
origins, and we believe firmly that our strength is our
diversity.
There is much Puerto Rico can contribute to our Nation,
which is why I personally favor statehood. We hope you will
join us.
Thank you and God bless you.
So I think that it is important that we understand that the history
has been of this Nation that many, many, many people have urged
statehood on Puerto Rico in the past. But, again, that is not the
purpose of the plebiscite. It is for the people of Puerto Rico to
decide that.
We are also going to hear the question about English being discussed
out here. The gentleman from New York (Mr. Solomon), a moment ago, was
discussing that question.
I favor English as the official language of the United States. I have
been a cosponsor of bills to do that for a long time. All 50 States,
and if we get a 51st State, the 51st State, too, should abide by that.
That should be our official language. We should put it in the statute
of the books of this country to say that. But to attach it to this bill
sends the wrong signal.
We are interested in seeing Puerto Rico treated as everybody else. If
we actually have an official language statute ever become law, and I
hope it does, it should apply to all of the territories, the
Commonwealths, the possessions of the United States. It should be known
that English is the official language of the United States. But I do
not believe it should be adopted on this bill today.
I would urge the support for the substitute amendment that I am
helping cosponsor later on.
The CHAIRMAN. Who rises as the designee for the gentleman of
California (Mr. Miller)?
Mr. ROMERO-BARCELO. I do, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Chairman, we have a Member that has to get back to a
hearing, so I would take him out of order.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr.
Goodlatte.)
(Mr. GOODLATTE asked and was given permission to revise and extend
his remarks.)
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 856
because I have serious reservations about the constitutionality of this
legislation which authorizes the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico to hold a
referendum to determine Puerto Rico's political future and prescribes
the wording of the ballot to be submitted to the voters.
Under the Act, the voters of Puerto Rico purportedly may choose to
maintain the current Commonwealth status, to become a State, or to
become an independent Nation. The ballot language mandated by the Act,
however, severely mischaracterizes and denigates Puerto Rico's current
Commonwealth status.
{time} 1300
The ballot language mandated by the act, however, severely
mischaracterizes and denigrates Puerto Rico's current commonwealth
status. These repeated misstatements clearly appear to be designed to
ensure that the statehood option prevails. Any doubt on this vanishes
when the act's prescribed ballot is read in conjunction with other
provisions of the act.
For instance, the act calls for a referendum every 10 years until the
statehood option prevails. And the legislative history, the committee
report is openly hostile to the current commonwealth status. Thus, a
referendum using the prescribed ballot would deny the people of Puerto
Rico an informed and accurate choice concerning their future political
status and would reveal nothing about the true sentiments of the people
of Puerto Rico on this important question.
The most serious misstatements contained in the act relate to its
treatment of the rights enjoyed by the people of Puerto Rico under
commonwealth status. The ballot contained in H.R. 856 states that
Congress may determine the rights under the United States Constitution
that are guaranteed to the people of Puerto Rico. This statement is
wrong.
The act's description of the citizenship rights of the people of
Puerto Rico is similarly flawed. The act states that Puerto Ricans are
merely statutory citizens and implies that their citizenship may be
revoked by Congress. The people of Puerto Rico, however, right now are
United States citizens within the meaning of the 14th Amendment of the
United States Constitution.
The ballot language mandated by H.R. 856 also mischaracterizes Puerto
Rico's current political status. The act describes Puerto Rico as an
unincorporated territory of the United States. Beyond the pejorative
connotations associated with this term, which was used to describe the
United States' colonial possessions, this description is inappropriate
because the United States Supreme Court has held that Puerto Rico, like
a State, is an autonomous political entity sovereign over matters not
ruled by the Constitution. But these falsehoods are to be right on the
ballot, mischaracterizing the commonwealth's status, when Puerto Ricans
vote.
The purpose of the proposed referendum is to learn the sentiments of
the
[[Page H779]]
people of Puerto Rico. In light of the fundamental inaccuracies, any
referendum using the prescribed ballot could not be relied upon as an
honest reflection of the sentiments of the people of Puerto Rico.
Accordingly, the act as currently formulated necessarily fails to
accomplish its very purpose.
Equally important, these fundamental inaccuracies in the ballot's
description of the commonwealth status option effectively deny the
people of Puerto Rico their constitutional right to exercise the
franchise in a meaningful way. As the proponents of Puerto Rican
statehood well understand, the commonwealth option described in the
ballot will attract no significant support among Puerto Rico's voters,
including voters who are otherwise ardent advocates of continuing
Puerto Rico's commonwealth status.
Thus, the referendum contained in the act infringes on the voting
rights of the people of Puerto Rico by presenting them with a factually
inaccurate choice, a false choice as to their political future status.
In short, H.R. 856 presents the people of Puerto Rico with a ballot
that is stacked in favor of the statehood option. From the very start,
the election is rigged. The ballot language mandated by the act is
designed to ensure this result regardless of the true sentiments of the
people of Puerto Rico.
Such a palpably deficient ballot raises serious constitutional
issues. Moreover, as a matter of policy, it certainty cannot be
justified as an effort to give Puerto Ricans meaningful self-
determination. Mr. Chairman, I oppose this legislation and I ask others
to do so as well.
Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds to
respond to the gentleman's comments. I want everybody to understand one
thing. As chairman of this committee, we did this job right.
The gentleman talks about constitutionality. He does not know the
Constitution from something else. We sent this down to the Justice
Department. They reviewed it with the best constitutional lawyers.
Everything in this bill is constitutional. I did this job correctly as
chairman. To have someone say it is not constitutional or allude it is
unconstitutional when it has been thoroughly scrubbed by those that
know the Constitution, I think is inappropriate.
Mr. ROMERO-BARCELO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman
from Rhode Island (Mr. Kennedy).
Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island. Mr. Chairman, let me just underscore
this. Let us go over it and over it and over it again. If Members do
not like the language of this bill, if they do not like the definition
of commonwealth in this bill, they do not like commonwealth. If Members
find that the language that we use to describe commonwealth is
repugnant----
Announcement by the Chairman
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will suspend.
The Chair will admonish those in the gallery and remind all persons
that they are here as guests of the House, and that any manifestation
of approval or disapproval of any of the proceedings is a violation of
the rules of the House and will not be permitted.
The gentleman may proceed.
Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island. Mr. Chairman, the fact is that if
everyone is so insulted by this process, I hear the gentlewoman from
New York (Ms. Velazquez) and the gentleman from Illinois (Mr.
Gutierrez) say, ``I don't like this process because they shut out a
political party in Puerto Rico.'' Let us understand what they are
shutting out, although it is not the case, I will argue.
But let us just assume that we are shutting out the PDP, the
Populares in Puerto Rico. What do they want? They want the commonwealth
status. What is the commonwealth status? It is colonial status. It is
saying that this Congress can decide unilaterally, without Puerto
Rico's opinion or approval, what we want Puerto Rico to do. End of
story, I say to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Solomon).
So when you talk about how we are being unfair, think about it. We
are being unfair because we do not like commonwealth. You bet I do not
like commonwealth. I do not like the fact that 3.8 million people are
disenfranchised, 3.8 million United States citizens who fought in our
wars, who died in our wars are not even allowed to vote for their
Commander in Chief. Can you imagine?
This country was founded, at the Boston tea party we declared our
Revolutionary War, because we did not have representation here. That is
what they do not have. Puerto Ricans cannot decide this bill. The
gentleman from Puerto Rico (Mr. Romero-Barcelo) has no vote. He
represents 3.8 million United States citizens. This is a bill that
affects them, and they have no vote. What is that, other than
colonialism?
This bill will give them statehood if they vote for it. Let us say
they do not want to vote for statehood now, they still like this quasi-
colonial status. We give them an opportunity, because in the final
analysis, it has to be the United States.
I think it is so insulting that I have to be up here deciding on
something that the people of Puerto Rico should be able to decide with
or without my approval, with or without the approval of the gentleman
from New York (Mr. Solomon), with or without the approval of the
gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young). We represent other States. Why
should we have any say in the matter with respect to Puerto Rico? We
were not elected by the Puerto Ricans. They deserve their own
representation. If we vote for this bill, they will get their own
representation.
Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume. Let me explain to the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr.
Kennedy) why we are deciding this bill. We are deciding this bill
because, unlike the description that the gentleman from Puerto Rico
(Mr. Romero-Barcelo) has given, we did not welcome the United States to
Puerto Rico. Puerto Rico was invaded by the United States during the
Spanish-American Civil War.
Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island. No argument there. No argument there.
Mr. GUTIERREZ. Let us be clear. The gentleman is right. We are making
the decisions because that is what is happening.
Mr. Chairman, I rise to strongly oppose H.R. 856 because this is the
exact opposite of what its supporters pretend it to be. H.R. 856 is
supposed to be a bill for self-determination, not for statehood, which
my friend from Rhode Island has every ability, he is for statehood.
That is what he wants. If I were for statehood and I was willing to
gamble everything for statehood, I would be for this bill because this
is a guarantee that statehood is going to win the plebiscite. I can
understand that. Let us be clear.
Now I want to be clear about my position, also, Mr. Chairman. I am
for independence for Puerto Rico. I am for independence for Puerto
Rico. There was a time that the statehooders and the commonwealthers
and the whole system would jail people like me for being for
independence for Puerto Rico. That is why there are not more people for
the independence of Puerto Rico. As they jailed the people of your
former fatherland, Ireland, for wishing the independence and the
sovereignty of that nation.
I would suggest to everybody what we can oppose, and it is wrong.
Supporters of this bill have approached my colleagues on both sides of
the aisle, Mr. Chairman, and told them that the passage of this bill
only means that Congress authorizes the people of Puerto Rico to
express their preference for political status among 3 options.
Some supporters of the bill have played a very cynical game of
telling some of my Democrats, ``Vote for this bill, and you will have 6
new Democratic Members of the House and 2 new Democratic Senators. That
is why we should vote for the bill.'' That is being and that should be
said here, because that is part of the debate and the conversation, and
we should fully explain to the people of Puerto Rico how it is that
this Congress is arriving at a decision to make their self-
determination.
At the same time, some of the very same people have circulated a
memorandum full of very strange statistics. Mr. Chairman, beware of
strange numbers for they could be telling stranger lies. It is a
memorandum entitled ``Puerto Rico, Republican Territory,'' in which
some magician tries to convince the uninformed that Puerto Rico will
produce 6 Republican Congressmen and 2 Republican Senators.
[[Page H780]]
It sounds strange to me. The gentlewoman from New York (Ms.
Velazquez), a Puerto Rican; the gentleman from Illinois (Mr.
Gutierrez), of Puerto Rican descent; the gentleman from New York (Mr.
Serrano); and even the Resident Commissioner has decided to sit on our
side of the aisle, the main proponent of this bill, and he is in the
Democratic Caucus. Let us not play games with one side or the other
getting some advantage over this, because that is not respectful. Mr.
Chairman, this is a strange manner in which to conduct a serious debate
on the future of a whole people.
Self-determination is a serious matter. The sacred right of self-
determination has to be exercised in a totally democratic, open and
above-board fashion. The true sovereignty of any nation, and Puerto
Rico is indeed a nation, rests with its people. I think that the
Members of this Congress should understand what the people of Puerto
Rico believe, because this is something that is going to affect them.
They did a poll in Puerto Rico, El Nuevo Dia, that is The New Day,
the largest paper of circulation in Puerto Rico; by the way, owned by a
statehooder. They asked the people. On the nationality question, 65
percent of the people see themselves as Puerto Rican and not American,
65 percent of the people in Puerto Rico; 62 percent of the people
consider their Nation to be Puerto Rico and not the United States.
But at the same time, 75 percent consider their American citizenship
to be very important. Strange, you say, that sounds like a
contradiction. It is the contradiction of colonialism, obviously. But
it is also what the authors of this understand very well. On the one
hand, they tell you, Puerto Rico is not a nation, it is just a group of
people. It is this little tropical island that sits out there somewhere
in the Caribbean.
But let me tell everybody in this room, the people of Puerto Rico
which you are deciding today their options, consider themselves as a
Nation. They consider to have a nationality, that nationality being
Puerto Rican. You should understand that. You should understand that
very, very clearly.
At the same time they want to keep their American citizenship. I
think that that is very clear. Just March 4, they asked the people of
Puerto Rico what they think about the Young bill. They asked the people
of Puerto Rico. They said 35 percent reject the Young bill, 33 percent
support the Young bill, and another third do not have an opinion on the
Young bill. It says if Puerto Ricans within the great diaspora of
Puerto Rico, that is Puerto Ricans in the United States, do not get to
vote on this, over half of them say we should reject the Young bill.
{time} 1315
That is the people of Puerto Rico. But let me go further, Mr.
Chairman, because I think it is very, very, very important that we
understand what is going on here.
Look, there is a value I hold even dearer than my wish for the
independence of Puerto Rico, and that is the respect that I have for
the true aspirations of the Puerto Rican people. That is their
inalienable right of the people of Puerto Rico to their self-
determination.
That is precisely why I oppose this bill so strongly. H.R. 856 is
exactly the opposite. It is a bill, read it, it is a bill that is
cleverly designed to obtain an artificial majority for statehood for
Puerto Rico and to lead Congress down an irreversible path, first
through the incorporation of Puerto Rico, and then to the admission of
Puerto Rico as the 51st State of this great union. In fact, some
opponents of H.R. 856 call this a trap.
Now, Congress makes an offer of statehood to the people of Puerto
Rico. The only requirement, the only requirement, is that a simple
majority vote in favor of statehood. But the ballot is so stacked in
favor of statehood that I am going to read a quote, and, please, listen
to this quote:
The Resident Commissioner, Carlos Romero-Barcelo, said, ``Victory for
statehood is guaranteed because the definition of ``commonwealth'' does
not include fiscal autonomy and does not include U.S. citizenship, a
guarantee. The definition of Commonwealth in this bill is that of a
territory. We just left the word ``territory'' out.'' Quote-end quote
of the Resident Commissioner of Puerto Rico here.
So I am not saying this bill is stacked in favor of statehood; the
very proponent, the Resident Commissioner of Puerto Rico, has stated
this publicly, and that is wrong, to play politics, partisan politics.
Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young),
and I want to thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Miller), because
both gentlemen have been decent with me. When I asked to participate in
their hearings, they both know that they had to override objections of
certain Members to allow me to participate in their committee, but they
did. The gentleman from California (Mr. Miller) and the gentleman from
Alaska (Mr. Young) have always listened to me, have always come and
said, ``Luis, what do you think? Let us talk about this.''
I know that the gentleman from California (Mr. Miller) tried to fix
this. I know he did. He did make every attempt to fix this, and I know
that he went to everybody and tried to bring people together. He
testified so yesterday, and I know it to be a fact. Unfortunately, it
was not able to be done. It was not able to be done. This has to be a
process of consensus, of building people together.
Mr. Chairman, do you know something? That is why I did not yield,
because when I asked for the opportunity to speak about this issue, I
was objected to time and time again. I will respect the wishes of those
who wish to speak to this issue that have respected the wishes of the
people of Puerto Rico and all Members of this House, but do not expect
treatment from me which others have disregarded for others.
Once the people of Puerto Rico vote for statehood under this rather
unfair game plan, the Commonwealth Party has said it cannot participate
in the plebiscite. That is going to be a problem. You have got about 48
percent of the people who say if you do it this way, we are not going
to participate in this thing.
Now, I am going to make one last statement and then reserve the
balance of my time. Look, this is serious. This is serious. If you
approve this Young bill, do you know what you have said? You have said
that 3.8 million Puerto Ricans do not have the protection of the 14th
Amendment of the Constitution of the United States. You have said that
their American citizenship is not guaranteed.
I will tell you what people will say. They will never take it away.
This Congress would never take an action.
Do you know something? My dad did not get to see me until I was a
year old, I would say to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Solomon),
because when he was called to duty, he served. He served, Mr. Chairman.
How can we say that my dad and tens of thousands of other Puerto
Ricans who have served this Nation, right, that their citizenship is
statutory, can be taken away from them at a whim of Congress? I do not
believe that.
As a matter of fact, in the 1950 Nationality Act, this Congress
approved something that says the 50 states and Puerto Rico, anyone born
there, is protected by the 14th Amendment and are citizens of this
country. That is what the 1950 Nationality Act says.
So do not come back here and say that commonwealth is statutory
citizenship, because, you know something? I want Puerto Rico to be a
free and independent nation, and in that I disagree with my colleague,
the gentleman from Puerto Rico (Mr. Romero-Barcelo). The gentleman
wants it to be assimilated and a state, but I think it is important, it
is important, that the people of Puerto Rico have the definitions that
they can have.
Lastly, in 1993, when the Resident Commissioner's party was in power
in Puerto Rico, the Statehood Party, they controlled the two houses,
the House and the Senate, and they controlled the governorship. They
had a plebiscite in Puerto Rico.
Why, when they controlled all the rules in Puerto Rico, was the
Commonwealth status not not a territory? Why was not the citizenship
not statutory when that came up?
Why is it? As a matter of fact, in 1990 we unanimously accepted some
definitions here, 1990, and none of these considerations. Do you want
to know why? Because they want to stack the cards.
[[Page H781]]
If the people of Puerto Rico want statehood, I will be the first one
to come here and support statehood for Puerto Rico, but it has got to
be a fair process. People can laugh and people can chide, because they
do not understand the seriousness of this matter. This is about the
14th Amendment. This is about my dad, this is about my wife, Soraida,
born in Moca, Puerto Rico; and I do not intend to go back to her
tomorrow and say her citizenship is any less than mine. She was born a
citizen of this country, and I am going to protect her right. It is not
statutory, it is protected.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. ROMERO-BARCELO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman
from Missouri (Mr. Gephardt), the minority leader.
(Mr. GEPHARDT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. GEPHARDT. Mr. Chairman, there is no right more fundamental to our
democracy than the right of people to decide their political future.
American democracy was conceived in the great struggle of the
Revolutionary War, and it originated out of a fight for self-
determination by the American colonists to be able to control their own
affairs.
We have long asserted this right, not only for Americans, but for
people all over the world. We have insisted that this is a universal
human right that every human being should enjoy. So certainly it should
and must be a fundamental right for people living under the American
flag as American citizens. Yet almost 4 million American citizens, the
people of Puerto Rico, have not enjoyed this right.
We have the opportunity to ensure today that American citizens who
have sacrificed their loved ones in our wars, who serve our country in
and out of uniform, and who obey our laws, should have a say in their
political future. The people of Puerto Rico deserve an opportunity to
vote on their future political status, and this bill simply gives them
that opportunity. The choice should be theirs, and this Congress should
respect that outcome.
This is a simple issue of basic human rights. The bill should easily
become law. But today there are many in this Congress who want to hold
this legislation hostage to an extreme agenda.
The Solomon English-only legislation, which House Republicans pushed
through 2 years ago, but which died in the Senate and which has laid
dormant ever since, would impose English-only restrictions that are
unnecessary and divisive. While immigrants from all ethnic groups
understand the importance and the necessity of learning English, the
Solomon amendment does nothing to make this happen any quicker or
easier.
The fact that some have raised this issue today is a slap in the face
to the people of Puerto Rico, who love America and love their heritage.
Instead of enforcing political rights, this amendment would undermine
them by weakening the Voting Rights Act and ending bilingual access.
Instead of expanding access to government, the Solomon amendment chills
communications between Members of Congress and constituents. It imposes
unique requirements on the people of Puerto Rico that Congress has not
imposed on citizens of any other State of the United States.
Mr. Chairman, I urge the Members to support the bipartisan substitute
that is being put forward by the leadership of this committee. It
recognizes that it is in the best interests of our Nation and our
citizens to promote the teaching of English, and it sets the goal of
enabling students to achieve English language proficiency by the age of
10. It does not threaten free and open speech and communication of
public safety, and it does not single out the people of Puerto Rico for
unique, extraordinary requirements that we ask of no other State in the
United States of America.
Finally, it is time to get on with the business at hand. It is time
to extend the same rights to the people of Puerto Rico that billions of
other people around the world take for granted. Puerto Rico has been a
member of our American family for over 100 years. The people of Puerto
Rico have waited long enough to finally decide their own destiny. More
than a half decade ago Franklin Roosevelt said this to Congress. He
said, ``Freedom means the supremacy of human rights everywhere.'' Our
support, he said, goes to those who struggle to gain those rights or
keep them.
Mr. Chairman, we have a magnificent opportunity today, a bipartisan
opportunity, an opportunity to extend the magic and the blessing of
freedom and human rights and self-determination to the almost 4 million
citizens of the United States, the people of Puerto Rico. Vote against
the Solomon amendment, vote for the bipartisan substitute, and vote for
this legislation for the meaning of America to be brought to the people
of Puerto Rico.
Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the
gentleman from Guam (Mr. Underwood).
Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman
from Guam.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Guam (Mr. Underwood) is recognized
for 2\1/2\ minutes.
Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. UNDERWOOD. I yield to the gentleman from Alaska.
Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I would like to apologize to the
gentleman. In my passionate plea for Puerto Rico, I forgot the great
Territory of Guam. We are working very close together. It slipped my
mind. So I do apologize to the gentleman.
Mr. UNDERWOOD. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I thank the
gentleman for entering that into the Record.
Mr. Chairman, I stand in strong support of H.R. 856 and urge my
colleagues to vote for this very important legislation. I applaud the
work of the gentleman from Alaska (Chairman Young), the gentleman from
California (Mr. Miller), and my fellow statutory citizen, the gentleman
from Puerto Rico (Mr. Romero-Barcelo).
H.R. 856 is significant because it establishes Federal responsibility
in a process of self-determination for the people of Puerto Rico that
would lead to decolonization. The Treaty of Paris, which ceded Puerto
Rico and Guam to the U.S. in 1898, clearly gave the responsibility to
this body for determining the political status of the inhabitants of
these territories. Until this body does this, these areas will continue
to remain colonies, 100 years since the end of the Spanish-American
War. Until we do this, there will not be clarity in the ultimate
political status of these unincorporated territories.
{time} 1330
The bill before us clearly states that the Federal Government has the
responsibility to act within a specific time frame and in unequivocal
terms so that the process itself does not lead to more frustration and
uncertainty. The Federal responsibility must be consistent with a
modern 21st century understanding of decolonization, and it must lead
to a process which forces expeditious action.
Today, 100 years after the Spanish-American War, the U.S. Congress
has the unique opportunity and the moral obligation to resolve Puerto
Rico's quest for a clear political status for its citizens. It is the
right thing to do.
Mr. Chairman, if Members support democracy and the principle of
fairness, I urge Members to vote for 856. It is the right thing to do
for the citizens of the Caribbean island, to demonstrate that this
country is second to none in the exercise of self-determination, that
we are second to none in honoring our treaty obligations, and that we
are second to none in the full implementation of democracy.
Mr. ROMERO-BARCELO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman
from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer).
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Puerto Rico for
yielding time to me.
I rise in strong support of this legislation. I rise in strong
support for the substitute that will be put forth to the Solomon
amendment, and in opposition to the Solomon amendment.
Since 1985 I have served on the Helsinki Commission, which was
charged since 1976 to oversee the implementation of the Helsinki Final
Act. Within that act it said that the international community ought to
respect the self-determination of peoples.
It is one of the most troubling issues that confronts the
international community and the emerging democracies
[[Page H782]]
around the world. It is difficult because we need to determine what
group, what size, how many do you need for self-determination. Does it
need to be an identifiable, geographic area? If so, how large? It is an
issue that we deal with in Yugoslavia.
Always, always, always the United States is on the side of those who
aspire to make their own decisions. On this floor we have heard some
very articulate expressions on both sides of this issue, from people
who know the politics of Puerto Rico far more than I. But I know that
those articulate people will debate this issue vigorously, and it will
be the people of Puerto Rico who make this decision, as it should be.
But it is important that this Congress express at home, within our own
Nation, that same conviction on behalf of self-determination that we
express around the world.
I would hope that we would overwhelmingly, in a bipartisan way, pass
this legislation. I want to commend the gentleman from Alaska (Mr.
Young) for his leadership on this issue, and the gentleman from
California (Mr. Miller), and indeed, the delegate from Puerto Rico, and
all of those who participate in this debate.
Mr. ROMERO-BARCELO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman
from Maryland (Mr. Wynn).
Mr. WYNN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Puerto Rico for
yielding me this time.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the bill before us today. I rise
in opposition to the Solomon amendment. I rise in support of the
bipartisan substitute.
Mr. Chairman, the essence of the bill before us today is to allow the
people of Puerto Rico to make the decisions about their own destiny,
what we like to refer to as self-determination.
For the last few decades we have talked long and often hard about the
importance of self-determination in all parts of the world: in Russia,
in Cuba, around the globe. It is now time to talk about self-
determination for one of our nearest neighbors.
This is not that complicated. That is the beauty of democratic
elections. Members have heard here today that there are lots of points
of view about this issue within Puerto Rico. Those differences can be
resolved by democratic elections. That is what we are here today to do,
not to impose any particular form of government, be it statehood,
independence, or Commonwealth status, but rather, to let the people,
the people themselves decide what form of government they believe is
most desirable.
The point is that today Puerto Ricans can fight in our wars but
cannot elect the Commander in Chief. They can contribute to Social
Security, and they do, but they cannot receive Social Security
benefits. We need to change this, and we need to use our time-honored
democratic processes to do that.
Mr. Chairman, let me talk for a moment about this notion embodied in
the Solomon amendment of English only. We all recognize that English is
the common language of our country. It is the dominant language of our
country. But who was it that decided that to be an American you had to
speak the language of the British Isles? I am not sure that makes
sense.
We were a country founded on tolerance, multiculturalism. It seems to
me we can make room for those people who speak other languages. We left
the Old World to create the New World for precisely this reason, to
leave the conformities and traditions of the Old World behind. I think
it is time we move forward to true multiculturalism and accept the fact
that we do not have to have an ordered language in our society. I urge
the adoption of the bill before us.
Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman
from Texas (Mr. Bonilla).
(Mr. BONILLA asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, the debate we are hearing today reminds me
of the demagoguing we heard back when the new majority took over in
January of 1995. We tried to do some things that were right for the
country, and we were demagogued as those who were trying to end the
school lunch program, as those who were trying to eliminate Medicare,
and as those who were trying to hurt the environment. We all knew that
was not true, but yet the demagoguing continued.
The demagoguing continues today by those who are opposed to this
bill, who say that it is going to somehow create a State, a new State,
instantly. That is false. That is demagoguing.
There is also demagoguing about how this bill might be promoting
bilingualism. That is not true at all, but nonetheless the arguments
continue. They say this is anti-Commonwealth. That is also not true.
The demagogues know it but they continue to make these arguments, in
spite of the truth and substance of what we are trying to accomplish
here today.
For those who think somehow that this is going to end the official
language of the world, it is also a case of demagoguing. English is the
official language of the world. One hundred fifty seven of 168 airlines
have English as their official language. There are 3,000 newspapers
printed in English in the country of India. Six members of the European
Free Trade Association all conduct their business in English, despite
the fact that none of the six members are from English-speaking
nations. Three hundred thousand Chinese speak English in their own
country. Forty-four countries have English as their official language.
The size of the English language, the number of words in the English
language, is about 1 million. If we count the insects, and
entomologists say there are a million known insects that could also
become words, if we added them to our language, you could make 2
million words that would be part of the English language, compared to
other languages, like German, that has about 184,000, and French, that
has about 100,000 words.
For those fear-mongers who think we need some kind of amendment on
this bill to help us promote English, English is already the official
language of the world. We do not need an amendment to tell us that. It
is going to continue to be the official language of the world. We
should support H.R. 856, and all proudly, because of what it stands
for, and not be fear-mongering about what it might do to the great
language of English that is used worldwide.
I say to my friends, let us stop the demagoguing, let us stop the
fear-mongering that we have injected into this debate. Lighten up and
support H.R. 856.
Mr. ROMERO-BARCELO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Deutsch).
Mr. DEUTSCH. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to
me.
Mr. Chairman, this is truly a historic debate in this Congress. This
is my sixth year as a Member of this Congress. It is the first time we
are really talking about an issue about the fundamental union of our
States. That is really what we are talking about.
In this Chamber over the last 100 years, and before that in the other
Chamber just down the hall for 100 years before that, or just about,
this is the kind of debates that went on. Unless it was one of the
first original 13 colonies, each State went through a process. There
were different debates and different things that went through that
process. But that is where we are now.
I think part of the acknowledgment of this bill is something that
obviously is controversial, but I think the fact, and people can debate
it, is that the status of Commonwealth is an unstable equilibrium. In a
sense, the bill acknowledges that. It can continue, but it cannot
continue indefinitely. The process of the legislation specifically puts
that into statute, and that is why it is critical that this legislation
pass.
I would mention that the amendment by the gentleman from New York
(Mr. Solomon), I think we should acknowledge what the amendment offered
by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Solomon) attempts to do. We need to
be direct about this.
This amendment is really not germane to this bill. It is an issue
that in and of itself can be discussed and debated, but to turn English
into the official language of the United States is not about this bill.
It does not deserve to be on this bill, and it is inappropriately on
this bill. I think we have to understand the reason it is on this bill
is to kill the bill.
However anyone in this Chamber feels about that particular issue, and
I know it is a passionate issue, I urge the
[[Page H783]]
defeat of the Solomon amendment and the support of the substitute
offered by the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young) and the gentleman from
California (Mr. Miller) and others to assure that this historic
opportunity is taken advantage of.
Mr. Chairman, H.R. 856 will enable Congress to administer and
determine the status of Puerto Rico in the same manner this institution
has been administering and decolonizing territories since the Northwest
Ordinance of 1789. The historical constitutional practice of the United
States has been to decolonize non-state territories which come under
U.S. sovereignty by either full incorporation leading to statehood (as
in the case of Alaska and Hawaii) or separate nationhood (Philippines).
For too long Puerto Rico has been diverted from the historical
process of decolonization. Because local self-government was
established under P.L. 81-600 in 1952, Congress has pretended that
Puerto Rico could be administered permanently as a territory with
internal constitutional self-government. However, the local
constitution did not create a separate nation as the pro-commonwealth
party in Puerto Rico argues. Puerto Rican born Americans are still
disenfranchised in the federal political system which is supreme in the
territory as long as the U.S. flag flies over the island.
Puerto Rico is not a ``free associated state'' in the U.S.
constitutional sense or under international law as recognized by the
United States. Puerto Rico remains a colony. That is not my choice of
words, that is the term used by the McKinley Administration to describe
Puerto Rico. It is also the term used by the former chief justice of
the Puerto Rico Supreme Court who was one of the architects of the
commonwealth constitution.
Because H.R. 856 will define the real and true options that the
Congress and the people in Puerto Rico have to resolve the status
question, I strongly support this bill. Informing the voters in the
territory of the real definition of commonwealth, statehood and
separate sovereignty including free association is necessary because of
the misleading adoption in 1952 of the Spanish words for ``free
association'' by the pro-commonwealth party to describe the current
commonwealth status. No wonder people are confused!
Only when people understand the real options can there be informed
self-determination, and only when there has been informed self-
determination can Congress then decide what status is in the national
interest. Then the status of Puerto Rico can be resolved if there is
agreement on the terms for status change. If not the status quo
continues, but the process to decolonize Puerto Rico will exist. Then
Puerto Rico's colonial status will continue only as long as the people
of Puerto Rico are unable to choose between statehood and independence
on terms acceptable to Congress.
To promote a better understanding of the nature of free association,
I would like to share the following background paper on free
association written by the U.S. Ambassador who negotiated free
association treaties for President Reagan. The U.S. has a free
association relationship with three Pacific island nations, and this
status is very different from the free association espoused by the so-
called ``autonomists in Puerto Rico''--who want to be a separate
sovereign nation but also keep U.S. nationally and citizenship.
That ``have it both ways'' approach to free association was attempted
in the case of the Micronesian Compact of Free Association, but the
State Department, Justice Department and Congress rejected that model
as unconstitutional and unwise. It was an attempt to ``perfect'' the
legal theory of the Puerto Rican commonwealth as a form of permanent
self-government, a nation-within-a-nation concept that has always
failed and always will because the U.S. constitution does not allow a
Quebec-like problem in our Federal system.
Ambassador Zeder's explanation of free association as an option for
Puerto Rico makes the ground rules for this form of separate
sovereignty very clear and easy to understand. I include his statement
for the Record.
The statement referred to is as follows:
Understanding Free Association as a Form of Separate Sovereignty and
Political Independence in the Case of Decolonization of Puerto Rico
(By Ambassador Fred M. Zeder, II)
Consistent with relevant resolutions of the U.N. General
Assembly, Puerto Rico's options for full self-government are:
Independence (Example: Philippines); Free Association
(Example: Republic of the Marshall Islands); Integration
(Example: Hawaii). See, G.A. Resolution 1514 (1960); G.A.
Resolution 1541 (1960); G.A. Resolution 2625 (1970).
For purposes of international law including the relevant
U.N. resolutions international conventions to which the U.S.
is a party, the current status of Puerto Rico is best
described as substantial but incomplete integration. This
means that the decolonization process that commenced in 1952
has not been fulfilled.
As a matter of U.S. domestic constitutional law, a
territory within U.S. sovereignty which has internal
constitutional self-government but is not fully integrated
into the national system of political union on the basis of
equality remains an unincorporated territory, and can be
referred to as a ``commonwealth.'' (Example: Puerto Rico and
the Northern Mariana Islands).
For purposes of U.S. constitutional law, independence and
free association are status options which are created and
exist on the international plane. Thus, instead of the
sovereign primacy of Congress under the territorial clause,
the sources of constitutional authority with respect to
nations with separate sovereignty include the article II,
section 2 treaty-making power and the applicable article I,
section 8 powers of Congress such as that relating to
nationality and immigration law.
Relations between the U.S. and a nation which is
independent or in free association are conducted on the basis
of international law. Thus, independence and free association
are status options which would remove Puerto Rico from its
present existence within the sphere of sovereignty of the
United States and establish a separate Puerto Rican
sovereignty outside the political union and federal
constitutional system of the United States.
Instead of completing the integration process through full
incorporation and statehood, either independence or free
association would ``dis-integrate'' Puerto Rico from the
United States. This would terminate U.S. sovereignty,
nationality and citizenship and end application of the U.S.
Constitution in Puerto Rico. In other words, the process of
gradual integration which began in 1898, and which was
advanced by statutory U.S. citizenship in 1917 and
establishment of constitutional arrangements approved by the
people in 1952, would be terminated in favor of either
independence or free association.
Under either independence or free association, the U.S. and
Puerto Rico could enter into treaties to define relations on
a sovereign-to-sovereign basis. Free association as practiced
by the U.S. is simply a form of independence in which two
sovereign nations agree to a special close relationship that
involves delegations of the sovereign powers of the
associated to the United States in such areas as defense and
other governmental functions to the extent both parties to
the treaty-based relationship agree to continue such
arrangements.
The specific features of free association and balance
between autonomy and interdependence can vary within well-
defined limits based on negotiated terms to which both
parties to the arrangement have agreed, but all such features
must be consistent with the structure of the agreement as a
treaty-based sovereign-to-sovereign relationship. In U.S.
experience and practice, even where free association has many
features of a dependent territorial status the sources and
allocation of constitutional authority triggered by the
underlying separation of sovereignty, nationality and
citizenship causes the relationship to evolve in the
direction of full independence rather than functional re-
integration.
Free association is essentially a transitional status for
peoples who do not seek full integration, but rather seek to
maintain close political, economic and security relations
with another nation during the period after separate
sovereignty is achieved. Again, this could be accomplished by
treaty between independent nations as well. Thus, free
association is a form of separate sovereignty that usually
arises from the relationship between a colonial power and a
people formerly in a colonial status who at least temporarily
want close ties with the former colonial power for so long as
both parties agree to the arrangements.
Free association is recognized as a distinct form of
separate sovereignty, even though legally it also is
consistent with independence. Specifically, free association
is consistent with independence because, as explained below,
the special and close bilateral relationship created by a
free association treaty or pact can be terminated in favor of
conventional independence at any time by either party.
In addition, the U.S. and the international community have
recognized that a separate nation can be a party to a
bilateral pact of free association and be an independent
nation in the conventional sense at the same time. For
example, the Republic of the Marshall Islands is party to the
Compact of Free Association with the United States, but has
been admitted to the United Nations as an independent nation.
Thus, the international practice regarding free association
actually is best understood as a method of facilitating the
decolonization process leading to simple and absolute
independence. Essentially, it allows new nations not prepared
economically, socially or strategically for emergence into
conventional independence to achieve separate nationhood in
cooperation with a former colonial power or another existing
nation.
Under international law and practice including the relevant
U.N. resolutions and existing free association precedents,
free association must be terminable at will by either party
in order to establish that the relationship is consistent
with separate sovereignty and the right of self-determination
is preserved. This international standard, also recognized by
the U.S., is based on the requirement that free association
not be allowed to become merely a new form of internationally
accepted colonialism.
[[Page H784]]
Specifically, free association is not intended to create a
new form of territorial status or quasi-sovereignty. It is
not a ``nation-within-a-nation'' relationship or a form of
irrevocable permanent union, but is, again, a sovereign-to-
sovereign treaty-based relationship which is either of
limited duration or terminable at will by either party acting
unilaterally.
In other words, both parties have a sovereign right to
terminate the relationship at any time. The free association
treaty may provide for the terms and measures which will
apply in the event of unilateral termination, but the ability
of either party to do so can not be conditioned or encumbered
in such a manner that the exercise of the right to terminate
the relationship effectively is impaired or precluded.
For that reason, the territory and population of each
nation involved must be within the sovereignty, nationality
and citizenship of that nation, and the elements and
mechanisms of the free association relationship must be
defined consistent with that requirement. Separate and
distinct sovereignty and nationality must be established at
the time of decolonization and preserved under the
relationship or the ability of either party to terminate will
be impaired.
Thus, the major power may grant to people of the free
associated nation special rights normally associated with the
major power's own citizenship classifications, such as open
immigration and residence rights.
However, these arrangements are subject to the same
terminability as the overall relationship, and thus may be
either for a limited duration or subject to unilateral
termination by either party at any time.
Consequently, there can be no permanent mass dual
nationality because this would be inconsistent with the
preservation of the underlying separate sovereignty. Any
special rights or classifications of the major power extended
to the people of a free associated nation are more in the
nature of residency rights and do not prevent either nation
from exercising separate sovereignty with respect to the
nationality its own population.
Upon termination of the free association relationship by
either party, any such classifications or special residency
rights will be subject to unilateral termination as well.
Both during and after any period of free association, the
people of each of the two nations will owe their allegiance
to and have the separate nationality of their own country.
Any attempt to deviate from these norms of international law
and practice would undermine the sovereignty of both nations,
and would impair the right of self-determination which must
be preserved to ensure the relationship is based on consent
rather than coercion.
In summary, the United States recognizes each of the three
U.N. accepted status options for Puerto Rico to achieve full
self-government. One of those options, integration, is within
U.S. sovereignty and the federal political union, the other
two, independence and free association, exist without U.S.
sovereignty, nationality and citizenship.
Obviously, Puerto Rico can not act unilaterally to
establish a new status. This is so not only because of U.S.
sovereignty and the authority of Congress under the
territorial clause, but also because Puerto Rico seeks the
agreement of the U.S. to the terms under which any of these
options would be implemented. This means Congress must agree
to the terms under which a new status is defined and
implemented.
There is no right on the part of Puerto Rico unilaterally
to define its relationship with the United States. Nor would
it be consistent with U.S. commitments to respect the right
of self-determination for non-self-governing people under
U.S. administration to dispose of the territory of Puerto
Rico in a manner which does not take into account the freely
expressed wishes of the residents.
Thus, as the two parties which must define and carry out a
future relationship based on consent and the right of self-
determination which each must exercise, Congress, on behalf
of the United States, and the people of Puerto Rico, acting
through their constitutional process, must decide whether
decolonization will be completed through completion of the
process for integration into union or separation and
nationhood apart from the U.S. for Puerto Rico.
Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman
from Massachusetts (Mr. Kennedy).
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for
yielding time to me.
Mr. Chairman, I have been impressed in this debate thus far about the
determination of us as Members of Congress to provide for real self-
determination for the great people of Puerto Rico. I think it is
fundamentally important to the Puerto Rican people themselves and to
all of us as Americans, when we talk about the most important issue,
perhaps, that we can determine in this Chamber, as to whether or not
and who we define as American citizens, that we are clearly saying to
the Puerto Rican people that they are welcome as not only citizens of
this country, but they are in fact welcome as a 51st State.
But, and I mean a serious but, for anyone who has taken the time to
visit Puerto Rico, to not just visit there in the sense of getting a
nice suntan, but going there and talking with the Puerto Rican people
and gaining a better understanding of their own identification, the
truth of the matter is there are millions of Puerto Ricans that
consider themselves to be Puerto Ricans, Puerto Ricans first.
American citizens, yes. They are willing to fight and die for this
country. But I do not consider myself a Massachusettan first and then
an American, I consider myself to be an American.
I think that we as American citizens ought to fundamentally be wide
enough in the breadth of our knowledge and our sense of other human
beings to allow them their own self-identification. That means that we
ought to respect those that believe in the Commonwealth party.
I have a great many friends that are commonwealthers and
statehooders. But I have great respect for the Commonwealth party, and
I believe that this bill unfairly slants the way we define Commonwealth
by bringing up issues as to whether or not this means that Puerto Rican
people are going to be forever faced with determinations by this body
as to whether or not we are going to consider them to be citizens,
whether or not we are going to tax them, a whole series of questions
that effectively undermines one group of Puerto Ricans that over and
over again has stood up for equality status versus statehood.
If the people of Puerto Rico claim and vote for statehood, I would be
the first in this Chamber to vote with them and to give them their vote
and voice here in the Congress of the United States. But if in fact
they choose Commonwealth status, then let us respect that as well, and
let us make this an evenhanded debate that does not slight one side or
the other, but gives this important issue the respect it is due.
{time} 1345
Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the
gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman), the honorable chairman of the
Committee on International Relations.
(Mr. GILMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from New York (Mr.
Solomon) for yielding me this time. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in
support of H.R. 856, the United States-Puerto Rico Political Status
Act, allowing Puerto Ricans to determine their future political status.
Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of H.R. 856, the United States-
Puerto Rico Political Status Act, which will allow Puerto Ricans to
determine their future political status.
This bill would give the U.S. citizens of Puerto Rico the right to
self-determination. I believe every U.S. citizen should be afforded
that opportunity.
The right to self-determination is a foundation or our freedoms. By
voting against this bill, we would be sending a message that we don't
believe other citizens should be given the opportunity and privilege of
voting that we enjoy.
Puerto Ricans have served and died in wars defending democracy for
years, yet they cannot elect a President or participate in the
legislative process. This is unjust and un-American. Voting for H.R.
856 will entrust 3.8 million Hispanic Americans who reside in Puerto
Rico with the power of an educated vote on self-determination.
Furthermore, voting for H.R. 856 does not confer statehood to Puerto
Rico, but merely establishes a referendum that sets the terms and
clarifies the choices to allow Puerto Ricans to determine their future
political status. With regard to the language of the island, Puerto
Rico recognized English as an official language of the local government
in 1902--longer than any other American domain. English is the language
of the local and federal governments, courts, and businesses, and is
also in the curriculum of all the schools on the island of Puerto Rico.
As chairman of the International Relations Committee, I recognize the
importance of supporting democratic principles abroad. Supporting H.R.
856 were enormously help to strengthen U.S. relations with Latin
American nations. It is equally important to support these democratic
standards here in America, by voting for a non-binding referendum.
For these reasons, I urge my colleagues to join in voting for H.R.
856, and grant Puerto Ricans the right to self-determination.
Mr. ROMERO-BARCELO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman
from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton).
[[Page H785]]
Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Puerto Rico (Mr.
Romero-Barcelo) for yielding me this time.
Mr. Chairman, a matter of self-determination should be a matter that
brings unanimous consent in this body, and it pains to me to see
divisions and splits. If the bill is imperfect, there are many hurdles
yet to go: additional island votes, additional congressional votes
provided by the bill. Also, the vote to be taken in Puerto Rico is
nonbinding.
Above all, we cannot get ahead of the Puerto Rican people. In 1993,
we in the District of Columbia had a historic vote on statehood. That
is not what this vote is about. It is about allowing the Puerto Rican
people to decide what affiliation they themselves desire. This is what
we say we want people around the world to decide.
I represent half a million people in the District of Columbia who
identify with Puerto Ricans because we too are treated as less than
full Americans, living here right under the noses of the Congress of
the United States. We know what it is like to fight and die in wars
while suffering denials of concomitant rights.
The District has even fewer rights than Puerto Ricans because we do
not have the right to self-government. We in the District feel a deep
kinship which demands for self-determination around the world, and
especially self-determination among our own in Puerto Rico.
Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman
from Mississippi (Mr. Taylor).
Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Mr. Chairman, as we debate this, there are
20,000 Puerto Ricans serving in the Armed Forces of the United States.
In this century, 200,000 have taken the pledge to defend our country.
As recently as the Vietnam war, almost as many Puerto Ricans as
Mississippians gave their lives for our country. And as recently as the
Gulf War, when American casualties were miraculously low, four Puerto
Ricans died for the United States of America.
Mr. Chairman, if that is not the price to pay for the privilege of
deciding whether or not they want to be a State, then what is? They
have paid the price. They deserve the right to make that decision.
Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to please vote in favor of this
bill.
Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
California (Mr. Horn), one of the Members that would probably be
considered the least partisan of all on both sides of the aisle.
(Mr. HORN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. HORN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from New York (Mr.
Solomon), chairman of the Committee on Rules, for yielding me this
time.
Mr. Chairman, I feel very strongly in support of the amendment
offered by the gentleman from New York. I will support it. But I will
also vote against this bill.
We have a wonderful Resident Commissioner here from Puerto Rico.
There is excellent representation from Guam, the District of Columbia,
Virgin Islands, American Samoa. But I think this is just wrong public
policy. We should not be raising false expectations of any group. I
think the one way to do it is to say right now, let us not kid
ourselves, this is not a good idea.
Puerto Rico is the result of the Spanish-American War. It has a
wonderful people. What the gentleman from Mississippi said is
absolutely correct. Many of them have given their lives for our
country. There are also wonderful people in Guam, Saipan, the Virgin
Islands, American Samoa, and the District of Columbia.
Mr. Chairman, I would say to the gentlewoman from the District of
Columbia (Ms. Norton) that we can solve the District's problem very
easily and do what Congress did in the Nineteenth Century when it ceded
back to Virginia that part of the District of Columbia which had been
carved out of Virginia. Give it back to Maryland, and the District
would have full representation.
But Puerto Rico should never have been a territory. Cuba was never a
territory. Cuba has been independent. Granted, the Marines occupied
them and a number of other countries from time to time. But we should
have left Cuba independent. We did. We should have left Puerto Rico
independent. We did not. And we need not continue that error forever.
We kept our promise to the Philippines that they would be independent
in 1946. There is many a Filipino life of the Philippine Scouts,
Philippine Army, that helped the United States in the sad, sad days of
1941 when the Japanese Empire extended its military and Naval forces
southward in Asia.
Many of the 50,000 Cambodians in my City of Long Beach have talked to
me and asked if Cambodia could become a State. Now, that would be a
wonderful idea. They are wonderful people. No people except the Jews,
the Kurds, the Armenians, and a few others have had to go through the
hell that the people of Cambodia have gone through. One million were
killed by Pol Pot. But as I have told them, it does not make sense for
them to be a State of the United States. We have to draw the line.
And for those who have small States and want the second
representative, just forget about it if six representatives come in
from anywhere, Puerto Rico or any other territory that seeks statehood.
The niceness of the people and their heroism, we should honor. But we
should not be getting ourselves entangled in situations that will be
another Quebec, no matter how much we teach the English language. And,
frankly, we have to say ``no'' from the beginning. Let us not make a
major mistake. Vote ``yes'' for the Solomon amendment and ``no'' on the
passage of the bill.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Gutierrez) has 1
minute remaining; the gentleman from Puerto Rico (Mr. Romero-Barcelo)
has 3\1/2\ minutes remaining; the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young) has
one-half minute remaining; and the gentleman from New York (Mr.
Solomon) has one-half minute remaining.
Parliamentary Inquiry
Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state it.
Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Chairman, I believe under the procedures of the
House that it would be appropriate at this time for the gentleman from
Illinois (Mr. Gutierrez) to use up his time, then the gentleman from
Puerto Rico, then myself, and then reserving the close for the chairman
of the committee. Would that not be in order? I would suggest it, at
any rate.
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair will recognize Members to close general
debate in reverse of the order in which the Members opened. Therefore,
the Chair will recognize Members to close debate as follows: The
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Gutierrez), the gentleman from New York
(Mr. Solomon), the gentleman from California (Mr. Miller), and the
gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young).
Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Chairman, I think the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Taylor) was
very eloquent when he spoke about the thousands of Puerto Ricans that
have given their lives in the armed forces. And the gentleman ended his
statement by saying they should be able to vote for statehood. Indeed,
they should.
That is not the question here. The question is should not they be
able to vote for other statuses also, and should we stack the deck
against them and in favor of statehood? Listen. I want everybody to
understand this. We cannot have self-determination if the people who
are going to have the plebiscite do not agree with the definitions, if
we say to those people when they walk into the ballot box, and this is
what we are asking them to do: statehood, citizenship guaranteed;
commonwealth, maybe, including those thousands and thousands that have
served in the Armed Forces that are citizens today. That is weighting
it against, and it is unfair.
So if we are going to bring up the courage, if we are going to bring
up the commitment and the service, let them decide in a fair manner
what their future is. And I remind my colleagues, this is not a group
of people. It is not a territory. It is a nation. They feel that they
are a nation. Puerto Rico is a separate and distinct country.
Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Chairman, briefly, the reason I have opposed this bill in its
present
[[Page H786]]
form is because it sets in motion a procedure that would possibly bring
Puerto Rico into the Union with a simple vote of 50 percent plus 1.
When Alaska came in, 83 percent of the people wanted statehood. When
Hawaii came in, 94 percent of the people wanted statehood. We cannot
have another Quebec on our hands like Canada. If the overwhelming
majority of the people of Puerto Rico want statehood, I will be the
first to stand up here to fight for their admittance. Until that time,
I think we should oppose this bill.
Mr. ROMERO-BARCELO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman
from Hawaii (Mrs. Mink).
Mrs. MINK of Hawaii. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Puerto
Rico (Mr. Romero-Barcelo) for yielding me this time.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of H.R. 856, and oppose the
Solomon amendment and support the Miller substitute.
Mr. Chairman, I commend the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young) for his
leadership in this matter. His State and my State went through years
and years of agony, of pleading with this Congress to be admitted as a
complete partner, as a State. We went through much this same type of
argument on many side issues. And I regret that my dear friends are in
opposition to this proposal on the grounds that they do not feel that
the ballot is fairly stated.
The central issue here is that the people of Puerto Rico are being
given the decision-making opportunity. They have to cast their ballots
one way or another. The issue of statehood versus commonwealth will be
clearly debated by the people.
Mr. Chairman, I feel that this is an issue which goes to the very
heart of this democracy and the people of Puerto Rico ought to be given
the right to vote.
Mr. Chairman, H.R. 856 is the first congressionally recognized
framework that establishes a referendum for the people of Puerto Rico
to determine whether they choose to be a commonwealth, state, or
independent nation.
H.R. 856 is not a bill granting statehood, it is a bill to allow
American citizens to determine their political future. Some argue
against H.R. 856 because they do not like the definition of
commonwealth or simply do not support statehood and do not want to see
the same rights and benefits accorded all states given to Puerto Rico.
We do not know how the people of Puerto Rico will vote. However, we owe
our fellow Americans the chance to decide for themselves what
relationship they wish to have with the United States.
For example, some say the bill's definition of Puerto Rico's current
territorial or ``commonwealth'' status is not attractive as statehood.
Each status has its advantages and disadvantages. If a majority of the
residents of Puerto Rico were to choose to remain a commonwealth under
H.R. 856, their relationship with the United States would not change.
There are some who oppose the possibility of Puerto Rico becoming a
state because both Spanish and English are the official languages of
Puerto Rico. These opponents wish to ``assimilate'' Puerto Rico into
the United States and believe the only way to ``assimilate'' these
residents is to declare English as the official language. This is not
true. At least four territories: Louisiana, New Mexico, Oklahoma, and
Hawaii were admitted as states with constitutional provisions
protecting the rights of French, Spanish, Native American, and Native
Hawaiian speaking residents. How can we impose different standards of
Puerto Rico.
Many would have us believe that Puerto Rico residents have no
interest in speaking or teaching or conducting business in English.
This is simply not true. For example:
85 percent of Post-Secondary school students speak English and
Spanish.
English is used in all official communications by federal agencies on
the island. All documents presented before the United States District
Court for the District of Puerto Rico are in English. Court proceedings
in the Federal Court are conducted in English.
Since 1900 the public school system has offered bilingual education.
English is taught from Kindergarten through 12 grade.
The Puerto Rico Department of Education is implementing a program to
strengthen the bilingual skills of public school students. This program
consists of a strong emphasis on reading English and Spanish starting
in Kindergarten; English textbooks in math and science; English
immersion programs; as well as teacher exchange programs between the
continental United States and Puerto Rico to improve English teaching
skills.
32 professions in Puerto Rico require their members to take licensing
examinations in English. They include Accounting, Architecture,
Engineering, Medicine, and Optometry. Puerto Rico's largest weekly
newspaper, The Caribbean Business, and the Pulitzer Prize-winning The
San Juan Star, the third largest daily newspaper, are both completely
in English.
Even with this English foundation already existing in Puerto Rico,
H.R. 856 stresses the need for a continued English presence by stating
that ``English shall be the common language of mutual understanding in
the United States.''
Proposing an ``English-only'' amendment to H.R. 856 opens up an issue
larger than Puerto Rico. An amendment declaring English as the official
language of the United States affects every state. This is an
unnecessary amendment that is larger than the bill at hand and should
be debated standing alone and not attached to H.R. 856.
English is by far our Nation's common language. According to the U.S.
Census Bureau, 95 percent of Americans currently speak English ``well''
or ``very well.'' It is because English is already the language of the
U.S. and its people, and because there is no threat that English will
be subsumed by other languages, that I do not think English-Only
amendments affecting all Americans should be enacted.
For the past 100 years, the people of Puerto Rico have served America
with loyalty, pride and commitment. They have a right to decide what
form of relationship Puerto Rico should have with the United States. I
support a plebiscite. Hawaii as a Territory also was accorded U.S.
citizens status and later voted to become a state. The people of Puerto
Rico should also decide this for themselves. H.R. 856 allows them to do
so.
I urge the passage of H.R. 856.
Mr. ROMERO-BARCELO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman
from New York (Mr. Engel).
Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of H.R. 856. To me
this is a question of equity and fairness. There are nearly 4 million
Puerto Ricans who are American citizens who are denied the right to
self-determination. This bill simply starts a process. It is nothing
more, nothing less.
We will be able to find out from this process what Puerto Ricans
want. We can then respond to that process. This is only fair. The
people of Puerto Rico did not ask to be a part of this country 100
years ago, remember. They became a part by the Spanish-American War,
and as was pointed out, they have been loyal citizens. They have the
same right to self-determination as all Americans do.
Mr. Chairman, I represent a district in the Bronx, in Westchester
County in New York. We have many, many Puerto Ricans living there and
the people are positively excited about the fact that their brethren on
Puerto Rico will have the opportunity to have this dialogue. As my
colleague from Hawaii said, the people of Alaska and Hawaii went
through much the same thing. Much of the arguments that were raised
against them coming into the Union are being raised now.
We do not favor any one thing. We want the process to start. The
people of Puerto Rico deserve nothing less.
Mr. ROMERO-BARCELO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Chairman, I guess we should be discussing here an amendment as to
whether this Nation should be allowed to invade any country that does
not speak English. That is the problem.
Mr. Chairman, there has been so much demagoguery here. When they
discuss it they say that we are not allowing the people that support
commonwealth to vote because we say that citizenship is statutory. What
else is it? There is a Constitution of the United States that says that
those born in a State are citizens and also those that are naturalized
are citizens. The Constitution does not say anything else.
So it is by law in 1917 that established that those born in Puerto
Rico shall be citizens of the United States, so we are citizens by a
statute. And that statute cannot be repealed to deny those that are
citizens the right of citizenship. But that statute can be repealed to
say and amended to say that those that are born from the year 2,000 on
will no longer be citizens by reason of birth, and the people of Puerto
Rico should know that under commonwealth that could happen. We say it
will probably not happen because it is the policy of the Nation to
maintain those that are born in Puerto Rico from now on also as
citizens, but they must know the truth.
The people of the commonwealth have been voting for lies for many,
[[Page H787]]
many years and they have been misled. The United Nations was misled
when this country went to the United Nations and said Puerto Rico has
achieved a full measure of self-government. All of my colleagues know
that I am here and I cannot vote. I cannot even vote for this bill that
is so important for the people of Puerto Rico.
Mr. Chairman, all we are asking is give us an opportunity for self-
determination. Give us an opportunity to vote whether we want to stay
as we are or we want to be a State or we want to be independent. This
is self-determination, what we have fought for on foreign soils all
over the world.
{time} 1400
Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my
time.
Again, this is our opportunity, as we close this debate to thank
everybody participating in the debate for their decorum and their
honesty and their strong beliefs. I believe that this is the correct
way to go. I believe it is the right thing to do. This is justice.
I will strongly oppose the Solomon amendment. I will support the
bipartisan amendment of Burton-Young-Miller, and I suggest respectfully
that this is the right thing for Congress today. And as we stop this
great century and begin a new century, the right thing to do for the
Americans of Puerto Rico and the great United States of America.
Mr. LAZIO of New York. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Puerto
Rico Political Status Act. The bill would grant the four million U.S.
citizens living in Puerto Rico the right to determine their own future.
This year marks the one hundredth anniversary of Puerto Rico's
accession into the United States at the end of the Spanish-American
War. Over that time, Puerto Rico has made major contributions to this
nation, including the service of more than 200,000 of its young men and
women in the armed forces of the United States. More than 8,000 have
given their lives in defense of our nation's freedom. Given the many
contributions residents of Puerto Rico have made to the United States,
I support this initiative for Puerto Rico's self-determination.
The self-determination process of H.R. 856 ensures that the people of
Puerto Rico and the people of the United States, through their
representatives in Congress, will each have a voice in the three stages
of resolving Puerto Rico's political status. As you know, the bill
allows residents of Puerto Rico to determine the political status of
their island by a democratic referendum process. Under the bill, voters
choose either to retain the current commonwealth structure for local
self government as a territory, separate sovereignty, or statehood.
This bill does not mandate that Puerto Rico become a state. The bill
would leave the decision to the local residents to exercise their
collective voice and determine the future of Puerto Rico. However,
should residents favor statehood, the bill outlines a transition plan
that includes incentives and opportunities for residents to learn
English.
Mr. Chairman, the United States is known the world over as the
promoter and keeper of political freedom. We must allow the United
States citizens living in Puerto Rico to determine their political
future as well.
Mr. BUNNING. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to H.R. 856, the
United States-Puerto Rico Political Status Act.
Back during my baseball days, I actually lived in Puerto Rico for two
years. And I think I have some idea about life on the island. It has a
long, rich history, and a vibrant culture. Living there was a wonderful
experience.
But, I think that it's this history and culture that dictate that
Puerto Rico should be independent from the United States. No matter how
hard the proponents of statehood, or those who support continuing
commonwealth status, argue their case, I don't think they can reconcile
the fact that Puerto Rico has strong traditions that profoundly
separates it from America.
It is a separation that cannot be bridged.
I recognize that on the surface there are similarities between
America and Puerto Rico. Politically and economically some links have
been forged during Puerto Rico's years as an American Commonwealth.
But these connections are only skin deep. Beyond that the customs and
culture of Puerto Rico are predominantly their own, or much more
closely identified with other Latin or Hispanic cultures.
The vast majority of its residents speak Spanish, not English. And in
the most recent referenda, held just five years ago, the residents were
profoundly divided over their island's future. None of the options--
independence, statehood, or commonwealth status--received even a
majority vote, much less a ringing endorsement.
If an overwhelming majority of residents wanted to join the United
States that would be one thing. But the indecision among Puerto Ricans
simply reflects the fact that the distance between the U.S. and Puerto
Rico is much greater than the 950 miles of ocean that separate San Juan
from Miami.
Mr. Chairman, I think Puerto Rico should be independent. I don't
think it should be a state, and I don't think it should be a
commonwealth. And I think that no matter what we do here today, there
is no way we can overcome the fact that America and Puerto Rico are
separated by profound differences.
The bill before us today claims to present us with a choice for
helping Puerto Ricans determine their future. But, it is a false choice
because no matter how long we debate this matter in Congress, and no
matter how many referenda are held in Puerto Rico, their is only one
inevitable outcome--independence.
Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the Young-
Miller substitute for H.R. 856, the United States-Puerto Rico Political
Status Act.
The political status of Puerto Rico has been a topic of discussion of
the Committee on Resources, and its predecessor Committees, for
decades. My interest in Puerto Rico began in the 1970's when I was a
member of the staff of Congressman Phil Burton of California. I learned
then of the political divisions within Puerto Rico, and those political
divisions are still in existence.
From my perspective, all three political parties in Puerto Rico make
persuasive arguments in support of their respective positions, and I
believe all three are viable political options. Additionally, I believe
a political status of free association is a possibility for Puerto Rico
to consider at some point in the future, but given the present
political makeup of the commonwealth, I do not believe it should be
included on the ballot at this time.
Before I make my specific comments on H.R. 856, I want to note for
the record that I think it is critically important that throughout this
process, as an institution, Congress must present itself as fair and as
evenhanded as possible. When I speak of self-determination for Puerto
Rico, in my mind, that means the people of Puerto Rico choose their own
course, and in making that choice all options should be available for
the people of Puerto Rico to consider.
Even though Congress has plenary authority over Puerto Rico, I
believe it would be a serious mistake for the Congress to impose its
will upon the people of Puerto Rico without fair and equitable
consultation with the Puerto Rican leaders and the people. I place such
high concern on this issue because it is my sense that if Congress is
not scrupulously evenhanded in this regard, three things can happen.
First, the U.S. citizens in Puerto Rico lose their trust in the process
and in Congress as an institution. Second, if events do not go as
smoothly as Congress might hope, it will be the Congress that will be
blamed for the problems, and rightfully so. Third, we all know
political status is an emotional issue in Puerto Rico. The Commonwealth
has a long history of fair and impartial elections with voting
percentages which are the envy of every state of the United States. If
the political status selection process were perceived as unfair, I fear
the consequences of even the perception of partiality, and again, I
believe Congress would have to take its share of the blame and
responsibility.
Mr. Chairman, as I see it, the underlying problem, if it is a problem
at all, is that over 90% of the people of Puerto Rico are almost evenly
split on which political course they should follow. As a result of
this, no one group can obtain a majority of votes. Until that changes,
any affirmative action Congress takes will not be in accordance with
the wishes of the majority in Puerto Rico. Given those facts, I believe
it is neither wise, nor good policy, to tilt the scales, just to
acquire a majority.
I do have a few concerns with this legislation I want to note. I have
said repeatedly that I do not like the idea of one political group
defining another political group's definition of itself. To a certain
extent, we have that problem in this bill--the bill contains a
definition of Commonwealth status, but it was not drafted and is not
supported by the political party which supports that status. It is
difficult to ask a political organization to vote for or support a
status its members do not support, and that is a serious concern I have
with this bill. The situation is complicated by the apparent reluctance
of the Popular Democratic Party to provide a definition of
``Commonwealth'' which could be included in the bill.
Because of the opposition of the one of the major political parties
to a key definition in the bill, it was not an easy decision for me to
support this bill. I support the definitions contained in the Young-
Miller substitute, but want to note that I do not consider the
definition of Commonwealth as describing a static relationship
[[Page H788]]
as some have stated. Rather, I believe it describes the current dynamic
relationship between the people of Puerto Rico and the people of the
United States, which can and should be changed over time.
Secondly, while some may not consider Puerto Rico's current
relationship with the United States to be a permanent one, it does not
make sense to force a change on the people of Puerto Rico which they do
not want. It would be a serious mistake to encourage the people into a
``permanent'' political status that will not best serve their long-term
interests.
Third, Mr. Speaker, is the issue of the use of the English and
Spanish languages in Puerto Rico. Coming from an insular area in which
Samoan and English are spoken I see nothing to gain and much to lose by
forcing the citizens of Puerto Rico to give up part of their Spanish
heritage by prohibiting them from speaking to each other in Spanish.
On the other hand, we will not be well served as a nation if the vast
majority of the citizens of one of our states do not speak English, and
speak it well. The example of Quebec, Canada has been often discussed
these last few weeks, but that is not the only example. I would also
point to the problems in the Balkans and in many countries in sub-
Saharan Africa. This is a very difficult issue which I believe is
appropriately addressed in the Burton-Miller-Young amendment, and I
support that amendment.
Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 856, legislation
which would provide a framework by which the people of Puerto Rico may
determine their political status.
Various speakers during today's debate will discuss a number of
aspects of this legislation and the sensitive issues it raises.
However, as the ranking Democratic Member on the Subcommittee on
Surface Transportation, I will limit my remarks to how Puerto Rico is
currently being treated under the federal highway and transit programs,
and what the process of self-determination could mean to the island.
Today, the people of Puerto Rico are the beneficiaries of federal
highway dollars even though they do not pay any federal motor fuel
taxes into the Highway Trust Fund.
On the surface, that may appear to be a good deal of Puerto Rico and
a bad deal for the rest of the country.
Yet, our contribution to the highway infrastructure of the island is
relatively small. Indeed, over the six-year life of ISTEA, starting
with 1992 and ending with 1997, Puerto Rico received $492 million in
federal highway dollars.
It is interesting to note that with a population of about 3.8 million
people, Puerto Rico received considerably less than Hawaii, a State
with similar characteristics in terms of the factors used to apportion
federal highway dollars to the States.
With a much smaller population of 1.2 million, Hawaii received a
little more than $1.2 billion in federal highway dollars during ISTEA
compared to the $492 million sent to Puerto Rico.
On the other hand, if we simply look to population, Connecticut with
about 3.3 million people received $2.2 billion over ISTEA compared to
Puerto Rico's $492 million.
As such, while Puerto Rico, which pays no federal motor fuel taxes,
receives federal highway dollars, the amount is nowhere near it would
receive if it was a State and its residents contributed into the
Highway Trust Fund.
In fact, under existing formulas, if Puerto Rico was a State it would
receive back in federal highway dollars far more than what it
contributes in motor fuel taxes as is the case with Hawaii, Connecticut
and many other States.
Is there a pressing need to make transportation improvements in
Puerto Rico, yes, certainly.
Anyone who has driven the streets of Santruce, of Rios Piedras, of
Bayamon or anywhere else in San Juan knows of the massive congestion
which plagues that city.
This is not to say that the government is not making efforts to make
improvements.
For example, Tren Urbano is one of if not the best new transit start
anywhere in the United States. Yet, the federal share currently is only
30% of that project while other, less deserving transit projects, have
federal share of at least 50% with some up to 80%.
Why is this? I think in part it is due to the resourcefulness of the
governor and his administration. But I also think it is in part because
they feel there may be limits to the extent of federal transit dollars
they can seek under Commonwealth status.
In conclusion, I would observe that the people of Puerto Rico have
shed their blood in defense of the United States. For over 100 years
they have been a junior partner in the development of the greatest
Democracy in the world that is this country. The relationship has been
mutually beneficial.
However, I believe it is time, once again, for the people of Puerto
Rico to make a determination as to their political status.
Do they want a full seat at the table that is these United States, to
be a full and equal partner, or do they want to continue to sit at that
table on a small stool as a commonwealth, or do they want to go their
own way as a separate nation.
That is what this legislation is about.
I urge a yes vote on H.R. 856.
The CHAIRMAN. All time for general debate has expired.
Pursuant to the rule, the amendment in the nature of a substitute
printed in the Congressional Record and numbered 1 is considered as an
original bill for the purpose of amendment and is considered as having
been read.
The text of the amendment in the nature of a substitute is as
follows:
Amendment in the nature of a substitute:
Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the
following:
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.
(a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``United
States-Puerto Rico Political Status Act''.
(b) Table of Contents.--The table of contents for this Act
is as follows:
Sec. 1. Short title, table of contents.
Sec. 2. Findings.
Sec. 3. Policy.
Sec. 4. Process for Puerto Rican full self-government, including the
initial decision stage, transition stage, and
implementation stage.
Sec. 5. Requirements relating to referenda, including inconclusive
referendum and applicable laws.
Sec. 6. Congressional procedures for consideration of legislation.
Sec. 7. Availability of funds for the referenda.
SEC. 2. FINDINGS.
The Congress finds the following:
(1) Puerto Rico was ceded to the United States and came
under this Nation's sovereignty pursuant to the Treaty of
Paris ending the Spanish-American War in 1898. Article IX of
the Treaty of Paris recognized the authority of Congress to
provide for the political status of the inhabitants of the
territory.
(2) Consistent with establishment of United States
nationality for inhabitants of Puerto Rico under the Treaty
of Paris, Congress has exercised its powers under the
Territorial Clause of the Constitution (article IV, section
3, clause 2) to provide by several statutes beginning in
1917, for the United States citizenship status of persons
born in Puerto Rico.
(3) Consistent with the Territorial Clause and rulings of
the United States Supreme Court, partial application of the
United States Constitution has been established in the
unincorporated territories of the United States including
Puerto Rico.
(4) In 1950, Congress prescribed a procedure for
instituting internal self-government for Puerto Rico pursuant
to statutory authorization for a local constitution. A local
constitution was approved by the people of Puerto Rico,
approved by Congress, subject to conforming amendment by
Puerto Rico, and thereupon given effect in 1952 after
acceptance of congressional conditions by the Puerto Rico
Constitutional Convention and an appropriate proclamation by
the Governor. The approved constitution established the
structure for constitutional government in respect of
internal affairs without altering Puerto Rico's fundamental
political, social, and economic relationship with the United
States and without restricting the authority of Congress
under the Territorial Clause to determine the application of
Federal law to Puerto Rico, resulting in the present
``Commonwealth'' structure for local self-government. The
Commonwealth remains an unincorporated territory and does not
have the status of ``free association'' with the United
States as that status is defined under United States law or
international practice.
(5) In 1953, the United States transmitted to the
Secretary-General of the United Nations for circulation to
its Members a formal notification that the United States no
longer would transmit information regarding Puerto Rico to
the United Nations pursuant to Article 73(e) of its Charter.
The formal United States notification document informed the
United Nations that the cessation of information on Puerto
Rico was based on the ``new constitutional arrangements'' in
the territory, and the United States expressly defined the
scope of the ``full measure'' of local self-government in
Puerto Rico as extending to matters of ``internal government
and administration, subject only to compliance with
applicable provisions of the Federal Constitution, the Puerto
Rico Federal Relations Act and the acts of Congress
authorizing and approving the Constitution, as may be
interpreted by judicial decision.''. Thereafter, the General
Assembly of the United Nations, based upon consent of the
inhabitants of the territory and the United States
explanation of the new status as approved by Congress,
adopted Resolution 748 (VIII) by a vote of 22 to 18 with 19
abstentions, thereby accepting the United States
determination to cease reporting to the United Nations on the
status of Puerto Rico.
(6) In 1960, the United Nations General Assembly approved
Resolution 1541 (XV), clarifying that under United Nations
standards
[[Page H789]]
regarding the political status options available to the
people of territories yet to complete the process for
achieving full self-government, the three established forms
of full self-government are national independence, free
association based on separate sovereignty, or full
integration with another nation on the basis of equality.
(7) The ruling of the United States Supreme Court in the
1980 case Harris v. Rosario (446 U.S. 651) confirmed that
Congress continues to exercise authority over Puerto Rico
pursuant to the Territorial Clause found at Article IV,
section 3, clause 2 of the United States Constitution; and in
the 1982 case of Rodriguez v. Popular Democratic Party (457
U.S. 1), the Court confirmed that the Congress delegated
powers of administration to the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico
sufficient for it to function ``like a State'' and as ``an
autonomous political entity'' in respect of internal affairs
and administration, ``sovereign over matters not ruled by the
Constitution'' of the United States. These rulings constitute
judicial interpretation of Puerto Rico's status which is in
accordance with the clear intent of Congress that
establishment of local constitutional government in 1952 did
not alter Puerto Rico's fundamental status.
(8) In a joint letter dated January 17, 1989, cosigned by
the Governor of Puerto Rico in his capacity as president of
one of Puerto Rico's principal political parties and the
presidents of the two other principal political parties of
Puerto Rico, the United States was formally advised that ``.
. . the People of Puerto Rico wish to be consulted as to
their preference with regards to their ultimate political
status'', and the joint letter stated ``. . . that since
Puerto Rico came under the sovereignty of the United States
of America through the Treaty of Paris in 1898, the People of
Puerto Rico have not been formally consulted by the United
States of America as to their choice of their ultimate
political status''.
(9) In the 1989 State of the Union Message, President
George Bush urged the Congress to take the necessary steps to
authorize a federally recognized process allowing the people
of Puerto Rico, for the first time since the Treaty of Paris
entered into force, to freely express their wishes regarding
their future political status in a congressionally recognized
referendum, a step in the process of self-determination which
the Congress has yet to authorize.
(10) On November 14, 1993, the Government of Puerto Rico
conducted a plebiscite initiated under local law on Puerto
Rico's political status. In that vote none of the three
status propositions received a majority of the votes cast.
The results of that vote were: 48.6 percent for a
commonwealth option, 46.3 percent statehood, and 4.4 percent
independence.
(11) In a letter dated December 2, 1994, President William
Jefferson Clinton informed leaders in Congress that an
Executive Branch Interagency Working Group on Puerto Rico had
been organized to coordinate the review, development, and
implementation of executive branch policy concerning issues
affecting Puerto Rico, including the November 1993
plebiscite.
(12) Under the Territorial Clause of the Constitution,
Congress has the authority and responsibility to determine
Federal policy and clarify status issues in order to resolve
the issue of Puerto Rico's final status.
(13) On January 23, 1997, the Puerto Rico Legislature
enacted Concurrent Resolution 2, which requested the 105th
Congress ``. . . to respond to the democratic aspirations of
the American citizens of Puerto Rico'' by approving
legislation authorizing ``. . . a plebiscite sponsored by the
Federal Government, to be held no later than 1998''.
(14) Nearly 4,000,000 United States citizens live in the
islands of Puerto Rico, which have been under United States
sovereignty and within the United States customs territory
for almost 100 years, making Puerto Rico the oldest, largest,
and most populous United States island territory at the
southeastern-most boundary of our Nation, located astride the
strategic shipping lanes of the Atlantic Ocean and Caribbean
Sea.
(15) Full self-government is attainable only through
establishment of a political status which is based on either
separate sovereignty and nationality or full and equal United
States nationality and citizenship through membership in the
Union.
SEC. 3. POLICY.
(a) Congressional Commitment.--In recognition of the
significant level of local self-government which has been
attained by Puerto Rico, and the responsibility of the
Federal Government to enable the people of the territory to
freely express their wishes regarding political status and
achieve full self-government, this Act is adopted with a
commitment to encourage the development and implementation of
procedures through which the permanent political status of
the people of Puerto Rico can be determined.
(b) Language.--English is the common language of mutual
understanding in the United States, and in all of the States
duly and freely admitted to the Union. The Congress
recognizes that at the present time, Spanish and English are
the joint official languages of Puerto Rico, and have been
for nearly 100 years; that English is the official language
of Federal courts in Puerto Rico; that the ability to speak
English is a requirement for Federal jury services; yet
Spanish rather than English is currently the predominant
language used by the majority of the people of Puerto Rico;
and that Congress has the authority to expand existing
English language requirements in the Commonwealth of Puerto
Rico. In the event that the referenda held under this Act
result in approval of sovereignty leading to Statehood, it is
anticipated that upon accession to Statehood, English
language requirements of the Federal Government shall apply
in Puerto Rico to the same extent as Federal law requires
throughout the United States. Congress also recognizes the
significant advantage that proficiency in Spanish as well as
English has bestowed on the people of Puerto Rico, and
further that this will serve the best interests of both
Puerto Rico and the rest of the United States in our mutual
dealings in the Caribbean, Latin America, and throughout the
Spanish-speaking world.
SEC. 4. PROCESS FOR PUERTO RICAN FULL SELF-GOVERNMENT,
INCLUDING THE INITIAL DECISION STAGE,
TRANSITION STAGE, AND IMPLEMENTATION STAGE.
(a) Initial Decision Stage.--A referendum on Puerto Rico's
political status is authorized to be held not later than
December 31, 1998. The referendum shall be held pursuant to
this Act and in accordance with the applicable provisions of
Puerto Rico's electoral law and other relevant statutes
consistent with this Act. Approval of a status option must be
by a majority of the valid votes cast. The referendum shall
be on the approval of 1 of the 3 options presented on the
ballot as follows:
``Instructions: Mark the status option you choose as each
is defined below. Ballot with more than 1 option marked will
not be counted.
``A. Commonwealth.--If you agree, mark here ______
``Puerto Rico should retain Commonwealth, in which--
``(1) Puerto Rico is joined in a relationship with and
under the national sovereignty of the United States. It is
the policy of the Congress that this relationship should only
be dissolved by mutual consent.
``(2) Under this political relationship, Puerto Rico like a
State is an autonomous political entity, sovereign over
matters not ruled by the Constitution of the United States.
In the exercise of this sovereignty, the laws of the
Commonwealth shall govern in Puerto Rico to the extent that
they are consistent with the Constitution, treaties, and laws
of the United States. Congress retains its constitutional
authority to enact laws it deems necessary relating to Puerto
Rico.
``(3) Persons born in Puerto Rico have United States
citizenship by statute as secured by the Constitution. It is
the policy of the United States that citizenship will
continue to be granted to persons born in Puerto Rico. The
rights, privileges, and immunities provided for by the United
States Constitution apply in Puerto Rico, except where
limited by the Constitution to citizens residing in a State.
``(4) Puerto Rico will continue to participate in Federal
programs and may be enabled to participate equally with the
States in the programs where it is not now participating
equally contingent on the payment of contributions, which may
include payment of taxes, as provided by Federal law.
``B. Separate Sovereignty.--If you agree, mark here ______
``The people of Puerto Rico should become fully self-
governing through separate sovereignty in the form of
independence or free association, in which--
``(1) Puerto Rico is a sovereign Republic which has full
authority and responsibility over its territory and
population under a constitution which is the supreme law,
providing for a republican form of government and the
protection of human rights;
``(2) the Republic of Puerto Rico is a member of the
community of nations vested with full powers and
responsibilities for its own fiscal and monetary policy,
immigration, trade, and the conduct in its own name and right
of relations with other nations and international
organizations, including the rights and responsibilities that
devolve upon a sovereign nation under the general principles
of international law;
``(3) the residents of Puerto Rico owe allegiance to and
have the nationality and citizenship of the Republic of
Puerto Rico;
``(4) The Constitution and laws of the United States no
longer apply in Puerto Rico, and United States sovereignty in
Puerto Rico is ended; thereupon birth in Puerto Rico or
relationship to persons with statutory United States
citizenship by birth in the former territory shall cease to
be a basis for United States nationality or citizenship,
except that persons who had such United States citizenship
have a statutory right to retain United States nationality
and citizenship for life, by entitlement or election as
provided by the United States Congress, based on continued
allegiance to the United States: Provided, That such persons
will not have this statutory United States nationality and
citizenship status upon having or maintaining allegiance,
nationality, and citizenship rights in any sovereign nation,
including the Republic of Puerto Rico, other than the United
States;
``(5) The previously vested rights of individuals in Puerto
Rico to benefits based upon past services rendered or
contributions made to the United States shall be honored by
the United States as provided by Federal law;
``(6) Puerto Rico and the United States seek to develop
friendly and cooperative relations in matters of mutual
interest as agreed in treaties approved pursuant to their
[[Page H790]]
respective constitutional processes, and laws including
economic and programmatic assistance at levels and for a
reasonable period as provided on a government-to-government
basis, trade between customs territories, transit of citizens
in accordance with immigration laws, and status of United
States military forces; and
``(7) a free association relationship may be established
based on separate sovereign republic status as defined above,
but with such delegations of government functions and other
cooperative arrangements as may be agreed to by both parties
under a bilateral pact terminable at will by either the
United States or Puerto Rico.
``C. Statehood.--If you agree, mark here ______
``Puerto Rico should become fully self governing through
Statehood, in which--
``(1) the people of Puerto Rico are fully self-governing
with their rights secured under the United States
Constitution, which shall be fully applicable in Puerto Rico
and which, with the laws and treaties of the United States,
is the supreme law and has the same force and effect as in
the other States of the Union;
``(2) the State of Puerto Rico becomes a part of the
permanent union of the United States of America, subject to
the United States Constitution, with powers not prohibited by
the Constitution to the States, reserved to the State of
Puerto Rico in its sovereignty or to the people;
``(3) United States citizenship of those born in Puerto
Rico is recognized, protected and secured in the same way it
is for all United States citizens born in the other States;
``(4) rights, freedoms, and benefits as well as duties and
responsibilities of citizenship, including payment of Federal
taxes, apply in the same manner as in the several States;
``(5) Puerto Rico is represented by two members in the
United States Senate and is represented in the House of
Representatives proportionate to the population;
``(6) United States citizens in Puerto Rico are
enfranchised to vote in elections for the President and Vice
President of the United States; and
``(7) English is the official language of business and
communication in Federal courts and Federal agencies as made
applicable by Federal law to every other State, and Puerto
Rico is enabled to expand and build upon existing law
establishing English as an official language of the State
government, courts, and agencies.''.
(b) Transition Stage.--
(1) Plan.--(A) Within 180 days of the receipt of the
results of the referendum from the Government of Puerto Rico
certifying approval of a ballot choice of full self-
government in a referendum held pursuant to subsection (a),
the President shall develop and submit to Congress
legislation for a transition plan of not more than 10 years
which leads to full self-government for Puerto Rico
consistent with the terms of this Act and the results of the
referendum and in consultation with officials of the three
branches of the Government of Puerto Rico, the principal
political parties of Puerto Rico, and other interested
persons as may be appropriate.
(B) Additionally, in the event of a vote in favor of
separate sovereignty, the Legislature of Puerto Rico, if
deemed appropriate, may provide by law for the calling of a
constituent convention to formulate, in accordance with
procedures prescribed by law, Puerto Rico's proposals and
recommendations to implement the referendum results. If a
convention is called for this purpose, any proposals and
recommendations formally adopted by such convention within
time limits of this Act shall be transmitted to Congress by
the President with the transition plan required by this
section, along with the views of the President regarding the
compatibility of such proposals and recommendations with the
United States Constitution and this Act, and identifying
which, if any, of such proposals and recommendations have
been addressed in the President's proposed transition plan.
(C) Additionally, in the event of a vote in favor of United
States sovereignty leading to Statehood, the President shall
include in the transition plan provided for in this Act--
(i) proposals and incentives to increase the opportunities
of the people of Puerto Rico to learn to speak, read, write,
and understand English fully, including but not limited to,
the teaching of English in public schools, fellowships, and
scholarships. The transition plan should promote the usage of
English by the United States citizens of Puerto Rico, in
order to best allow for--
(I) the enhancement of the century old practice of English
as an official language of Puerto Rico, consistent with the
preservation of our Nation's unity in diversity and the
prevention of divisions along linguistic lines;
(II) the use of language skills necessary to contribute
most effectively to the Nation in all aspects, including but
not limited to Hemispheric trade;
(III) the promotion of efficiency to all people in the
conduct of the Federal and State government's official
business; and
(IV) the ability of all citizens to take full advantage of
the economical, educational, and occupational opportunities
through full integration with the United States; and
(ii) the effective date of incorporation, thereby
permitting the greatest degree of flexibility for the phase-
in of Federal programs and the development of the economy
through fiscal incentives, alternative tax arrangements, and
other measures.
(D) In the event of a vote in favor of Commonwealth, the
Government of Puerto Rico may call a Special Convention to
develop proposals for submission to the President and the
Congress for changes in Federal policy on matters of economic
and social concern to the people of Puerto Rico. The
President and the Congress, as appropriate, shall
expeditiously consider any such proposals. The Commonwealth
would assume any expenses related to increased
responsibilities resulting from such proposals.
(2) Congressional consideration.--The plan shall be
considered by the Congress in accordance with section 6.
(3) Puerto rican approval.--
(A) Not later than 180 days after enactment of an Act
pursuant to paragraph (1) providing for the transition to
full self-government for Puerto Rico as approved in the
initial decision referendum held under subsection (a), a
referendum shall be held under the applicable provisions of
Puerto Rico's electoral law on the question of approval of
the transition plan.
(B) Approval must be by a majority of the valid votes cast.
The results of the referendum shall be certified to the
President of the United States.
(c) Implementation Stage.--
(1) Presidential recommendation.--Not less than two years
prior to the end of the period of the transition provided for
in the transition plan approved under subsection (b), the
President shall submit to Congress a joint resolution with a
recommendation for the date of termination of the transition
and the date of implementation of full self-government for
Puerto Rico within the transition period consistent with the
ballot choice approved under subsection (a).
(2) Congressional consideration.--The joint resolution
shall be considered by the Congress in accordance with
section 6.
(3) Puerto rican approval.--
(A) Within 180 days after enactment of the terms of
implementation for full self-government for Puerto Rico, a
referendum shall be held under the applicable provisions of
Puerto Rico's electoral laws on the question of the approval
of the terms of implementation for full self-government for
Puerto Rico.
(B) Approval must be by a majority of the valid votes cast.
The results of the referendum shall be certified to the
President of the United States.
SEC. 5. REQUIREMENTS RELATING TO REFERENDA, INCLUDING
INCONCLUSIVE REFERENDUM AND APPLICABLE LAWS.
(a) Applicable Laws.--
(1) Referenda under puerto rican laws.--The referenda held
under this Act shall be conducted in accordance with the
applicable laws of Puerto Rico, including laws of Puerto Rico
under which voter eligibility is determined and which require
United States citizenship and establish other statutory
requirements for voter eligibility of residents and
nonresidents.
(2) Federal laws.--The Federal laws applicable to the
election of the Resident Commissioner of Puerto Rico shall,
as appropriate and consistent with this Act, also apply to
the referenda. Any reference in such Federal laws to
elections shall be considered, as appropriate, to be a
reference to the referenda, unless it would frustrate the
purposes of this Act.
(b) Certification of Referenda Results.--The results of
each referendum held under this Act shall be certified to the
President of the United States and the Senate and House of
Representatives of the United States by the Government of
Puerto Rico.
(c) Consultation and Recommendations for Inconclusive
Referendum.--
(1) In general.--If a referendum provided in section 4(b)
or (c) of this Act does not result in approval of a fully
self-governing status, the President, in consultation with
officials of the three branches of the Government of Puerto
Rico, the principal political parties of Puerto Rico, and
other interested persons as may be appropriate, shall make
recommendations to the Congress within 180 days of receipt of
the results of the referendum regarding completion of the
self-determination process for Puerto Rico under the
authority of Congress.
(2) Additional referenda.--To ensure that the Congress is
able on a continuing basis to exercise its Territorial Clause
powers with due regard for the wishes of the people of Puerto
Rico respecting resolution of Puerto Rico's permanent future
political status, in the event that a referendum conducted
under section 4(a) does not result in a majority vote for
separate sovereignty or statehood, there is authorized to be
further referenda in accordance with this Act, but not less
than once every 10 years.
SEC. 6. CONGRESSIONAL PROCEDURES FOR CONSIDERATION OF
LEGISLATION.
(a) In General.--The majority leader of the House of
Representatives (or his designee) and the majority leader of
the Senate (or his designee) shall each introduce legislation
(by request) providing for the transition plan under section
4(b) and the implementation recommendation under section 4(c)
not later than 5 legislative days after the date of receipt
by Congress of the submission by the President under that
section, as the case may be.
(b) Referral.--The legislation shall be referred on the
date of introduction to the appropriate committee or
committees in accordance with rules of the respective Houses.
[[Page H791]]
The legislation shall be reported not later than the 120th
calendar day after the date of its introduction. If any such
committee fails to report the bill within that period, that
committee shall be automatically discharged from
consideration of the legislation, and the legislation shall
be placed on the appropriate calendar.
(c) Consideration.--
(1) After the 14th legislative day after the date on which
the last committee of the House of Representatives or the
Senate, as the case may be, has reported or been discharged
from further consideration of such legislation, it is in
order after the legislation has been on the calendar for 14
legislative days for any Member of that House in favor of the
legislation to move to proceed to the consideration of the
legislation (after consultation with the presiding officer of
that House as to scheduling) to move to proceed to its
consideration at any time after the third legislative day on
which the Member announces to the respective House concerned
the Member's intention to do so. All points of order against
the motion to proceed and against consideration of that
motion are waived. The motion is highly privileged in the
House of Representatives and is privileged in the Senate and
is not debatable. The motion is not subject to amendment, or
to a motion to postpone, or to a motion to proceed to the
consideration of other business. A motion to reconsider the
vote by which the motion is agreed to or disagreed to shall
not be in order. If a motion to proceed to the consideration
of the legislation is agreed to, the respective House shall
immediately proceed to consideration of the legislation
without intervening motion (exception one motion to adjourn),
order, or other business.
(2)(A) In the House of Representatives, during
consideration of the legislation in the Committee of the
Whole, the first reading of the legislation shall be
dispensed with. General debate shall be confined to the
legislation, and shall not exceed 4 hours equally divided and
controlled by a proponent and an opponent of the legislation.
After general debate, the legislation shall be considered as
read for amendment under the five-minute rule. Consideration
of the legislation for amendment shall not exceed 4 hours
excluding time for recorded votes and quorum calls. At the
conclusion 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 legislation and amendments
thereto to final passage without intervening motion, except
one motion to recommit with or without instructions. A motion
to reconsider the vote on passage of the legislation shall
not be in order.
(B) In the Senate, debate on the legislation, and all
amendments thereto and debatable motions and appeals in
connection therewith, shall be limited to not more than 25
hours. The time shall be equally divided between, and
controlled by, the majority leader and the minority leader or
their designees. No amendment that is not germane to the
provisions of such legislation shall be received. A motion to
further limit debate is not debatable.
(3) Appeals from the decisions of the Chair relating to the
application of the rules of the Senate or the House of
Representatives, as the case may be, to the procedure
relating to the legislation described in subsection (a) shall
be decided without debate.
(d) Consideration by Other House.--(1) If, before the
passage by one House of the legislation described in
subsection (a) that was introduced in that House, that House
receives from the other House the legislation described in
subsection (a)--
(A) the legislation of the other House shall not be
referred to a committee and may not be considered in the
House that receives it otherwise than on final passage under
subparagraph (B)(ii) or (iii); and
(B)(i) the procedure in the House that receives such
legislation with respect to such legislation that was
introduced in that House shall be the same as if no
legislation had been received from the other House; but
(ii) in the case of legislation received from the other
House that is identical to the legislation as engrossed by
the receiving House, the vote on final passage shall be on
the legislation of the other House; or
(iii) after passage of the legislation, the legislation of
the other House shall be considered as amended with the text
of the legislation just passed and shall be considered as
passed, and that House shall be considered to have insisted
on its amendment and requested a conference with the other
House.
(2) Upon disposition of the legislation described in
subsection (a) that is received by one House from the other
House, it shall no longer be in order to consider such
legislation that was introduced in the receiving House.
(e) Upon receiving from the other House a message in which
that House insists upon its amendment to the legislation and
requests a conference with the House of Representatives or
the Senate, as the case may be, on the disagreeing votes
thereon, the House receiving the request shall be considered
to have disagreed to the amendment of the other House and
agreed to the conference requested by that House.
(f) Definition.--For the purposes of this section, the term
``legislative day'' means a day on which the House of
Representatives or the Senate, as appropriate, is in session.
(g) Exercise of Rulemaking Power.--The provisions of this
section are enacted by the Congress--
(1) as an exercise of the rulemaking power of the Senate
and the House of Representatives and, as such, shall be
considered as part of the rules of each House and shall
supersede other rules only to the extent that they are
inconsistent therewith; and
(2) with full recognition of the constitutional right of
either House to change the rules (so far as they relate to
the procedures of that House) at any time, in the same
manner, and to the same extent as in the case of any other
rule of that House.
SEC. 7. AVAILABILITY OF FUNDS FOR THE REFERENDA.
(a) In General.--
(1) Availability of amounts derived from tax on foreign
rum.--During the period beginning October 1, 1997, and ending
on the date the President determines that all referenda
required by this Act have been held, from the amounts covered
into the treasury of Puerto Rico under section 7652(e)(1) of
the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, the Secretary of the
Treasury--
(A) upon request and in the amounts identified from time to
time by the President, shall make the amounts so identified
available to the treasury of Puerto Rico for the purposes
specified in subsection (b); and
(B) shall transfer all remaining amounts to the treasury of
Puerto Rico, as under current law.
(2) Report of referenda expenditures.--Within 180 days
after each referendum required by this Act, and after the end
of the period specified in paragraph (1), the President, in
consultation with the Government of Puerto Rico, shall submit
a report to the United States Senate and United States House
of Representatives on the amounts made available under
paragraph (1)(A) and all other amounts expended by the State
Elections Commission of Puerto Rico for referenda pursuant to
this Act.
(b) Grants for Conducting Referenda and Voter Education.--
From amounts made available under subsection (a)(1), the
Government of Puerto Rico shall make grants to the State
Elections Commission of Puerto Rico for referenda held
pursuant to the terms of this Act, as follows:
(1) 50 percent shall be available only for costs of
conducting the referenda.
(2) 50 percent shall be available only for voter education
funds for the central ruling body of the political party,
parties, or other qualifying entities advocating a particular
ballot choice. The amount allocated for advocating a ballot
choice under this paragraph shall be apportioned equally
among the parties advocating that choice.
(c) Additional Resources.--In addition to amounts made
available by this Act, the Puerto Rico Legislature may
allocate additional resources for administrative and voter
education costs to each party so long as the distribution of
funds is consistent with the apportionment requirements of
subsection (b).
The CHAIRMAN. Before consideration of any other amendment, it shall
be in order to consider Amendment number 3 printed in the Record, which
shall be preceded by an additional period of general debate confined to
the subject of that amendment. That debate shall not exceed 1 hour,
equally divided and controlled by the gentleman from New York (Mr.
Solomon) and a Member opposed.
Consideration of Amendment number 2 printed in the Record shall be
preceded by an additional period of general debate confined to the
subject of that amendment. That debate shall not exceed 30 minutes,
equally divided and controlled by the gentleman from New York (Mr.
Serrano) and a Member opposed. Amendments specified in section 2(a) and
2(b) of House Resolution 376 shall be considered read and shall not be
subject to a demand for division of the question. Consideration of each
of those amendments and any amendments thereto shall not exceed 1 hour.
During consideration of the bill for amendment, the Chair may accord
priority in recognition to a Member offering an amendment that he has
printed in the designated place in the Congressional Record. Those
amendments will be considered read.
The Chairman of the Committee of the Whole may postpone a request for
any recorded voted on any amendment and may reduce to a minimum of 5
minutes the time for voting on any postponed question that immediately
follows another vote, provided that the time for voting on the first
question shall be a minimum of 15 minutes.
It is now in order to debate the subject matter of the amendment
offered by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Solomon).
The gentleman from New York (Mr. Solomon) and a Member opposed, each
will control 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New York (Mr. Solomon).
[[Page H792]]
Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, I and the gentleman from
California jointly would like to control the remaining 30 minutes in
opposition to be equally divided.
Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Chairman, reserving the right to object.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from California (Mr. Miller) would have
priority recognition. He could get unanimous consent to give half of
his time to the gentleman from Indiana.
Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to do
that.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
California?
Mr. SOLOMON. Reserving the right to object, Mr. Chairman, to whomever
is making the unanimous consent request here, I would not object when
the time comes, but there will be, as I understand, an amendment
offered by the gentleman from Indiana, an amendment, a substitute to my
amendment. If we are going to give unanimous consent to manage the time
jointly, I would like to ask unanimous consent that I be able to claim
the time in opposition to the gentleman's substitute to my amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair has not determined at this point how that
amendment is going to be considered. That amendment may be debated
under the 5-minute rule within the time limit.
Mr. SOLOMON. The problem is, we would like to have Members in
opposition and for the amendment and not go into the 5-minute rule.
Parliamentary Inquiries
Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state it.
Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to ask of the
Chair how the time on my amendment, when it comes in order, will be
divided and how it should be divided?
The CHAIRMAN. As of now, it will be considered under the 5-minute
rule.
Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. I have a parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Chairman.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state it.
Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, we are discussing the amendment of
the gentleman from New York under 1 hour of the rule. The time should
be divided equally between the gentleman from New York (Mr. Solomon) 30
minutes and the gentleman from California (Mr. Miller) 30 minutes,
yielding 15 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana; is that correct?
The CHAIRMAN. That could happen. Once the amendment is pending, we
may then proceed under the 5-minute rule.
Mr. SOLOMON. Reserving the right to object, Mr. Chairman, that would
take unanimous consent, and that is why I am reserving the right to
object, because when the Burton amendment is offered, I would ask
agreement that we be able to not proceed under the 5-minute rule, but
to divide the time equally 15 minutes for the substitute and 15 minutes
opposed. We could have done this in the rule, but we did not do it
because we wanted to get the unanimous consent on the floor.
Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. SOLOMON. I yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, my understanding is there may
be additional amendments. So the person who offers a perfecting
amendment or whatever to the gentleman's amendment to the substitute
would get time, I assume, to explain their amendment or something.
Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Chairman, continuing my reservation of objection, I
yield to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Gutierrez) for some input on
this subject.
Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Chairman, I believe I have the only other
amendment. I have a perfecting amendment. Obviously the Burton
substitute would go first, but I have a perfecting amendment. So if we
could reach an agreement so that my perfecting amendment would get 10
minutes of time, I would not ask for an extraordinary amount of time,
so that I could have the perfecting amendment and reserve at least 10
minutes of time outside of the gentleman's hour that he already has.
Then we could all have a unanimous consent, and I think we might be
able to figure this out.
Mr. SOLOMON. Continuing my reservation of objection, might I inquire
of the Chair whom would be recognized first to offer an amendment
either in the form of a substitute or a perfecting amendment to my
amendment?
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair would not wish to anticipate recognition at
this time. The Chair would grant recognition to the Member that would
rise first and seek recognition and if both rise, grant priority of
recognition to the appropriate Member.
Mr. SOLOMON. Would it not be done by seniority, Mr. Chairman?
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair would obviously take into account seniority
and committee membership.
Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my reservation of objection. We
will cross that bridge when we come to it.
Parliamentary Inquiries
Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state it.
Mr. BURTON of Indiana. A perfecting amendment, Mr. Chairman, precedes
the determination of an amendment. A substitute comes after the
amendment or at the end of the amendment process. Am I not correct?
The CHAIRMAN. The two amendments may be pending at the same time.
Mr. BURTON of Indiana. I thank the Chair.
Mr. GUTIERREZ. Reserving the right to object, Mr. Chairman, I would
like to sit down and let the Members figure out the rest of it. My only
concern is that because of the gentleman's ranking and seniority here
that I be allowed, if the gentleman just says, ``Congressman, I will
make sure you get your 10 minutes,'' and the gentleman will allow me,
and I will limit my perfecting amendment to 10 minutes, and then we can
proceed with the rest of this. The gentleman's word is very valuable to
me, and I will just take that. Then I can sit down and let these
gentlemen figure out the rest of it.
Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, as I understand it, we are going
to be under the 5-minute rule which would govern the time distribution;
is that correct?
The CHAIRMAN. As of now, that is correct.
Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, should we ask unanimous consent
that each one of the amendments, since there is only two, be given 15
minutes for each amendment for debate, equally divided among proponents
and opponents? I will make a unanimous consent request to that effect.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman may make that request by unanimous
consent.
Mr. MILLER of California. Reserving the right to object, currently
under the rule there will be 1 hour on the amendments to Solomon; is
that correct?
Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. MILLER of California. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
Mr. SOLOMON. Under the rule there would be 1 hour of general debate
on the Solomon amendment before it is called up. After the 1 hour has
expired, then I would call up the amendment and then it would be
subject to amendment by the two gentlemen.
Mr. MILLER of California. With 1 hour of total time to all
amendments?
Mr. SOLOMON. That is correct.
Parliamentary Inquiry
Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state it.
Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. May I make a suggestion to all my good friends.
Why do we not begin the debate, general debate, and then let us work
out the timeframe of the amendments that will be offered.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from New York (Mr. Solomon) will be
recognized for 30 minutes, and a Member opposed will be recognized for
30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New York (Mr. Solomon).
Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
From the very beginning our Nation has recognized that the prosperity
of the people of America depended on their continuing firmly united,
and the wishes and the prayers and the efforts
[[Page H793]]
of our best and wisest citizens have been constantly directed to that
object. These are the words of the wisdom of The Federalist papers of
John Jay, our country's first Chief Justice of the Supreme Court.
Justice Jay went on to say, I have often taken notice that providence
has been pleased to give this one connected country to one united
people, a people descended from the same ancestors, speaking the same
language, attached to the same principles of government, very similar
in their manners and their customs, and who, by their joint councils
and arms and efforts, fighting side by side throughout a long and
bloody war, have nobly established their general liberty and their
independence.
That is the history of our country.
Based on this premise, for the past two centuries we have forged a
Nation out of our different peoples by emphasizing our common beliefs,
our common ideals and, perhaps most importantly of all, our common
language.
Our English language has permitted this country to live up to our
national motto, E Pluribus Unum, which means out of many, one.
Mr. Chairman, it is in this spirit that I offer the English language
empowerment amendment to the U.S.-Puerto Rico Political Status Act. In
short, this amendment is based on two very simple principles. It is
based on unity, and it is based on opportunity. My devotion to unity
and the English language is premised on the belief that our strength in
unity can best be preserved through the prevention of divisions along
linguistic or cultural lines. Such cultural divisions have been
encountered by Canada with Quebec and could be with the U.S. and Puerto
Rico today.
Now, what do I mean by this division of linguistic lines? These
divisions are not between people, but they are between opportunities.
Americans who do not know English are segregated. They are segregated
from those who do, separated from everything the United States and its
precious Constitution stands for.
A reaffirmation of English as the official language is absolutely
necessary to demonstrate that the Federal Government's goal is to
desegregate all Americans. This is because America is composed of
people who have for centuries pulled themselves up by their bootstraps
with courage and a vision to pursue the opportunity that America has to
offer. Consequently my amendment is intended to ensure that no American
citizen, no matter what their cultural background, no matter whether
they live in Puerto Rico or Iowa, has to be trapped in a linguistic
box, kept away from those tools of opportunity.
This is the land of opportunity and the land of language, the land of
opportunity and English. There should be no ambiguity about this fact.
The usage and understanding of English is the key to economic and
educational opportunity in this country of ours. Therefore, we as the
Federal Government must do everything we can to promote and to enhance
the ability of all Americans no matter what their heritage to read, to
speak and understand this language of opportunity.
Based on this visionary premise during the 104th Congress, the House
of Representatives voted, and the gentleman from California (Mr.
Cunningham) will speak to that in a minute, voted 259 to 169 in favor
of the bill which declared English the official language of the United
States. However, the provisions of this bill before us today undermine
the principles of that empowerment act, and they deny opportunities to
the children and the people of Puerto Rico, make no mistake about it.
Furthermore, this bill does not address how the omission of Puerto Rico
as an official Spanish State would affect English as the official
language of the United States Government. Nor does it protect the
rights of English-speaking Americans in Puerto Rico or the rights of
the children of Puerto Rico to learn English.
These are crucial, important questions to answer because according to
the 1990 U.S. census, and this is so important, less than 24 percent of
the U.S. citizens in Puerto Rico speak English fluently, while 98
percent do actually speak Spanish. All children in the public schools
are taught only in Spanish from kindergarten through the high school,
while English is taught as a second language.
{time} 1415
To correct these weaknesses of the underlying bill, my amendment
basically does two things, and this is exactly what it does:
First, it replaces the language in this bill, the nebulous language
policy which states that ``English is the common language of mutual
understanding in the United States.'' It replaces it with the clearer
and simpler statement that ``English is the official language of the
Federal Government,'' applicable to the entire Nation, as done in the
Empowerment Act in the last Congress which overwhelmingly passed this
House with strong Republican and Democratic support.
Secondly, it addresses Congress' fundamental responsibility to ensure
that any State meet certain standards and provide certain fundamental
rights and protections. In 1845 and again in 1911 our United States
Supreme Court held that Congress may require a new State to meet
certain standards before it would be admitted. As a result, my
amendment tailors the statehood ballot to reflect this national
official English policy. It states that the Congress expects that a
future State of Puerto Rico would promote English as the official
language of the State government, of its courts and agencies, and that
English would be the language of instruction in public schools but
would not bar the teaching of Spanish in those same public schools.
These provisions will guarantee current and future generations of
Puerto Rico unfettered access to the tools with which to successfully
assimilate into this Union of ours, should they choose to become a
State at a later date.
Today can be a historic day, my colleagues, a day in which Congress
not only debates the future political status of 3.8 million U.S.
citizens, but also a day which will focus and strengthen those things
which unite us as a Nation and which expand the horizons of opportunity
for all our citizens.
This is an amendment of opportunity, my colleagues. It is a vision of
unity and compassionate measures. It deserves all of America's support,
from the young dairy farmer in Argyle, New York, to the logging family
in Olympia, Washington, to the schoolteacher in San Juan, Puerto Rico.
I urge my colleagues to support my amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Edwards).
Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, what America needs is English plus, not
English only. What America needs is to teach English, not preach it.
What America needs is to respect diversity, not divisiveness. The last
time I visited the Statue of Liberty, that eloquent lady did not say
``Spanish-speaking people not accepted here.''
The blood spilled and lives lost by thousands of Spanish-speaking
American veterans has not been limited to English only, and it is wrong
to deny those veterans the very rights for which they fought. Whether
intended or not, this debate on English only is divisive and insults
the culture of millions of Hispanic Americans, Asian Americans, Korean
Americans and others.
Mr. Chairman, the brightest days of America's history have come when
we were inclusive, when we added women and racial and religious
minorities to the rights enumerated in our Declaration of Independence
and Constitution. The darkest days of America's history have come when
we excluded our citizens from full participation in our democracy; for
example, when black veterans were allowed to die for the very freedoms
they were denied right here at home. I hope this will be a bright day
for all of America's citizens, not a dark day that will turn us
backwards into a quagmire of divisiveness.
The 3 percent of American citizens that do not speak English, many of
them seniors living with their children in their homes, hardly pose a
threat to the greatest democracy in the history of the world. If
Hispanics and other Americans, such as Korean Americans in my district,
are willing to work hard and pay taxes and serve us in uniform, then
surely we should show them the brightest, the best of America today.
Vote ``no'' on the Solomon amendment.
[[Page H794]]
Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from
Louisiana (Mr. Livingston), one of the Members of this body that has
been harassed by Members in his own party and Members on both sides of
the aisle but is one of the real stand-up Members in this House.
Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I thank my friend for yielding me this
time. The other gentleman from Louisiana was disappointed the gentleman
was not speaking about him. He thought and I thought the gentleman from
New York was speaking about him.
Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of the amendment by the
gentleman from New York, the Solomon amendment to H.R. 856, the United
States-Puerto Rico Political Status Act. Regardless of how we feel
about the ultimate bill, the fact is that this bill's current provision
on English is weak and inadequate and needs to be strengthened. H.R.
856 says that English will be the common language of mutual
understanding in the United States. That means really nothing. Common
language is not an official language.
That facts are that less than half of all the citizens of Puerto Rico
can speak English. Less than half can speak English. And according to
The New York Times, fully 90 percent of the island's 650,000 public
school students lack basic English skills by the time they graduate. If
Puerto Rico becomes a State, this situation will be intolerable. A
youngster growing up in Puerto Rico will speak Spanish, will not speak
English. And, in my opinion, a youngster growing up in the United
States needs to speak the common language.
If my wife and I take a child to Spain and raise the child in Spain,
we will raise the child speaking Spanish so that he can communicate, or
she can communicate in the language of the Nation. We will not expect
Spain to teach our kid English if we are going to live in their
country. Likewise, we ought to expect people growing up in this Nation
to speak English so that they can communicate for their own good and
become productive citizens.
Our common language is the tie that binds us all. The motto of this
Nation, ``E Pluribus Unum,'' ``out of many, one,'' should remind us
that we are a Nation of different peoples and cultures but we are
united. The ability to communicate in a common tongue is the key to
success that unites us in our democracy.
We see in Canada that different languages can seriously impair the
unity of a nation, and that nation is about to come apart at the seams
because they speak a different language.
The Solomon amendment is only common sense. By establishing English
as the official language of the Federal Government, the Solomon
amendment will make it perfectly clear that English will be the
language of the Federal Government across the Nation. Not just in
Puerto Rico, across the Nation.
Under Solomon, Puerto Ricans may freely speak Spanish at home or
anywhere they please, but the State of Puerto Rico will promote English
as the official language of the State government, of the courts, of the
agencies, and in the schools teaching in English will be mandated in
public schools. This will make citizens of the island full and equal
partners in America in a fashion our Founding Fathers envisioned and it
will make them productive citizens of the United States of America.
I urge the adoption of the Solomon amendment and the defeat of all
the perfecting and the substituting amendments which will delete it and
attempt to nullify the provisions of the Solomon amendment. English is
the American language.
Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from Puerto Rico (Mr. Romero-Barcelo).
Mr. ROMERO-BARCELO. Mr. Chairman, right now, in Puerto Rico, more
people are watching this C-SPAN on a per-capita basis than in any State
of the Nation. That belies the statements that have been made here that
the people of Puerto Rico do not understand English.
More than about 50 percent of the people know and understand English.
Twenty-five percent are proficient in English. But how many children
are proficient in English when they graduate from high school in the 50
States of the Nation? There is a very low proficiency in English from
graduates in the 50 States. But all of those people in Puerto Rico, if
they cannot understand, they have somebody in their family or a friend
that is translating what is going on here, and they know what is going
on.
When they say that in order to vote that we have to be proficient in
English, my God, why was that not decided when we were granted
citizenship? A person who asks for naturalization, he takes a test in
English. Now, 95 percent of the people of Puerto Rico can pass that
test without any problem; that is a citizenship test.
So the test that we give people who ask for citizenship has less
requirements than what we are trying to require in this amendment from
the people of Puerto Rico who have been citizens since 1917, for 81
years, who fought together, who worked together to make this Nation
what it is today. They fought in the foreign soils defending the right
to self-determination.
They say, oh, this bill tells the people of Puerto Rico the wrong
things. It does not allow the people of Puerto Rico to understand that
they must speak English. We know we must speak English. Everybody in
Puerto Rico knows that. We know that English is the language of the
world. What is anyone here afraid of?
We should be in the country, instead of trying to impose English,
promoting the learning of English by providing opportunities to learn
English, providing more opportunities for people who understand the
language and to speak it and to write it. That is what this should be
all about, not about trying to impose. This is not a dictatorship. This
is a democracy. Let us not belie what we are.
Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I
may consume.
The CHAIRMAN. Is the gentleman from Indiana using the time of the
gentleman from New York?
Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, I have 15 minutes, and the
gentleman from California (Mr. Miller) has 15 minutes in opposition.
That is what was decided.
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair's understanding is the gentleman from Indiana
was going to make that unanimous consent request.
Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Chairman, we have no objection.
The CHAIRMAN. But as of now, we are under the 60 minutes divided for
the underlying subject.
Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Indiana
(Mr. Burton) has 15 minutes of our 30 minutes because the gentleman
from New York (Mr. Solomon) withdrew his objection.
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair had made an announcement that the hour would
be divided 30 minutes and 30 minutes under the rule. The Chair would
now entertain a unanimous consent request to further divide the time.
Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that
15 minutes of the time allocated to me under the rule be allocated to
the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton) at this time.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
California?
There was no objection.
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Indiana (Mr.
Burton.)
Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I
may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I am one of the 165 cosponsors of H.R. 123, which was a
bill to declare English as the official language of the Government of
the United States. I strongly believe that that is a good piece of
legislation.
However, after having said that, I do not believe that that
particular piece of legislation belongs in this bill. This bill is a
bill that is designed to give the people of Puerto Rico the right to
let the Congress of the United States know whether they want to be an
independent nation, whether they want to remain a Commonwealth, or
whether they want to become a State.
It does not mean that they will become a State, because any decision
that they make in this referendum will
[[Page H795]]
have to come back to the Congress of the United States for final
determination. And the process is going to take about 10 years if the
process is followed according to the legislation that we have before
us.
So the fact of the matter is this bill is designed to find out what
the people of Puerto Rico really want.
Why are we doing this, because there was a plebiscite in Puerto Rico
just a few years ago? A few years ago, there was a plebiscite; and each
of the parties, the Commonwealth party, the statehood party, and the
independent party were able to define for themselves what Commonwealth
meant, what statehood meant, and what independence meant. Because of
that, the people of Puerto Rico, when they voted, were voting based
upon the determination that was being made by the party who wanted
their vote.
What we decided to do was, we decided to find out from leading legal
authorities what statehood meant, what Commonwealth meant, and what
independence meant so that the people of Puerto Rico, when they voted
on the plebiscite, would be voting on the facts and not on what some
party said.
We have contacted the legislative counsel of the Congress of the
United States for their input. We have contacted the Congressional
Research Service for their input. We have contacted the Department of
Justice of the United States for their input, and other constitutional
experts.
What we have determined in this bill is what is constitutionally
defined as statehood, independence, and Commonwealth status.
{time} 1430
And so the people of Puerto Rico, when they vote on this plebiscite,
will be voting on what the facts are and not what some party says in
Puerto Rico who has a reason to define their party in a certain way.
The Commonwealth Party, in the definition that was on the plebiscite a
few years ago, was not defined correctly. What we are doing is
clarifying that in the language that is in this bill, that will go on
the ballot if we pass this legislation.
Like I said earlier, I am for the English legislation that was before
this body some years ago. I was a cosponsor of that. I do not believe
the Solomon amendment as written has any place in this legislation.
Because there is some confusion about this, this is becoming an
English-only bill, which it should not be.
I have a perfecting amendment or a substitute amendment which will,
effective immediately, allow for English proficiency in Puerto Rico by
the age of 10. I think that the people of Puerto Rico, when they read
the substitute that I have, will be very happy with that because it
encourages learning English in all the schools and all the institutions
down there by the age of 10. We think that that will happen.
Let me just add one more point. That is, the people of Puerto Rico
already are citizens of the United States of America. We are not
talking about some country out there in the middle of nowhere. Those
people have citizenship already. For us to deny them the ability to
decide whether they want to be a commonwealth or if they want to become
independent or a State I think is just dead wrong.
Let us not muddy up the waters by adding the Solomon language to
this, which is a pervasive issue. He is talking about English for the
entire United States of America. We are talking about a plebiscite bill
for Puerto Rico. Let us decide the Puerto Rico issue with the amendment
that I am going to add which will encourage English as the language
down there, proficiency by the age of 10. And then later on if we want
to, let us go back to the English-only bill that we had before this
body some time ago and debate that as a separate issue, but not on the
Puerto Rico bill.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the
gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Vento).
(Mr. VENTO asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the Solomon
amendment. It is a clear example of a solution to a problem that does
not exist. It may seem to some that this requirement is a laudable goal
but the fact is that the proponents of this bill, the delegations and
so forth that support it, are against this amendment. It is an
unnecessary, ineffective and divisive amendment.
It is unnecessary because English and Spanish have been the official
languages of Puerto Rico since 1902. To put that in perspective, Strom
Thurmond was born way back in 1902. That is a long time ago.
Furthermore, this bill already has a provision highlighting the
importance of English as a common language. It states, and I quote,
``English is the common language of mutual understanding in the United
States, and that this policy shall apply in all of the States. That is
all that is needed to accomplish the stated goal of the Solomon
amendment's proponents.''
Furthermore, of course, our Nation is a melting pot. My grandparents
were of German and Italian ancestry. I am proud of my parents and the
wonderful heritage we share. But I am and we are all Americans, and as
such I believe the strength of our Nation is derived not from laws that
mandate our American patriotism and demand our fidelity but from core
values and common beliefs that define and guide our rights and
responsibilities. Whatever language we speak, write or think in, our
freedom and liberties are not bound by but rather transcend the limits
and the boundaries of such language.
The Solomon amendment strikes at the core value of such American
belief and practice. It says that we must do to Puerto Rico that which
we did not do to the Scandinavian and German Midwest territories to
achieve statehood, to superimpose a language requirement and condition
statehood consideration upon what is in essence the denial of that
heritage, culture and history. Vote no on this Solomon amendment.
This Solomon amendment is big government, and big brother, at its
worst.
This Solomon amendment would require the English language to be the
official language of all government functions in the United States. It
is possible that, if the current version of this legislation passes,
the people of Puerto Rico will vote to join the Union as the 51st state
and that the Congress would respond by enacting legislation which would
grant Puerto Rican statehood. What this amendment requires, then, is
that English will be the official language of Puerto Rico. English
would be the official language in all of the affairs of state
government, including teaching in public schools. Supporters of this
amendment say its passage will empower the citizens of Puerto Rico.
Their goal is the ``long term assimilation of Puerto Ricans into
American society.''
Now that may seem to many upon its face to be a pretty laudable goal.
The problem is that the main supporter of this legislation, Mr. Romero-
Barcelo, is deeply opposed to such a provision. The Congressional
Hispanic Caucus opposes it as well. They say, and I agree, that this
amendment is unnecessary, ineffective and divisive.
It's unnecessary because English and Spanish have been the official
languages of Puerto Rico since 1902. To put that into perspective,
Strom Thurmond was born way back in 1902. Furthermore, H.R. 856 already
has a provision highlighting the importance of English as a common
language. H.R. 856 states, and I quote, ``English is the common
language of mutual understanding in the United States, and that this
policy shall apply in all of the states.'' This is all that is needed
to accomplish the stated goal of the Amendment proponents.
The Solomon amendment iteration of this matter is ineffective because
far from empowering people, it would make government in Puerto Rico
work far less efficiently. Around half of all people in Puerto Rico
over the age of five are bilingual. That means the other half don't
speak English or Spanish. Passing this amendment means that this close
to 50% of people will not be able to vote because they won't understand
the English-only ballots. They'll have some trouble in courts of law,
because they won't be able to understand the proceedings. They'll have
one heck of a time trying to file Federal taxes--which is, as we all
know, pretty complicated even if you know the English language. And
they may not even be able to speak with 911 operators in emergencies.
That doesn't sound like empowerment to me, Mr. Chairman. That sounds
like a bad idea.
Now the one thing you hear people who support this amendment say
again and again is that H.R. 856 will create an American Quebec. Quite
the contrary, it would be the Solomon amendment that creates a
situation similar to that which has ripped Canada apart in recent
years. The lesson from Canada should
[[Page H796]]
be that you should never, ever legislate a language requirement. Far
from creating an atmosphere that would ease assimilation, this
amendment would create an atmosphere of division, suspicion and
mistrust.
Finally, as we approach the 21st Century, multilingualism is
something we need to encourage. As the reach of the global economy
increases, the ability to speak more than one language will be an
important and marketable skill. If this bill passes, and citizens of
Puerto Rico choose to join the Union as the 51st state, their
impressive ability to use English and Spanish will be something we
could all be proud of and respect, not denigrate.
America is a melting pot. My grandparents were German and Italian,
and I am proud of my parents and the wonderful heritage we all share.
But I am and we are all Americans, and as such I believe that the
strength of our nation is derived not from laws that mandate our
American patriotism and demand our fidelity, but from core values and
common beliefs that define our rights and responsibilities. Whatever
language we speak, write or think in, our freedom and liberty are not
bound by but rather transcend the limits, the boundaries of such
language. The Solomon amendment strikes at the core value of such
American belief. It says that we must do to Puerto Rico that which we
didn't do to the Scandinavian and German Midwest territories to achieve
statehood: superimpose a language requirement and condition statehood
consideration upon what is in essence the denial of a heritage, culture
and history. This amendment results in a price we should not place on
statehood. Join me in opposing the Solomon amendment!
Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from
California (Mr. Cunningham), the sponsor of the official English bill
that passed this House overwhelmingly with bipartisan support 2 years
ago.
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, one thing I think the members of Puerto
Rico will see, I think this is one of the most healthy debates that I
have seen on this floor in 7 years. It is issue-oriented. I have got
conservatives for and against, I have got liberals for and against, and
each with individual ideas. I commend both sides of this.
I did not have time to speak on the floor. I would like to speak to
the amendment but I would also like to speak to the bill.
Teddy Roosevelt, Rough Rider, San Juan Hill, and yes, many, many
members from Puerto Rico have shed their blood to support democracy and
fight communism and socialism around the world just like many Americans
have. I think you know how most of us feel about that.
I would also say that the people, now nearly 4 million Puerto Ricans,
have voted on several occasions on these issues. I know for me, and I
will say this and I will give you my support, it is not required by
Congress that they vote on what their determination wants to be. If you
have at least two-thirds instead of 50 plus one on a very important
issue like this, this gentleman will support it, but not on a 50 plus
one vote.
I think if we look, the Puerto Rican people themselves are divided on
this particular issue. Quebec has been mentioned. I am not going to let
the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton) give me any more golf bags
after this, but I would say that if he wants to encourage them to learn
English, if we ask the people of Quebec and encourage them to learn
English instead of French, look at the problems they have had, it would
not happen. I think it takes stronger.
Mr. Chairman, I was disappointed in the minority leader at his
representation of the English provision in this. Let me tell my
colleagues why. First of all, there were 259 votes. I went from the
very extreme portion of a bill as chairman of the committee and down to
the lower portions and moderated the bill to where even States had the
right, after this body had said English is the common language of our
government, that each individual State had a right to change that. It
gave them that option. There was no mandatory thing there. I thought
that that was very fair. I think that is why we got such bipartisan
support for it. I think the misrepresentation was not well proposed in
the bill.
I think another big issue, it fails to follow the precedents of other
U.S. territories that joined the Union, Hawaii, Alaska, with the great
percentages. They really want it. It should be something very special
to the great majority of a country. Puerto Rico, as the gentleman said,
they feel they are a country. It should be the great expectation of a
great majority of that group before they become an American citizen. I
do not want another Quebec here. I do not want in Puerto Rico that kind
of division and that divisiveness. I think that that is a legitimate
issue.
They said it is a poison pill. The former Governor of Arkansas had a
bill similar to this, Governor Clinton, 23 States in our Union. That is
not extreme, as the minority leader said. I just think if we are going
to speak, I think we need to speak not disingenuously but purport what
the bill says. It is English as a common language, not English only.
When I was in the Philippines, the Philippines was going to have
Tagalog as its official language. I recommended to President Ramos that
that was a disservice because it has no root in math or science. I
speak a little Tagalog. They would do themselves a disservice
internationally.
I went to Vietnam. They are carrying computers, they are learning
English and they are studying business because they understand. That is
all we are asking for Puerto Rico, that they do that. Instead of
speaking Spanish first in their classrooms and English second, it
should be turned around, if they want a bite of the American dream. I
think that is very, very important.
I would ask my colleagues, think carefully about this. If we can have
a vote from Puerto Rico, where the majority of them say we want to be
an American citizen, I think only a very small percentage of the group
that are opposed to this would say no. But we do not have that. I ask
my colleagues to take a look at that.
I would say, Mr. Chairman, as I mentioned, the bill by both sides of
the aisle has been represented well with the issues. I thank my
colleagues for that. But this is more serious than most bills we have
coming up here. I think that is the reason we have given it so much
time. Give yourself the time, look at the issues on both sides of it,
and I think you will not support the bill and you will not support the
substitute but you will support the Solomon amendment.
Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute.
First of all let me point out to my colleague from California, the
people of Puerto Rico are citizens of the United States. They already
are citizens. He says if they want a bite of the American dream. They
already are Americans. The only problem is they are Americans without
representation. They do not have any Congressmen. They do not have any
Senators. They do not have any representation in this body. Yet they
are American citizens. They are like orphans out in a storm walking
around saying, ``Where are my parents?'' It does not make any sense.
This plebiscite is an advisory plebiscite, I will say to my colleague
from California. This is an advisory plebiscite. What is he afraid of?
All we are asking for is an opinion from the people of Puerto Rico on
what they want. If they come back and only 51 percent say that they
want statehood or they want commonwealth, we decide in this body
whether or not we want to proceed any further. I think if it was that
close, we probably would not. But let us say they come back and that 70
percent want statehood and only 10 percent or 20 percent want
commonwealth. At that point I think that we as a body ought to make
that determination.
But make no mistake about it, these are American citizens without
representation in the Congress of the United States, and that is wrong.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Hawaii (Mr.
Abercrombie).
Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Chairman, I am speaking on the time of the
gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton). I am speaking from the majority
side of the aisle because I am speaking on his time. I am looking at
the gentleman from California (Mr. Miller) right now who is smiling at
me, and trying to get over the hush that came over the crowd as someone
moves to this side. I am looking for the gentleman from Alaska (Mr.
Young), my very able chairman.
I point that out because this is a nonpartisan issue and is being
cast, I am very sorry to say, in somewhat partisan terms, not
necessarily by party but partisan terms, as if there is a right side
and a wrong side. As the gentleman from Puerto Rico (Mr. Romero-
[[Page H797]]
Barcelo) has indicated, as the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton) has
indicated, as the gentleman from California (Mr. Miller) has indicated,
and the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young), what we are trying to do
here today is to aid and assist, as Members of the House of
Representatives, the self-determination of fellow citizens.
The gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton) has been adamant on this. I
do not think we are going to find a more partisan person in the House
with respect to the question of English and its being used as common
language throughout the United States. But that issue will be debated
in another venue, at another time.
What we are talking about here is something that I ask Members, as a
representative from the last State to come into the Union. We have only
been a State for 38 years. We have been a State for less years than
many people in this body have been alive and serving in public office.
{time} 1445
So it is very, very particularly poignant in some respects to me
today to stand here as someone who was not born in Hawaii and has the
privilege to serve in Hawaii.
I was born in the east of the United States, in Buffalo, New York, in
the area represented by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Paxon) today.
It never occurred to me that one day I would have the privilege and
honor of standing in the well of this House to serve the people not
only of Hawaii, but of the United States of America.
That will happen in Puerto Rico. We cannot determine ahead of time
what is going to happen there. The conventional wisdom, as some will
recall, when Hawaii and Alaska came into the Union, was that Hawaii
would be a Republican State, and, indeed, we elected a Republican
Governor in our very first State election, and that Alaska would be a
democratic State.
As you know, that has worked differently. We have had Republican
office holders here, we have had Democratic office holders here. This
is not a partisan issue.
Mr. Chairman, I appeal to my Republican friends, please, take into
account that our fellow citizens are merely asking for the opportunity
to determine their future. Join Democrats and Republicans all together
and vote for the bill and against this particular amendment.
Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the
gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer).
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the Solomon amendment
and in strong support of the substitute language.
Mr. Chairman, English is fast becoming the language of the world. It
is not we English speakers who need to fear the integrity of our
language; it is, indeed, others who have concerns.
We, as I said earlier in this debate, who support so strongly the
principles of the Helsinki Act, have advocated in country after country
after country that they give to people within their country respect of
their cultural and their national identities. Of course, language is a
critical component of that.
The Soviet Union, my friends will recall, tried to have everybody
speak Russian on the concept that if everybody spoke Russian, there
would be a sense of unity within the Soviet Union. But that unity was
at the point of a sword. It will not get you what you want.
Mr. Chairman, I urge support of the substitute, and opposition to the
Solomon amendment.
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Arizona (Mr. Hayworth) for the purpose of entering into a colloquy with
me.
Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Chairman, I do rise for the purpose of entering
into a colloquy with the gentleman from California (Mr. Cunningham),
who will be speaking for the sponsor of the amendment, the gentleman
from New York (Mr. Solomon).
First let me compliment my friend from New York for introducing this
important amendment. This amendment will save precious taxpayer
dollars, while reaffirming that English should be the official language
of the government. A common language of government is essential to our
health as a Nation.
Let me turn to the gentleman from California (Mr. Cunningham). It is
my understanding it was the intention of the gentleman from New York
(Mr. Solomon), the author of this amendment, to include the entire text
of H.R. 123, the Bill Emerson English Language Empowerment Act of 1997,
as this amendment. Is that correct?
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. HAYWORTH. I yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, it was the intention of the gentleman
from New York (Mr. Solomon) to include the text of H.R. 123 in this
amendment.
Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, as the gentleman
knows, I worked with the authors of H.R. 123 to include certain
sections of the bill that recognize the unique status of Native
Americans under our Constitution and various treaties. Section 167 of
H.R. 123 explicitly states, ``Nothing in this chapter shall be
construed to limit the preservation or use of Native Alaskans or Native
American languages as defined in the Native American Languages Act.''
Section 169 of the bill further states that the measure does not apply
to ``the teaching of these languages.'' These provisions were added at
my behest to protect the unique obligations we have to Native
Americans.
Again, asking the gentleman from California, was it the intention of
the gentleman from New York (Mr. Solomon) to protect the various
obligations of our native people?
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield further, it
was the full intention to protect Native American languages, as these
sovereign tribes have a unique relationship with the Federal
Government. Unfortunately, the Parliamentarian ruled that adding these
sections would not be germane to the bill we are debating. I look
forward to working with the gentleman in seeing that the Native
American languages are protected as the bill works its way through the
legislative process.
Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the
gentleman from California (Mr. Farr).
Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Chairman, I was sitting in my office
listening to this debate, and really the question is what does the
105th Congress have to fear? It really sounds like two things.
First of all, we are fearful of Puerto Rico having an election, which
is essentially a public opinion election. Since when did Congress fear
elections?
The other thing we have is we are fearing people that speak other
languages. Why? One hundred four sessions that went before us did not
fear that. In fact, our forefathers who admitted Louisiana, New Mexico,
Oklahoma and Hawaii, allowed those states to come in and protected the
rights of those people to speak French, Spanish, Native American and
Hawaiian, Aloha, a language that everybody uses in business.
What about our forefathers who rebuilt this room we are all sitting
in, in 1949 and 1950. If you look around, there are 23 lawgivers that
we respect. These are the people who historically gave us the under-law
for American law. These were the lawmakers, lawgivers, as we call them.
There are 23 of them. Only three of them spoke English, and one of
those, Thomas Jefferson, also spoke French.
Mr. Chairman, what are we afraid of? Defeat this amendment and pass
the bill.
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, I yield two minutes to the gentleman
from South Carolina (Mr. Graham).
Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.
Mr. Chairman, I know this is an emotional issue to many folks. The
commonwealth status of Puerto Rico has been a long-standing status and
it confers upon its people certain rights of citizenship.
This body is about to take it to a new level. I do not believe the
American people are any closer to understanding this issue than when we
started. It is taking everybody in the country by surprise.
It is a big deal to me. I think we are rushing into it. But if we are
going to
[[Page H798]]
do it, we need to recognize certain things.
Three out of four people in Puerto Rico are not fluent in the English
language, and we are setting in motion the possibility of Puerto Rico
becoming a State in a couple or three years.
The legislative affairs of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico are
conducted in Spanish. The Federal Court system requires that jurors
speak English to sit as jurors, but the State court system, or the
equivalent thereof, is conducted in Spanish, so if anybody finds
themselves in Puerto Rico as a State, chances are you are going to be
tried in a language you do not understand.
What the gentleman from New York (Mr. Solomon) is trying to do is
bring unanimity to the 50 or 51 states, saying the common language that
unites us is English, and it would apply to all states, not just the
Commonwealth of Puerto Rico.
If we are going to go down this road, we certainly need this piece of
legislation. But I believe it is ill-advised to do this without the
goodwill of the American people behind us and without exactly
understanding where the people of Puerto Rico are.
I do not understand why we are doing it, but if we are going to do
it, the English component of the Solomon amendment is essential to
integrating Puerto Rico into the United States in a viable way. When 3
out of 4 people cannot speak English, that is a road map for disaster,
if you are going to be a part of the United States.
Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the
gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Kennedy).
Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong
opposition to this English only amendment. The gentleman from New York
says that we need this amendment to empower the citizens of Puerto Rico
to be full and equal partners in this Union.
What will empower the people of Puerto Rico to be full participants
in this Union is if we get about voting this bill through and allowing
them the right to finally have self-determination on the island, so
that they can have all the rights and privileges of their American
citizenship status which they are currently denied because they are
under Commonwealth status, which, if I need to remind Members, means
they are under the territorial clause of the United States.
Ironically, we could pass English only requirements for the people of
Puerto Rico under the current territorial status, because that is our
power. If they become a State, which I hope they will, they will retain
the 10th Amendment power to decide what their own language will be.
So it is interesting. If they become a State, they will be able to
decide for themselves; if they remain a Commonwealth, it is up to us to
decide what their language is going to be.
Vote against the Solomon amendment, and vote for the passage of the
bill.
Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1\1/2\
minutes.
Mr. Chairman, earlier in the debate the gentleman from California
(Mr. Cunningham) got up and spoke about his legislation dealing with
English as an official language. The point was made that all states
would be treated the same, and the states had a right to change some
requirements under the 10th Amendment, should they decide to do so.
The problem with the Solomon amendment is that in fact in this
legislation it treats Puerto Rico differently than any other State in
the Union, because it goes on and declares that English is the official
language of the United States. But it then goes on to say the people of
Puerto Rico can only communicate with the Federal Government in English
and that the Federal Government can only communicate with the people of
Puerto Rico in English.
This means if you are a DEA agent, you can only speak English if you
are engaged in an activity. If you are the FBI, you can only speak
English if you are engaged in an activity. If you are engaged in a
search and rescue and the people do not speak English, you can only
speak to them in English.
I do not think that is what we want to do. There is a legitimate
debate to be had under the Cunningham legislation. We had it two years
ago. I suspect we will have it again before this year is out. That
would apply to all of the states equally and the states would retain
their rights.
But the Solomon amendment goes far beyond those requirements and
singles out Puerto Rico for special burdensome treatment. People can
only write to their member of Congress, should they choose statehood
and have Members in the Congress of the United States, they could only
write to them in English. It would be against the law to write to them
in Spanish or in another language. It would be against the law to
petition the President of the United States or the Congress in any
other language. That is not true anywhere else in this country.
We ought to make sure that if we deal with this issue, that we treat
all of the states on an equal footing. This says if Puerto Rico becomes
a state, it would be singled out for much more burdensome treatment
than the general debate on English as an official language.
Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, I yield two minutes to my good
friend, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Serrano).
Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, let me first say that I rise in strong
opposition to the Solomon amendment and in favor, strong support, of
the substitute language.
Let me say that the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton) is very
courageous in taking this stance. He supports English only, but he
knows it does not belong in this bill. That is what this issue is all
about.
Why not be fair? Why single Puerto Rico out? If it decides to become
a State and if we allow it to become a State, it shall be governed by
the law of the land. Everyone knows that. But why single it out now?
Why try to make a statement that is unfair and a statement that is not
necessary?
The issue on the whole is one that is not necessary. Everyone knows
that everyone learns to speak English both in Puerto Rico and here. As
an Hispanic American, a Latino and Puerto Rican, I can tell you, we do
not go around spending time figuring out how not to learn English. Do I
not sound like a person who tries every day to improve on the language?
I am going to get it right one of these days.
This is a bad amendment, and it should not be here.
Let me close with this: When Latinos or Hispanics sit around the
dinner table and the issue of language comes up, it is never a plot
against the English language.
{time} 1500
It is usually a lament about the fact that the children and the
grandchildren no longer speak Spanish. So with that recognition, what
is the fear? Let us go forward. Let us allow this bill to take place.
Let us make this vote possible.
Let us not muddy the waters any more. Let the people of Puerto Rico,
the Puerto Rican people, have a vote on this issue. Let us not single
them out for anything that you do not single other States out for.
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
California (Mr. Bilbray).
Mr. BILBRAY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Solomon
amendment. I would like to clarify an issue. The minority leader, the
gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Gephardt) stated that we have never placed
any language condition on any territory that was considering statehood.
I want to clarify that that is false, that in fact in 1811 Congress
specifically required that Louisiana adopt English as the official
language of their proceedings, of all government writings, and all
government functions. They not only required Louisiana in 1811 to do
it, they required Oklahoma and New Mexico to specifically have to teach
in English as a primary language. In fact, Arizona was required to
guarantee that its executive and legislative officials would conduct
business in the English language.
So let us not talk about singling out anyone. The fact is this has a
historical record that says that when the issue of language has become
a question, English is the common language of these United States; that
has been clarified by Congress again and again, and has been placed as
a requirement on any territory wishing to gain statehood that they
must, too, adopt English as their official common language.
[[Page H799]]
Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the fact that the gentleman from Illinois
and the gentlewoman from New York proposed a substitute to the
substitute, which really shows where some people may be coming from on
this issue. That is, their substitute to the substitute says let us
make Spanish the official language of Puerto Rico.
I think what we are saying is let us be up front about it. We should
clarify to the people of Puerto Rico that part of the transition from
territory to State is going to be transition from Spanish to English.
That is de facto. Let us do it up front, be truthful to the people of
Puerto Rico, let us not promise them State and local government we
cannot deliver.
The fact is the assimilation of any territory into the greater Union
is going to happen not just politically but culturally, socially, and
linguistically.
Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from Guam (Mr. Underwood).
Mr. UNDERWOOD. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time
to me.
Mr. Chairman, I stand in support of the substitute and in opposition
to the Solomon amendment. We are making a language issue out of a self-
determination issue.
People understand that the use of English in Puerto Rico is something
that is essential to understand here. But there is no one that I know
of that does not want to learn English to fully function in American
society. There are very few people in Puerto Rico that I know of who do
not want to learn English. In fact, in Puerto Rico there is a clear
educational policy which fosters English, and indeed, English can be
used for official purposes. If Puerto Ricans choose statehood under
this framework, those policies would be strengthened. I think this is
understood and acceptable.
But what is not acceptable is to allow Puerto Ricans the right to
self-determination and in the same process to decide in advance of
their choice that they not be treated the same way as other States.
The Solomon amendment tries to use the language issue to deliver a
blow to the possibility of Puerto Rican statehood by putting a
restriction on their possible admission, which other States have not
had in their history. The Burton substitute is a responsible, coherent,
moderate statement about the realities of American life, the necessity
of English, but also recognizes that the tolerance of differences is a
cornerstone of American democracy, that education is better than
coercion, that knowing more is better than knowing less, that addition
is better than subtraction, that knowing more languages is not un-
American.
Thank you, all of you.
Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Green).
Mr. GREEN. I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time, Mr.
Chairman.
I also join with my colleague, the gentleman from New York (Mr.
Serrano) who says he is working every day to speak English, and so am
I, to improve on our use of the language. But I will never speak
English like they do in New York or Boston or even other parts of our
country.
I oppose the Solomon amendment and support the substitute amendment.
To make English our official language limits our Nation. English is our
official language. It is our common language. We always have used
English. It did not take a law in this Congress to do that. It has not
taken 200 years to do it. We do it because we want to.
To file a document in court in the United States, or a public record,
it has to be in English or an English translation. Our citizenship
ceremonies are in English, even though we did have one aberration of a
Federal judge doing it in Arizona. But it has to be in English, by
statute.
Furthermore, English only is unwarranted because two of our States,
New Mexico and Hawaii, have two official languages. In Hawaii it is
English and Hawaiian, and in New Mexico it is English and Spanish. I
hope the Puerto Rican voters would choose statehood and integrate
English into their language.
Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Lewis).
Mr. LEWIS of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank my friend and
colleague for yielding time to me.
Mr. Chairman, this is a bad amendment. We do not need it. English is
the predominant and common language of this Nation. English is used in
government and courts throughout Puerto Rico. We must encourage
everyone to speak English, but we must not discriminate against those
who speak other languages.
Puerto Ricans are citizens of the United States. We must not deny the
people of Puerto Rico their heritage. They contribute to the diversity
and richness of our country. This amendment will make government more
difficult. It will make communication more difficult.
Mr. Chairman, we should encourage everyone to learn English, but we
should not deny Spanish-speaking Americans their tradition. English is
the primary language of our Nation. In almost every corner of the world
English is the language of international affairs, of international
politics and business. We do not need this amendment. This amendment
tells our citizens, deny your heritage, forget your roots. That is the
wrong message for a great Nation, for a great people, a proud people to
send.
Let us embrace diversity and learn from each other. This is how we
have grown and prospered as a great Nation and a great people. I urge
all of my colleagues, Democrats and Republicans, to vote no on the
Solomon amendment.
Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Virginia, Mr. Bob Goodlatte, a distinguished member of the Committee on
the Judiciary.
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman for yielding time
to me, and for his leadership on this issue.
Mr. Chairman, it has been said that the Solomon amendment is not
constitutional. Nothing could be further from the truth. Let me read
right from the language of the amendment. It says, ``English is the
official language of all business and communication of the Federal
Government of the United States, and all communications with the
Federal Government will be in English unless generally applicable
Federal law provides otherwise.''
Puerto Rico as a State promotes English as the official language of
the State government, courts, and agencies. English is the language of
instruction in public schools. This is not a mandate, this is similar
to what we have required of Louisiana, Oklahoma, and other States in
the past, and it is simply not correct that this is inappropriate.
In the last Congress, this body overwhelmingly passed similar
language to apply to the entire country, and should do so with regard
to Puerto Rico today. English is the language used by our government.
It is the language of commerce, and it is the common language of the
overwhelming majority of the American people.
Language differences are the number one barrier to full assimilation,
and Puerto Rico is certainly no exception. According to the 1990 U.S.
census, less than 24 percent of Puerto Ricans speak English fluently,
and a 1997 survey found that 76 percent of Puerto Ricans think it
unacceptable to have English as their official language. It is no
coincidence, therefore, that a recent poll concluded that only 16
percent of Puerto Ricans consider themselves to be Americans.
Before the people of the United States accept Puerto Rico into their
Union, they expect the people of Puerto Rico to want to be a part of
it. Make no mistake, H.R. 856 will create an American Quebec. If Puerto
Rico gains statehood under this bill, it is likely to declare Spanish
as the official language, which could then force the U.S. Government to
make Spanish the quasi-official language to accommodate the needs of
Puerto Ricans.
Not only would this significantly undermine the long-term
assimilation of Puerto Ricans into American society, but it would also
increase the pressure for the rest of the United States to become
officially bilingual.
Language is the common bond that holds our Nation together. A common
language allows the children of Virginia to communicate with and learn
from the children of California. Without this amendment, the same will
not be true for the children of Puerto Rico. Without this amendment,
children will
[[Page H800]]
never have the opportunity to participate fully and equally with their
fellow citizens.
Mr. Chairman, pro-statehood forces have stated on many occasions that
their language and culture are not negotiable. Congress is not asking
anyone to negotiate away their culture, but the Constitution grants
Congress the power to determine the rules for statehood, and that
Constitution was established to create a more perfect Union, not a more
divided Nation.
We must make clear that Puerto Rico must be prepared to be an equal
partner. Support the Solomon amendment and oppose the Burton
substitute.
If Congress passes H.R. 856 without this amendment, we will embroil
ourselves in a divisive debate that will last for years to come. When
we welcome a new state into our great union, we should do so by
building bridges that unite us, not roads that divide us. Puerto Rico
statehood without English as the official language is a bad idea that
is sure to create tension between the states, enormous administrative
nightmares, and huge costs to the American people. Our states are
united, and they should remain so. The American people do not want, and
cannot afford, another Quebec.
I urge my colleagues to vote yes on the Solomon amendment.
Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the
gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Velazquez.)
(Ms. VELAZQUEZ asked and was given permission to revise and extend
her remarks.)
Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the
Solomon amendment. This amendment would outlaw elected officials from
communicating with their constituents in Spanish. It will hamper the
efforts of Federal agencies to collect taxes, inform citizens of their
rights, and ensure due process, and it will endanger lives by making
illegal anything but English to be used, even by police department and
paramedics responding to life-threatening situations.
This amendment is guaranteed to make government inefficient and
ineffective and jeopardize the civil rights of some of society's most
vulnerable members.
I represent one of the highest non-English-speaking populations in
the country. Under the Solomon amendment, I will be barred from
communicating with the people of the Twelfth District of New York in a
second language. This will keep me from doing what they elected me to
do. This amendment is divisive and unnecessary. It does not belong on
this legislation.
Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Bob Barr), a distinguished member of the
Committee on the Judiciary.
(Mr. BARR of Georgia asked and was given permission to revise and
extend his remarks.)
Mr. BARR of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Solomon
amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Solomon English Language
Empowerment Amendment. The English language portion of 856 is
meaningless. The Solomon amendment will clarify this vague language by
designating English as the official language of the United States;
requiring that English be the sole official language of all federal
communication in Puerto Rico and; making English the official language
of state government courts and agencies; making English the language of
instruction in public schools.
Americans speak English. Many Americans speak more than one language.
In fact, many of my colleagues on both sides of the isle are bilingual.
But everyone in this chamber understands the importance of speaking
English. In fact, I believe that every member in this House who would
be called upon to counsel a foreign speaking immigrant, would tell them
that the most important thing that this immigrant could do to begin to
assimilate and become successful in America is to learn English.
If Puerto Rico became a state, the citizens of Puerto Rico would send
to us Representatives and Senators. Now Puerto Ricans might be given a
choice between candidate A who doesn't speak English and candidate B
who is bilingual. Hopefully, they would elect the bilingual candidate.
The business of this body and the business of America is conducted in
English.
Currently, in America, you can go from state to state and understand
the laws, the government, the courts, from New Hampshire to Hawaii.
This notion would fundamentally change if Puerto Rico were to be
admitted without the Solomon Amendment. Puerto Rico conducts its
official business in Spanish. This is even after 100 years of influence
by the United States. Puerto Ricans are essentially saying that we do
not recognize America. We do not want to assimilate. We want to be
Puerto Rico, and we want to be Spanish.
Mr. Chairman, 63% of Puerto Ricans can't recite the Pledge of
Allegiance. Sixty Six percent do not know the words to the Star
Spangled Banner. This makes sense when you learn that only 16% of
Puerto Ricans consider themselves to be American. By themselves, these
polling numbers don't trouble me. I don't want to force anyone to be
American who doesn't want to. However, just as Puerto Ricans have every
right to maintain their Spanish heritage and their Spanish language, so
too does America have every right to maintain its English language
tradition. This is a fundamental building block of our nation, and the
basic fiber that binds this great country together.
Mr. Chairman, English has been and hopefully always will be the
common link between the melting pot of cultures in our nation. We have
many different cultures in our nation, from the woods of Maine to the
shores of the Pacific north west, from 10,000 lakes of Minnesota to
Georgia's Golden Isles. The cultures, the religions, the traditions
vary as greatly as the miles. Yet, the English language binds these
people together in a proud tradition that we have come to know, as
being American.
Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
California (Mr. Riggs), chairman of the Committee on Education and the
Workforce that has jurisdiction over the English language issues, and a
very valuable Member of this body.
Mr. RIGGS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the distinguished chairman of the
Committee on Rules and sponsor of this amendment for yielding time to
me.
Mr. Chairman, let me say first of all, I support the right of Puerto
Rico residents, American citizens, to have self-determination, to
choose statehood over the current status as a Commonwealth. But I
believe as a condition of statehood those voting in any kind of
referendum or plebiscites should acknowledge and accept English as the
official common and commercial language of our country.
I have a little bit different perspective on this issue, as the
chairman of the Subcommittee on Early Childhood, Youth and Families. My
concern is twofold: too often bilingual education fails our young
people, and the alarming dropout rate of Hispanic students in America.
Too many of our young people are not getting the education and the
job training that they need to live successful and productive adult
lives, to take advantage, if you will, of all these high-tech jobs that
our economy continues to create every day. For them, the have-nots of
tomorrow, it is a personal tragedy. For our country it is a very
serious, it is a very real challenge, because we need a skilled work
force to remain competitive.
I mentioned the bilingual education. The statistics are appalling.
One-third of all Hispanic students nationwide, according to the U.S.
Department of Education's own report, drop out, and that figure is
closer to 50 percent in my home State of California. In fact, if
Members really want to boil the debate down, last year only 6.7 percent
of limited English proficient students in California public schools
have learned enough English to move into mainstream classes.
We have the largest school district in the State, the Los Angeles
School District, suing the Governor because the Governor wants to
administer tests in reading, writing, and math to all students in the
second through 11th grades, but only in English.
{time} 1515
Bilingual education is too often a failure. It does not promote a
transition to English fluency, but it traps youngsters in a dependency
on non-English languages and special help. ``Bilingual'' has become a
misnomer. English as a second language should not mean second-class
citizenship.
Mr. Chairman, I urge Members to support the Solomon amendment, and
let us reform bilingual education.
Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Gekas).
Mr. GEKAS. Mr. Chairman, when I served in the Armed Forces, I was
stationed for a while in Puerto Rico. I was
[[Page H801]]
eager to learn Spanish so that I could communicate with the people of
Puerto Rico. So I walked into a restaurant, after studying my Spanish
to an n'th degree, and I said proudly, after I saw a picture of a hot
dog on the back of the counter, ``Hagame el favor de darme un perro
caliente.'' And so the youngster looks at me, turns around to the cook
and says, ``One hot dog with everything.''
The point is that he knew English. That he knew that I knew English.
He was helping me with my Spanish, but I learned that first lesson
there, that most of the people either speak English in Puerto Rico or
want to speak English in Puerto Rico.
Our fellow citizens in Puerto Rico in time will be 100 percent able
to speak English. By that time, they will blend in perfectly to our
English language customs for the entire country.
Mr. Chairman, I support the substitute.
Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the
gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Weygand).
(Mr. WEYGAND asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. WEYGAND. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in opposition to this
amendment. I remember talking with my grandparents about their parents
who came to this country from Ireland and Germany. And many of my
colleagues' ancestors came from Portugal or France or from other places
where they really learned what it was that was great about this
country.
We never required them to come into this country and learn English
before they got here. What they came for was the great thing that they
saw in this country: the opportunity for them and their children to
have a better world. They learned English because they wanted to learn
English, not because the Congress told them they had to.
Our children today are all over the world on computers. Businesses
are all over the world. Do my colleagues know what the common language
is? English. The Congress did not have to tell them that it should be
English. They learned it. They made it that way.
Yet this Congress sees fit here today to try to impose something they
have never imposed upon any other State, making sure that English is
the official language. It is unnecessary. It is an imposition that
should not be condoned. We should vote down this amendment.
Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Deutsch), my good friend.
Mr. DEUTSCH. Mr. Chairman, I think it is important to point out that
this is a bipartisan issue in terms of people rejecting the Solomon
amendment and supporting the substitute.
Mr. Chairman, I wish the gentleman from California (Mr. Riggs) was
still here just in terms of responding to his comments. If the
amendment was just what the gentleman said he wanted, it probably would
not be so bad. It would be at least a relevant debate. But this
amendment is not limited to Puerto Rico. This amendment really has no
place in this debate.
This amendment is an issue which should have been debated on its own,
not on this bill. The Solomon amendment's purpose is to kill the bill.
That is its purpose.
We can debate the issue of Puerto Rico's ability to determine its
future outside of that. The substitute allows us to do that. When we
want to, we can talk better requirements for statehood, requirements
for issues on Puerto Rico outside of the requirements for the entire
country. That is what the debate needs to be about.
Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to vote
strongly in favor of the substitute and against the Solomon amendment,
and to give the people of Puerto Rico the opportunity to decide their
own future.
Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Gutierrez).
Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the
Solomon amendment. I think we have heard here time and time again that
when called to duty, drafted, called to serve, there is no litmus test,
there is no test of language for people. Indeed, the 65th Infantry
served with distinction and honor and valor in the Korean conflict, and
almost everybody spoke one language as the troops were ordered into
battle, and that language was Spanish.
We should not raise this as an issue here today. The language of the
people of Puerto Rico is Spanish. We should respect that.
Just as I have said before, it would be detrimental, it would be
detrimental to attach to statehood an English language requirement,
because then people who would want to become a State would say, well, I
cannot accept it that way. It is wrong.
We understand what the language of our people is. Look in Puerto Rico
today. From kindergarten through 12th grade of high school, English is
taught, but people have preserved their Spanish language. Let us
respect them.
Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have
remaining?
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton) has one-quarter
of 1 minute remaining.
Mr. BURTON on Indiana. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my
time.
Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Virginia (Mr. Goode), an outstanding Member of this body on the other
side of the aisle.
Mr. GOODE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Solomon amendment
because I fear a Quebec-type situation in this country. Now is the time
to establish English as the official language. If we do that in this
bill and if we follow suit in 123, we will not have problems cropping
up like in Canada and across the world.
Mr. Chairman, I can tell my colleagues that if we have that up front,
everybody knowing it, it is better. My great-grandmother was German and
she never learned to speak English. She was at a disadvantage her whole
time in this country, and I think we need to start with English first.
Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. GOODE. I yield to the gentleman from Indiana.
Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, I would just like to know what
language the gentleman from Virginia speaks. He sounds like he is from
down South some place.
Mr. GOODE. Mr. Chairman, it is ``Southern'' English.
Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Chairman, how much time does the gentleman from
Indiana have remaining?
The CHAIRMAN. One-quarter of one minute.
Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 15 seconds to the gentleman from
Indiana (Mr. Burton) out of the goodness of my heart.
Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my
time.
Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the very
distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher).
Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Solomon
amendment. This bill is aimed at admitting a State to the Union that is
overwhelmingly populated by Spanish-speaking people who have a proud
culture and are proud of their language and view themselves as a
separate nation.
The people of Puerto Rico have no intention of giving up their
language or their culture or their Olympic teams or their Miss Universe
contestants, and there is no reason they should have to give these
things up if they do not want to become part of a State, residents of a
State of the Union.
However, if they expect to be residents of a State of the Union and
to be Americans first, they must speak the common language and English
is the common language; and to become part of our culture, not to
maintain their separate culture, to root for our Olympics team and have
our Miss Universe contestant as their contestant.
Mr. Chairman, I support the Solomon English language amendment to
this bill because it takes the appropriate steps to put Puerto Ricans
on notice that statehood means becoming part of our Nation and no
longer being part of a separate culture and a separate nation,
especially as reflected by a separate language.
We should make sure that no one is fooled into thinking that the
United States is becoming a bilingual society, a bilingual Nation
trying to accommodate itself to this nation within a nation. And that
nation within a nation, there are people there who believe in
[[Page H802]]
independence. In the past we remember when there were independence
people who violently wanted independence for Puerto Rico.
The fact is they have a proud culture and a proud nation. They are
not part of the United States unless they are willing to become part of
the United States.
Mr. Chairman, H.R. 856 is wrong for the people of Puerto Rico and it
is wrong for the people of the United States. ``E pluribus unum.'' We
are one people and that is fine. Let us be one people. But if a people
expect to be part of the United States, they should be part of the
United States.
Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the
gentleman from Puerto Rico (Mr. Romero-Barcelo) to close our side on
this debate.
Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the
gentleman from Puerto Rico (Mr. Romero-Barcelo), the balance of my
time, so that the gentleman will have 1\1/2\ minutes to close.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Puerto Rico is recognized for 1\1/2\
minutes.
Mr. ROMERO-BARCELO. Mr. Chairman, if the English-first or English-
only amendment were really meant to be for improvement of the bill, at
least we could understand it. But the English-first supporters have
distributed a paper here where it says even if this bill passes, this
amendment passes, that Members should vote against H.R. 856. In other
words, they are against the bill and this amendment is being used
merely as a way to put a poison pill on the bill.
In Puerto Rico, as I have said over and over again, we are not
rejecting English. We are embracing English. We were the first
jurisdiction to approve English as an official language in 1902, but we
also want Spanish as an official language. Both languages. We want to
be bilingual. What is wrong with that?
This morning, earlier today, we had the gentleman from Illinois
saying that in Puerto Rico the movies were dubbed. The majority of the
movies shown in Puerto Rico are not dubbed. They are in English and the
movie houses are full.
At the Blockbusters, the majority of the films that are rented out
are not subtitled and neither are the movies subtitled. And in Puerto
Rico the people who are watching these proceedings now on C-SPAN
understand what is going on.
As the gentleman said a little while ago, when he asked for the
``perro caliente,'' that is one of the problems that people who go to
Puerto Rico to learn to speak Spanish have. The Puerto Ricans speak
English.
Mr. Chairman, they say Puerto Ricans do not feel that they are a part
of a Nation. We have to take a look at that. Why is that? There are 50
stars, not 51 stars. We still have not been admitted into the family.
Once we are admitted into the family, not 50 percent, 60 percent, but
100 percent of the people of Puerto Rico will feel that they are part
of the Nation.
Parliamentary Inquiry
Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state it.
Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Chairman, is there no further time outstanding other
than mine?
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman may close debate.
Mr. SOLOMON. And the Chairman is recognizing me for that purpose?
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is correct.
Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I urge Members to listen to this in their offices. If
the Solomon amendment is defeated, or if the Solomon amendment is
watered down and this bill becomes law and Puerto Rico becomes a State,
any citizen of the State of Puerto Rico can bring an action against the
United States of America Government or against any one of the other 50
States and demand bilingual equal treatment under the Equal Footing
Doctrine. Members better think about that when they cast their votes in
half an hour from now.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to section 2(a) of House Resolution 376, it is
now in order to consider Amendment No. 3 printed in the Congressional
Record.
Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the hour of
debate on the Solomon amendment, the Gutierrez amendment thereto, if
offered, and the Burton substitute, if offered, be divided and
controlled as follows: 30 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr.
Solomon), 6 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Gutierrez), 12
minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton), and 12 minutes to
the gentleman from California (Mr. Miller), subject to equitable
reductions, if necessary, to remain within the 1 hour of consideration
permitted under this rule. I think this is an agreed-to unanimous
consent request.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
New York?
There was no objection.
Amendment No. 3 Offered by Mr. Solomon
Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment No. 3 offered by Mr. Solomon:
At the end of section 2, add the following paragraph:
(16) In 1996, the United States House of Representatives
overwhelmingly declared that ``the official language of the
Federal Government is English''. According to the 1990 United
States Census, less than 24 percent of the citizens of Puerto
Rico speak English fluently. The enhancement of English as
the official language of Puerto Rico is consistent not only
with this statement of policy, but also with the preservation
of our Nation's unity in diversity and the prevention of
divisions along linguistic lines. Proficiency in the English
language is necessary for all citizens to enjoy the full
rights and benefits of their citizenship as guaranteed by the
Constitution and to contribute most effectively to the Nation
in all aspects. Conducting the business of Federal and State
governments in English is the best way to promote efficiency
and fairness to every citizen. Only proficiency in English
can provide all Americans the enjoyment of the rights and
benefits of full participation in the American economy and
union.
Strike subsection (b) of section 3 and insert the following
new subsection:
(b) Official Language.--The official language of the
Federal Government is English. The legislature of Puerto Rico
has established a bilingual policy by making both Spanish and
English official languages of Puerto Rico, but has continued
to operate its government solely in Spanish, as the majority
of the people in Puerto Rico are not proficient in English.
In the event that the referenda held under this Act results
in approval of a request to Congress that Puerto Rico be
admitted to the Union as a State and the Congress approves
such statehood, English will be the sole official language of
all Federal Government activities in Puerto Rico and, unless
otherwise provided by generally applicable Federal law, all
communications with the Federal Government by the Government
or people of Puerto Rico will be in English. This Act, the
procedures authorized by this Act, and the possible accession
of Puerto Rico to statehood do not create or alter any rights
of a person to government services in languages other than
English.
In section 4(a), strike paragraph (7) of subparagraph C of
the referendum language and insert the following new
paragraph:
``(7) English is the official language of all business and
communication of the Federal Government of the United States
and all communications with the Federal Government will be in
English unless generally applicable Federal law provides
otherwise. Puerto Rico, as a State, promotes English as the
official language of the State government, courts, and
agencies. English is the language of instruction in public
schools.''.
Strike subparagraph (C) of section 4(b)(1) and insert the
following new subparagraph:
(C) Additionally, in the event of a vote in favor of United
States sovereignty leading to statehood, the President shall
include in the transition plan provided for in this Act that
the Federal and State governments implement programs and
incentives to promote the acquisition and usage of English by
the citizens of Puerto Rico, including but not limited to,
teaching in English in public schools, the availability of
fellowships and scholarships to increase the opportunities of
the people of Puerto Rico to learn to speak, read, write, and
understand English, and the provision of educational
instruction in English to persons not in schools.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Gutierrez to the Amendment Offered by Mr.
Solomon
Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment to the amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Gutierrez to the amendment offered
by Mr. Solomon:
In the amendment proposed to section 4(a) of the bill, in
lieu of the text proposed to be inserted as paragraph (7) of
subparagraph C of the referendum language, insert the
following:
[[Page H803]]
``(7) Spanish is an official language of Puerto Rico and
its only vernacular language and as such is the official
language of business and communication--
``(A) in the State government, courts, schools, and
agencies; and
``(B) in Federal courts and agencies when such courts and
agencies are acting in or with regard to Puerto Rico.''.
{time} 1530
Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes and 30 seconds.
Mr. Chairman, this bill is supposed to be about self-determination.
Self-determination should be informed. The Statehood Party in Puerto
Rico has promised statehood. This means that under statehood, Puerto
Rico gets to keep its culture and its language, and I agree with the
gentleman from Puerto Rico (Mr. Romero-Barcelo) that that is the kind
of statehood that we should have.
As a matter of fact, and I quote from a book, Statehood is for the
Poor, published in 1978 by the current Resident Commissioner, the
gentleman from Puerto Rico (Mr. Romero-Barcelo): Our culture and our
language are not negotiable.
That is published in Statehood is for the Poor by the Resident
Commissioner. And I believe that the people of Puerto Rico have come to
understand and to accept that that is the way that statehood would be
proposed and that their culture and their language would be something
that is protected.
Puerto Rico has spoken Spanish for over 500 years. When I get to
Puerto Rico and see my parents, we speak in Spanish. When I go to a
courtroom in Puerto Rico, it is in Spanish. When I register a deed, it
is in Spanish. When a police officer pulls somebody over for going a
little too quickly, the citation is in Spanish, and the subsequent
sentencing, I assure my colleagues, is in Spanish, and you better have
a lawyer that can speak Spanish.
When you to go school and you graduate, your diploma is printed in
Spanish. Every record, including your birth certificate, is in Spanish.
Spanish is the language of the people.
Are we talking about civil rights? Let us not talk about imposing
another language. Go to Puerto Rico today. Go to the Veterans
Administration or Social Security Administration office in Puerto Rico
today, and everyone will speak to you in Spanish, unlike Chicago or New
York or Oklahoma, because Spanish is the language there. And since
statehood has been proposed in Puerto Rico, the culture and the
language are nonnegotiable. I think we should guarantee that to the
gentleman from Puerto Rico (Mr. Romero-Barcelo), the Resident
Commissioner.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. ROMERO-BARCELO. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to oppose
the amendment offered by the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Gutierrez).
Mr. GUTIERREZ. I object, Mr. Chairman.
The CHAIRMAN. The time has been allocated pursuant to the unanimous-
consent request that was agreed to earlier.
Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from Puerto Rico (Mr. Romero-Barcelo).
Mr. ROMERO-BARCELO. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this
amendment submitted by the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Gutierrez)
because this amendment is intended to be a poison pill against those
that are for the bill. It is supposed to be intended as a poison pill,
because in Puerto Rico the law is that both English and Spanish are
official languages, and you can have documents in English, and the
agencies in Puerto Rico are by law obligated to give those documents in
English if a citizen requests for those documents in English. You can
register property and deeds drafted in the English language.
So what has been said here is not true. We want to maintain that
right of all citizens to have their documents and their business with
government transacted in either Spanish or English. Those that do not
understand will be provided with a translation. We will provide people
to translate their business for them. This would be an imposition upon
Puerto Rico and will be against the laws of Puerto Rico.
The gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Gutierrez), who lives in Chicago and
would like to have independence, now he is acting like a colonial power
imposing laws in Congress that would repeal the laws that we have, that
would amend the laws without the people of Puerto Rico voting for it,
without the legislature participating. We oppose this amendment very
strongly.
Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman
from New York (Ms. Velazquez).
Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this
amendment. Mr. Chairman, this amendment will make Spanish the official
language of Puerto Rico. It will protect what already exists. If
supporters of this bill are voting for self-determination for the
Puerto Ricans, they will support allowing them to speak their own
language. They will support allowing them to do business and operate
their courts as they have for almost 500 years.
Mr. Chairman, I have sat on this floor and listened to the arguments
of my colleagues on the other side of this issue. I have heard many
distinguished Members of this body argue, some passionately, some
angrily, that by supporting this bill they are protecting the people of
Puerto Rico. They say that we must allow self-determination for Puerto
Rico because they respect our culture, our history and our right to
control our destiny.
I have argued that this bill does not provide self-determination, but
I will accept that the supporters of this bill think they are promoting
the wishes of the people of Puerto Rico. Well, if that is the case,
they will have to make their argument in Spanish because the majority
of the people of Puerto Rico do not speak English. And why should they?
The fact is that our culture, our history, our essence is rooted in the
Spanish language. More than that, it is the language of the legal
system, the Commonwealth Government and all non-Federal official
business. If the supporters of this bill really respect the people of
Puerto Rico, they will support this amendment which makes Spanish the
official language of Puerto Rico.
Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
I will close by making the following arguments. I think they have not
been refuted here today. In a book written in 1978, Statehood is for
the Poor, written and authored by the Resident Commissioner of Puerto
Rico, the gentleman from Puerto Rico (Mr. Romero-Barcelo), he stated
clearly and unequivocally that language and culture are nonnegotiable.
Now, when the campaign goes to Puerto Rico, I want to make sure that
if that is what they are saying to the people of Puerto Rico, that that
is what this Congress is guaranteeing them. Let us not let them be
under any illusions about what is going to be. Since that is exactly
what has been proposed by the Statehood Party and repeated so many
times, I want those statehooders who have applauded, who have cheered,
who have cherished statehood and want to preserve their language and
culture, to have exactly what they have demanded and asked and rallied
for. So, therefore, in the name of self-determination, I ask that this
amendment be adopted so that we respect the wishes of the Statehood
Party. We should do no less.
Mr. Chairman, I ask for a recorded vote on this perfecting amendment
and make a point of order that a quorum is not present.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the unanimous-consent request, debate will
take place on all three of the amendments that are being discussed, and
then they would be held.
Parliamentary Inquiry
Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state it.
Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Chairman, we will be able to ask for a vote on
this perfecting amendment later on. I have not relinquished my right.
Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. GUTIERREZ. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Chairman, I would be glad to assist the gentleman in
seeing to it that he gets his vote at the appropriate time.
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair will put the question at the appropriate
time.
Mr. GUTIERREZ. I thank the Chair.
[[Page H804]]
Amendment Offered by Mr. Burton of Indiana as a Substitute for the
Amendment Offered by Mr. Solomon
Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment as a
substitute for the amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Burton of Indiana as a substitute
for the amendment offered by Mr. Solomon:
In section 3, amend subsection (b) to read as follows:
(b) Official English Language.--In the event that a
referendum held under this Act results in approval of
sovereignty leading to Statehood, upon accession to
Statehood, the official language requirements of the Federal
Government would apply to Puerto Rico in the same manner and
to the same extent as throughout the United States.
Add at the end of section 3 the following new subsection:
(c) English Language Empowerment.--It is in the best
interest of the Nation for Puerto Rico to promote the
teaching of English as the language of opportunity and
empowerment in the United States in order to enable students
in public schools to achieve English language proficiency by
the age of 10.
In section 4(a), in the referendum language for Statehood,
amend paragraph (7) to read as follows:
``(7) Official English language requirements of the Federal
Government apply in Puerto Rico to the same extent as Federal
law requires throughout the United States.''.
In subparagraph (C) of section 4(B)(1), strike ``(C)
Additionally,'' and all that follows through ``(ii) the
effective date'' and insert the following:
(C) Additionally, in the event of a vote in favor of
continued United States sovereignty leading to Statehood, the
transition plan required by this subsection shall--
(i) include proposals and incentives to increase the
opportunities of the people of Puerto Rico to expand their
English proficiency in order to promote and facilitate
communication with residents of all other States of the
United States and with the Federal Government, including
teaching in English in public schools, awarding fellowships
and scholarships, and providing grants to organizations
located in various communities that have, as a purpose, the
promotion of English language skills;
(ii) promote the use of English by the United States
citizens in Puerto Rico in order to ensure--
(I) efficiency in the conduct and coordination of the
official business activities of the Federal and State
Governments;
(II) that the citizens possess the language skill necessary
to contribute to and participate in all aspects of the
Nation; and
(III) the ability of all citizens of Puerto Rico to take
full advantage of the opportunities and responsibilities
accorded to all citizens, including education, economic
activities, occupational opportunities, and civic affairs;
and
(iii) include the effective date
Mr. BURTON of Indiana (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask
unanimous consent that the amendment be considered as read and printed
in the Record.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
Indiana?
There was no objection.
Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I
may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I rise today to offer a reasonable substitute to the
Solomon English only amendment. Although I agree that we need to debate
and pass an English only bill or a constitutional amendment making
English the official language of our government, holding U.S. citizens
hostage in Puerto Rico, not allowing self-determination to take place
is against my strongly held beliefs in democracy.
English has been made an issue to kill this Puerto Rico plebiscite
bill. H.R. 856 is a process bill to advance the democratic cause, to
advance the Founding Fathers' idea that freedom and democracy demand
self-determination.
That is what this debate is really about. Nevertheless, English has
been brought into the debate, forcing me and others to offer an
alternative. Supporters of H.R. 123, the Bill Emerson English Language
Empowerment Act, share Mr. Solomon's English language policy goals but
should not support this amendment to H.R. 856. I supported strongly Mr.
Emerson's bill when it was on the floor.
The Solomon amendment is not faithful to H.R. 123. Instead the
Solomon amendment does two things the House has never endorsed. Number
one, the Solomon amendment requires ballot language on the statehood
option which confuses voters to believe that Congress has imposed
English as the exclusive official language of Puerto Rico's potential
State government, which is not the case. And two, it also confuses the
voters that English is the exclusive language of instruction in Puerto
Rico's public schools, which is not the case.
The Solomon amendment does not empower the 3.8 million U.S. citizens
of Puerto Rico by promoting English under the current commonwealth
territory status. Instead, the Solomon amendment would promote
continuation of an enclave of disenfranchised Spanish-speaking U.S.
citizens, a recipe for creating a Quebec-style separatism under the
American flag, which none of us wants.
We can avoid this by passing the Burton-Miller-McCollum-Young
substitute. Our amendment would be effective immediately, immediately.
English proficiency by age 10 is the Federal policy standard for school
students in American's largest and most populous territory if my
amendment passes. Our amendment eliminates ambiguity and constitutional
flaws in the Solomon amendment with clear and constitutionally sound
provisions applying to Puerto Rico, if it becomes a State, the same
national English policy applicable to all other States.
The irony of the Solomon amendment is that it would isolate Puerto
Rico from the purpose the amendment wants to establish when it wants to
establish English as the official language of the United States. The
Solomon amendment would apply English to all of the 50 States, but
would carve out a territory, Puerto Rico, under the U.S. flag without
the benefit of English as the official language until and only if
Puerto Rico became a State after 10 years. However, under my
substitute, there would be an immediate effect by a new national policy
to promote the teaching of English to enable students in public schools
to achieve English language proficiency by the age of 10 right now. In
other words, 50 States would be required to have English as the
official language, but not Puerto Rico, until they became a State. So
you fortified the position that that is going to be a Spanish-speaking
State for at least 10 years.
My amendment would make sure that English would be a proficiency,
there would be proficiency in English by age 10 in Puerto Rico
immediately, not waiting 10 years.
The last couple of evenings I was able to watch Braveheart on
television. This heroic story of the freedom fighters of Scotland led
by William Wallace over their British rulers resonates even to this
day.
{time} 1545
Like Scotland, Puerto Rico desires a chance at true freedom. However,
rather than take the debate to the battlefield, they ask us simply for
the opportunity to take the debate to the ballot box.
Yes, they have local self-government, but under their current status
Puerto Ricans are, in effect, ruled by the U.S. Congress but without
any representation in Congress. Puerto Ricans have no vote in the
Congress but yet can be called into battle in a war on behalf of the
United States at a moment's notice.
Yes, freedom and democracy are at the heart of this debate over H.R.
856. Do we believe in a free people exercising their right to self-
determination or do we not? That is the real question we are debating
today.
We should, in my opinion, do the right thing and give Puerto Rico the
opportunity to let Congress clearly know if they want to be a State, a
Commonwealth or an independent country. And once we find out, and my
colleagues need to know this, the final determination on the status of
Puerto Rico rests with this body.
The plebiscite we are talking about is advisory only. We are just
asking that the people of Puerto Rico be able to let us know in the
Congress, in a clearly defined way, what they want. Once we know that,
then the Congress makes the final determination.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume,
and I would tell this body that back in 1983 I was sitting in front of
my locker in the gym when a young man from Indianapolis, Indiana came
by and sat next to me in the gym and we began to talk, and we have been
talking since 1938.
And I said to myself, ``There is another Jerry Solomon coming along
[[Page H805]]
here. He sounds to me like a true traditional doctrinaire conservative
and, therefore, when I retire in a few years, I would feel safe that he
was here.'' My beliefs have been shattered. I cannot believe he is
offering this gutting amendment to the Solomon amendment, the true
conservative position in this body, and that is why I rise so much
against his amendment.
This amendment enshrines, my colleagues, the language right of the
Puerto Ricans in statute in a way that will spark years of litigation
in States across this country. Remember this, because sure as I am
standing here, it is going to happen.
Any Puerto Rican anywhere in the U.S. could challenge Federal and
individual State laws and declarations of English as the official
language. No State would be able to protect its official English law
until all States pass English as the official language, and that will
not happen if they are being sued, Mr. Chairman. The amount of lawsuits
that will come about will be unbelievable if the Solomon amendment is
gutted by this amendment.
This amendment deletes my amendment's finding and declaration of
English as the official language. It deletes the protections for
English-speaking citizens. It deletes protections for States which have
declared English their official language until all States have done so.
The Burton amendment adds a new English proficiency standard that
conflicts with the Equal Educational Opportunity Act and other language
provisions in current law. And the liberals on the other side of the
aisle should think about that.
The Burton amendment misleads voters as to what Congress will require
as a minimum standard for the admission of a State. Do we want to
mislead the Puerto Rican people? If there is really a 10-year period
before admission, why should the people of Puerto Rico know that they
are voting on something which Congress will not accept?
And finally, my colleagues, the Miller-Burton amendment limits the
President's ability to deal with the language issue and to protect
English, which was recognized in the official English bill that passed
this House overwhelmingly 2 years ago with bipartisan support.
If my colleagues understand the issue, they will come over here and
vote down the Burton-Miller amendment and support the Solomon
amendment, and then Puerto Rico will have a chance when the
overwhelming majority of those people understand that English will be
the official language and will not divide this country.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi).
Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time and commend the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton), the gentleman
from Alaska (Mr. Young) and the gentleman from California (Mr. Miller)
for the bipartisan substitute they are offering to the Solomon
amendment. I rise in support of the underlying legislation to grant
self-determination to the people of Puerto Rico and in opposition to
the Solomon amendment, and in support of this amendment.
English and Spanish are already the official languages of the
Government of Puerto Rico and have been since 1902. English is taught
in public schools from kindergarten through high school. And it is my
understanding that 95 percent of Puerto Ricans who achieve education
beyond high school are fluent in both languages.
I want to be clear to my colleagues and read directly from the Burton
amendment: In the event that a referendum under this act results in
approval of sovereignty leading to statehood, upon accession to
statehood the official language requirements of the Federal Government
would apply to Puerto Rico in the same manner and to the same extent as
throughout the United States.
Let us support this amendment, which treats Puerto Rico the same as
every other State, if Puerto Rico chooses to become a State. The Burton
substitute also recognizes that it is in the best interest of the
United States and Puerto Rico to promote the teaching of English and
sets the goal of enabling students to achieve proficiency by the age of
10.
Mr. Chairman, my friend, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Solomon),
whom I hold in the highest regard, is acting in a very unSolomon like
mode with this amendment today. It is not wise and it is not fair. I
urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment.
Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the
gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young), the chairman of the Committee on
Resources and my great friend and colleague.
(Mr. YOUNG of Alaska asked and was given permission to revise and
extend his remarks.)
Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the
substitute to the Solomon amendment.
For those that are listening to this great debate, in order to help
the public know about what Congress has been doing about Puerto Rico
for the past 4 years, all hearings, testimony, reports, amendments and
the bill can be found on the Committee on Resources' home page at
www.house.gov/resources/.
I have just read an editorial in the Washington Times that said there
were no hearings on this legislation. We have spent 4 years having
hearings and input from everybody participating in this legislation. To
have a leading newspaper be that irresponsible is no call for true
journalism in this great Nation of ours. Talk about propaganda. It is
wrong when a leading newspaper can, in fact, promote something that is
incorrect to the general public.
So remember, www.house.gov/resources/ to hear the history of how this
came to the floor today.
Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Bonior).
Mr. BONIOR. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time.
When my grandfather first set foot in this country, he was a young
man from Ukraine, and he did not speak a word of English. Not a single
word. He came here for a better future. Like millions of immigrants
before him and millions who have come after him, my grandfather set out
to work. He got a job, he raised a family, and he learned the language.
There was no law telling him that he had to learn English. There was no
need for a law. He learned English because it was practical; because he
wanted to.
My grandfather's story is not unique. In this country, a country
built by immigrants from around the world, 95 percent of the people
speak English. That is right, 95 percent, according to the latest
census.
So I ask my colleagues, what is the purpose, what is the purpose of
this English-only amendment and what benefits will it bring? Well, the
answer is none. This amendment will only interfere with business, it
will impede the efficient function of government, it will deny people
their constitutional rights, and it could conceivably and possibly even
endanger their lives.
What purpose is served if a public health worker, perhaps a doctor
who is trying to stop the spread of a deadly disease, is only allowed
to speak with people who know English? None. But that is what this
amendment could lead to.
In fact, this English-only amendment could effectively prevent
thousands of citizens, American citizens, from voting by denying them
their rights under the Voting Rights Act. That is going too far.
This country is successful because millions of people, people from
hundreds of countries, have chosen to throw in their lot together to
build a common future. Our democracy thrives because it is built on a
foundation of freedom.
Passing a law telling people what language they have to speak is akin
to telling them what words they must say.
So in closing, Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to vote for this
substitute, the Miller-Young substitute, and against the Solomon
amendment.
Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I might
consume.
Just to set the record straight, most people around here can read
bills. If they read the bill, they will know that the Solomon English
language empowerment amendment only affects those things that the
government does that are binding and enforceable. It does not affect
things such as the information gathering operations of the
[[Page H806]]
government such as the census forms and welfare forms. It does not do
that. It does not affect public health issues or politicians
campaigning in their district. It does not do that.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr.
Barr), one of the constitutional lawyers in this body. He is an
outstanding member of the Committee on the Judiciary.
Mr. BARR of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from New
York (Mr. Solomon) for yielding me this time.
Although I have not had the honor and pleasure of talking since 1983
with the gentleman from Indiana, I do know him as a man of great
courage and honor and have enjoyed serving with him on his Committee on
Government Reform and Oversight.
I know him to be a gentleman who is constantly waging battles against
government mismanagement, against government waste, against government
bureaucrats. I know him as a gentleman who inevitably and constantly is
speaking the truth bluntly and does not suffer government bureaucrats
and fools at all.
I must, therefore, express some surprise at the amendment that the
gentleman from Indiana is offering and would respectfully urge my
colleagues to vote against it.
There are such things as wolves in sheep's clothing. This is a sheep
in sheep's clothing. If one looks behind the facade of the rhetoric
here, flowery and lengthy as it is, one finds absolutely nothing, zero,
zip, nada.
Not only is there nothing in this amendment in terms of requiring the
English language in any way, shape, or form in Puerto Rico if it is
admitted to statehood, but it actually, I believe, by its terms, would
set us back. One has to read simply from page 2.
Additionally, in the event of a vote in favor of continued United
States sovereignty leading to statehood, the transition plan required
by this subsection shall include proposals and incentives to increase
the opportunities of the people of Puerto Rico to expand their English
proficiency in order to promote and facilitate communication with
residents of all other States of the United States and the Federal
Government, including teaching in English in public schools, awarding
fellowships and scholarships, and providing grants to organizations
located in various communities that have as a purpose the promotion of
English language skills.
This will set up more bureaucrats. Who is going to monitor this?
Where is the money going to come from for these proposals and
incentives to increase the opportunities? We are going to be paying for
it.
Mr. Chairman, this is a bad amendment. What we ought to do is have an
up or down vote on the Solomon amendment. I believe it is a good,
solid, and worthy, and constitutionally sound amendment that is not
violative of any provisions in our Constitution, including the 10th
amendment.
This amendment to the Solomon amendment offered by the gentleman from
Indiana sounds good. It sounds nice. It sounds like there is substance
there. But in reality, it is not there.
There is nothing here other than language that will get us involved
in a morass of additional grants and money programs and bureaucrats
trying to determine whether or not these monies are being spent to
truly incentivize, as they say now days, to promote and facilitate
communication, et cetera.
I urge our colleagues to look behind the fancy rhetoric here, to an
empty amendment, to vote it down, and vote in favor of the Solomon
amendment.
Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Rodriguez).
(Mr. RODRIGUEZ asked and was given permission to revise and extend
his remarks.)
Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this bipartisan
substitute which brings some common sense and fairness to the debate.
No one doubts the importance of English for all Americans. It is our
common language. I tell my students and my constituents back home that
to succeed in this global economy, in this modern world, we must learn
English, and not only learn, but master in English. English is the key
for opportunity. This amendment allows this opportunity to provide that
instruction and that training in English.
{time} 1600
It would treat Puerto Rico in a just manner, as it would treat all
the other existing States. I would like to remind all the Members in
this House that the territories prior to being accepted, such as
Hawaii, we also allowed them the opportunity to be able to keep their
native language. When we dealt with the Territory of Oklahoma, we also
recognized the Native Americans in that area. When we looked at New
Mexico, we also took into consideration the Spanish in that particular
community.
The Solomon amendment would prevent millions of Americans and would
discriminate against a lot of individuals in Texas and others and in
Puerto Rico itself. This is not fair. It is not right. I would ask that
Members vote for this particular amendment. Mr. Chairman, in the age of
increasing global competition, we should be nurturing some of our
Nation's most valued treasures, our culture, our language and our
skills, not curtailing them.
Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I
may consume. I would just like to say to my colleague from New York and
my colleague from Georgia, my very good friends, if they will look on
page 2 of my amendment, the second paragraph, it says, in section 4(a)
in the referendum language for statehood, amend paragraph 7 to read as
follows: ``Official English language requirements of the Federal
Government apply in Puerto Rico to the same extent as Federal law
requires throughout the United States.'' The law will be the same for
Puerto Rico, the same English language law for Puerto Rico as it is for
the rest of the United States.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I would just point out to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton), so
does my amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Savannah,
Georgia (Mr. Kingston).
Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from New York for
yielding me this time.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Burton, Miller and company
amendment. I think it is just a fig leaf designed to put us all in
court and take away a lot of power from States. If Members are for
English first as a language, as an issue, then they need to oppose it
and they need to support Solomon.
It is not unusual for us to demand such things and try to amend bills
and so forth to do what we want to. There is nothing unusual about it.
Oklahoma and New Mexico were both required to have State constitutions
providing that public school education be conducted in English. Arizona
was required to guarantee that its executive and legislative officials
could write, speak and understand English.
That is all the Solomon language is trying to do. Culturally it is
trying to go a little bit beyond the language question. I think one of
the things that has inspired the Solomon language is the situation with
Quebec, north of our border. In 1995 Quebec had a vote and came very
close to receiving a majority for independence. It was a vote of 49.4
percent, 10 percent higher than it had been 15 years earlier. It is
very possible that in the future, Quebec will secede from Canada.
Is there any correlation between Puerto Rico and Quebec? Let us look
at it. What do they have in common? Both had their own languages and
cultures long before becoming part of English-speaking majority
nations, should that happen. Both had populations in which the
overwhelming majority speak a language different from that of the
majority of the rest of the Nation, and both have political movements
that focus on independence as the key to maintaining a separate culture
and linguistic identity. Both have economic elites that speak English
while the more economically disadvantaged citizens do not.
It is quite possible that if we look at the number, 82 percent of the
people of Quebec are French speakers, 98 percent of the people of
Puerto Rico are Spanish speakers. The strong cultural identity which we
are all aware of in this
[[Page H807]]
House, and the strong cultural identity that we want the good American
citizens of Puerto Rico to maintain, is at risk here.
This is a statehood vote. This is not just let us see how you feel
about it. This is starting the car and pulling it out in the driveway.
You do not do that unless you are going to take a trip, Mr. Chairman.
This is a statehood vote. It will radically change the culture in
Puerto Rico and lead to a lot of division in the United States over it.
Mr. ROMERO-BARCELO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman
from Massachusetts (Mr. Kennedy).
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, simply put, we ought not
hold the issue of Puerto Rico's political status hostage to the
question of making English the official language of all government
functions across the United States. Mr. Chairman, if that happened a
lot of us here in the Congress would be barred from speaking on the
House floor. I have been accused of a lot of things in my career in
politics, but speaking English has not always been one of them. I once
remember hearing a colloquy between Jamie Whitten and Kika de la Garza
on this House floor, and I could not understand a thing anybody said.
In fact, I heard the remarks of the gentleman from New York (Mr.
Solomon) as he introduced his amendment and if I was not mistaken, he
employed a foreign phrase from the language of a dead empire. Along
with the gentleman from New York (Mr. Solomon), I believe deeply in the
principle of ``e pluribus unum,'' out of many, one. But I think the
gentleman from New York ought to be allowed to enunciate the principle
in the original language. Whether it is Hawaiian or Cajun French,
Polish or even Gallic, there are millions of Americans who speak
languages other than English and there is no reason to reduce their
first tongues to second-class linguistic citizenship.
Mr. ROMERO-BARCELO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman
from the Virgin Islands (Ms. Christian-Green).
Ms. CHRISTIAN-GREEN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the
Solomon amendment and in support of the Burton-Young-Miller-McCollum
substitute. The Solomon amendment is patently unfair to the people of
Puerto Rico and does not belong in this process of self-determination.
Mr. Chairman, the people of Puerto Rico have been loyal American
citizens for more than 100 years. It is high time that they be given
the opportunity to make a choice once and for all on what their
political relationship will be. To allow the Solomon amendment to pass
would pollute the current bill and its intent, causing possibly the
entire process to be derailed.
We need to remain focused and clear. H.R. 856 is not supposed to be a
statehood bill. There are actually 4 options. The people of Puerto Rico
can choose any one. But if their choice is to become the 51st State of
the Union, we should vote that choice on its merits.
We are a country noted for its rich cultural diversity. Let us not
dishonor that history. Reject the Solomon amendment.
I urge my colleagues to support the Burton-Miller-Young-McCollum
substitute and the right of the people of Puerto Rico to self-
determination. I commend my colleagues for bringing this substitute to
the floor.
Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
We can bring this to a head at any point now. I think it has been a
very good debate. Certainly Members have stated their feelings.
I want to ask Members this question one more time: Will Congress have
to begin conducting House and Senate floor proceedings in both Spanish
and English? Will the Congressional Record, Federal Register and
Uniform Commercial Code need to be printed in Spanish and English? The
answer is it may be. Will a State of Puerto Rico be able to force other
States to conduct their official business in a language other than
English? The answer is very likely.
It will result in many lawsuits all across this country. I suppose if
you are a lawyer or if you have got children who are entering the law
profession, perhaps you ought to vote for this bill because you are
certainly going to generate a lot of work for them.
Mr. Chairman, I could go on and on and on. But I am going to say one
more time that if this amendment, the Solomon amendment, is defeated,
or if it is watered down, anyone in this country can bring an action
anywhere in the United States and could challenge Federal and
individual State laws and declarations of English as the official
language. No State would be able to protect its official English
language.
Again, these are very, very important matters. I am going to just
reiterate one more time the procedures that are going to take place. I
have already said what would happen if the Solomon amendment is
defeated or watered down. But if this bill becomes law without the
Solomon amendment, within the next 9 months, before the end of 1998, we
are ordering, demanding, requiring the island of Puerto Rico to conduct
a plebiscite, and we are ordering, demanding and requiring them to do
this until they finally vote for statehood. Mr. Chairman, that is
absolutely wrong.
If we pass this bill and if the President signs it within over the
next several weeks, that plebiscite will be held because it will be
mandated by this Congress on the Puerto Rican people. Within 180 days
after that, which takes us towards midyear of 1999, the President must
give us his transition plan. Then written into this law in section 6 is
a requirement that this Congress will have to vote on that within 120
days.
That, Mr. Chairman, is the turning point. It is the turning point
when we no longer can deny Puerto Rico statehood, no matter what the
percentage of approval is by the Puerto Rican people. Mr. Chairman,
that is wrong. If we do not have the kind of overwhelming support that
we had in Hawaii and that we had in Alaska, we are going to end up in a
situation almost identical to what we have in Quebec, Canada today, and
we cannot allow that to happen.
The one major issue that has held this country together for all these
200 years as a melting pot of all ethnic backgrounds throughout the
entire world, it does not matter whether it is the Pacific, it does not
matter whether it is Europe, wherever it is, it is the common language
of English that has kept us together. That keeps our esprit de corps,
it keeps our patriotism alive, because we all speak that one language.
That is what is at stake on the voting on this amendment in a few
minutes.
Mr. BARR of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. SOLOMON. I yield to the gentleman from Georgia.
Mr. BARR of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I would like to point out and
reiterate to the membership in voting on the Burton amendment the
language previously cited by its author, that ``the official English
language requirements of the Federal Government apply in Puerto Rico to
the same extent as Federal law requires throughout the United States,''
does nothing but simply lock in the status quo. English is already
required for Federal purposes in Puerto Rico. Yet notwithstanding that,
the overwhelming majority of Puerto Ricans do not understand English,
do not speak English. This language in the Burton amendment, which its
author cites as a strengthening amendment, simply maintains the status
quo. It goes no further and cannot go further by its terms.
I thank the gentleman from New York for yielding.
Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1\1/2\ minutes.
Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Indiana (Mr. Burton).
Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, let me just say that I think the
amendment, my substitute, the gentleman from California's substitute,
solves the English language issue if you want to have it attached to
this bill. But this bill is not about the English language, nor should
it be. It is about whether or not the people of Puerto Rico have a
right to let the Congress of the United States know if they want to be
a State, a commonwealth or independent.
{time} 1615
This English issue is a red herring that has been put into the bill
to try to drive a stake through the heart of the bill to kill it. That
is what they want to do. They want to kill the bill. It
[[Page H808]]
should not even be here in here. We should be debating the English only
issue in a separate piece of legislation as we have in the past.
This is a plebiscite bill to find out from the people of Puerto Rico
what status they want. Do they want to be a State, do they want to be a
commonwealth, or independent? If they want to be a State, for instance,
it has to come back to the Congress and a process of about 8 or 10
years is going to take place before they become a State. So the
Congress is going to make the final determination anyhow. This is a red
herring.
The other thing I want to say is that I have great respect for my
colleagues, but I think that every one of my colleagues who are
opposing this bill, I hope every one of my colleagues who are sitting
in their offices will focus on the main issue at hand today, and that
is do people who are American citizens, and that is the people of
Puerto Rico, do the people who are American citizens have the right to
say, we want representation if we are going to be paying the price in
wars and taxes and everything else for this country. Do they have that
right? They should. They are American citizens.
Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. BURTON of Indiana. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman is standing up and saying,
``Jerry Solomon brought this English debate into this bill.'' Here is
the bill. It is not my bill. This is the committee bill. On page 10,
line 1, section B, language, ``English shall be the common language of
mutual understanding in the United States.'' It goes on for pages. I
did not introduce this into the bill, you folks did.
Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I would say
to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Solomon), the reason we did was
because we knew the gentleman as the chairman of the Committee on Rules
was going to put this amendment into the process. That is why we did
it, and the gentleman knows it.
Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I might
consume.
With the Parliamentarians sitting up there I went to the
Parliamentarians and said, I do not want to go beyond the germaneness
of this bill. I will not do it. I will not use the power of our
Committee on Rules to do that. I could have done it, Mr. Chairman, as
the gentleman knows. Instead, we wrote an amendment germane to the
bill. So I think the gentleman misspoke.
Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield, I
do not think I owe the gentleman an apology. First of all, the bill
only authorizes that language, authorizes the English provisions in
that bill. It does not mandate them, if the gentleman reads that.
Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, nor does my amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I
may consume.
Mr. Chairman, the coauthor, the sponsor of this amendment, the
gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton) has quite properly stated what this
amendment is about. This amendment is about should at the end of this
process the people of Puerto Rico decide to choose statehood as an
option and a condition under which they want to live, the language in
the Burton substitute says they will be treated the same as any other
State. They will be treated the same as the citizens of Nebraska or
California or New York or Florida or Louisiana or anywhere else.
If this Congress should decide that English is the official language
of this country and wants to add a lot of requirements about that at
some future date, if Puerto Rico is a State, Puerto Rico will live
under those requirements the same as the citizens of any other State.
If Puerto Rico petitions to become a State, and we agree to that, and
they vote for that and we vote for that, they are petitioning to become
a State on coequal terms of every other citizen of every other State.
The Solomon amendment goes beyond that. It goes beyond that to require,
require, that the communications be only in English and people can only
communicate with the Federal Government in English, far beyond what is
required today in any law that we have.
So what we said was not knowing yet what the people of Puerto Rico
will determine, let us just level the playing field, so, again, this
debate cannot be used, because in the politics of the campaign,
statehood versus commonwealth versus independence, people want to argue
you are going to lose your right to speak Spanish, you are going to be
forced to speak only English, you are not going to have citizenship.
This campaign gets way out of control. So we tried to put language here
which is very simple. You will be treated, should you vote for
statehood, the same as any other citizen in any other State, period,
with respect to the requirements of the English language of the Federal
Government.
That is fair, and I think it is proper, when people are going to
engage in a historical vote about their status from that point forward.
That is what this committee owed them, that is what this Congress
owes them, and the Burton amendment allows that to happen. It simply
levels out the playing field with respect to English. They will know
that they will not be discriminated against because they speak Spanish;
they will not be burdened because they do not have full compliance with
English. They will simply be treated the same as all other American
citizens.
Many people have risen on this floor today to testify as to the
contributions the Puerto Rican people, the citizens of this country,
have made to the growth of this country in every aspect of our history.
All we are saying to those people is, you will be treated the same as
everyone else who has made that contribution. And when you make the
decision to choose statehood or commonwealth, you will know that the
playing field is level here.
That is what the Burton amendment accomplishes. That is not what the
Solomon amendment does. The Solomon amendment puts a series of
conditions beyond that level playing field, that in the text of his
amendment apply only to Puerto Rico and only to those communications
between the citizens of Puerto Rico and the government. That we should
reject.
If later we want to do that, and Mr. Cunningham indicated that maybe
the English as an official language bill will come back, if that
prevails and passes and is signed into law, that will be the law of the
land with respect to the people in Puerto Rico and the people in
California. But we should not be trying to guide that determination
here, because this is about a plebiscite, and this is about what people
can expect to happen and not happen should they choose one of the three
alternatives outlined in the legislation.
This committee worked very hard. Mr. Young held a whole series of
hearings in Puerto Rico and here to try and determine the fairest way
to present these three options. We ought not now try to put our thumb
on one side of the scale one way or the other with respect to the
outcome of that vote.
The people of Puerto Rico ought to be able to make their choice in
this plebiscite about their status, and then it will be incumbent upon
the Congress to either accept or reject that or to condition that. But
we will then know what the choice of the people of Puerto Rico is.
Mr. Chairman, I believe the Burton amendment maintains the integrity
of this process so that we will know when that vote is taken, that we
have provided free and fair options with respect to the status for the
people of Puerto Rico to choose.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Green).
(Mr. GREEN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. GREEN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Indiana for
yielding me time.
I would also thank the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton), the
gentleman from California (Mr. Miller), the gentleman from Florida (Mr.
McCollum) and the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young) for bringing not
only the bill, but this amendment here, because this is what is going
to bring us together, I hope.
[[Page H809]]
Mr. Chairman, I would say to the gentleman from New York (Mr.
Solomon), I understand that English language does bring us together,
but we have more in common than just our language. As a Nation we are
held together by love of liberty and freedom, no matter what language
we speak and no matter how we speak English, because we speak English
in different ways, from Texas to Maine, to Boston to Florida and
everywhere else. But that is what this amendment talks about.
Let me read the language for the Members who are maybe watching in
their offices. ``The official language requirements of the Federal
Government shall apply to Puerto Rico in the same manner as and the
same extent as throughout the United States.''
If the citizens of Puerto Rico make a decision for statehood, they
will come in on the same level as the citizens of Texas. You can come
to Texas and speak Spanish, you can come and speak English; but if you
go into a courtroom, you are going to speak English or have a
translator.
They could speak whatever language they want, because that is the
freedom we enjoy. I have people in Texas who are proud to be German and
speak German, but when they go to court they have to have an English
translation.
Mr. Chairman, I urge support for the Burton amendment.
Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time
to the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Kennedy).
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Rhode Island is recognized for 30
seconds.
Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for
yielding time to me.
Mr. Chairman, ultimately this is a political football. The Solomon
amendment is meant to kill this bill. To think that we are asking the
Puerto Rican people to be forced to speak English. I would ask the
gentleman from New York (Mr. Solomon), how often did we ask the 200,000
Puerto Ricans who served in our Nation's military and were putting
their lives on the line in defense of this liberty how well they spoke
English? And why is it right for us now to say they have to speak
English? When they were good enough to die for this country, they were
good enough to serve for this country, now we are going to impose the
English language on them, when it was never the case when it happened
to come to them serving in our Nation's military.
Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I am going to try to hold myself down a little bit
after the remarks from my friend, the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr.
Kennedy) over there. It seems like he and I always get into it about
this time. I will just tell my good friend that I helped teach the
Puerto Ricans in the military how to speak English, and I am very proud
of it.
We are going to close this out, and it has been a good debate, up
until the last couple of speakers. The Solomon amendment does nothing
different than what we have done for Oklahoma, for Louisiana, for New
Mexico and for Arizona. But now it becomes even more important, because
I will state once again that if the Solomon amendment is defeated, if
the Burton amendment allows the Solomon amendment to be watered down,
we are going to jeopardize the future of this democracy of ours,
because it means that Puerto Rico could possibly be brought in within
the next 24 months into this Union with only a very, very small
majority of people wanting citizenship. We should never, never let that
happen. As we did with Hawaii, as we did with Alaska, we should always
have overwhelming support, not only of those areas that want to come
into the United States, but also of the American people.
The polls show that the American people are opposed to this
legislation in its present form. It shows that the Puerto Rican people
in the last plebiscite were opposed to statehood, and we should clear
these up before this matter ever becomes law. But, just as a safeguard,
we ought to pass the Solomon amendment.
Mr. Chairman, let me say in closing that the Solomon amendment has
the support of U.S. English, it has the support of English First, it
has support of the English Language Advocates, it has support of the
Center for Equal Opportunity. All grassroots English groups in this
country support the Solomon amendment and oppose the watering down of
the amendment, whether it be by Miller-Burton or by anyone else. So I
urge support of the Solomon amendment and defeat of the Miller-Burton
amendment.
Mr. TOWNS. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to express my vehement
opposition to H.R. 856, the United States-Puerto Rico Political Status
Act, and to the English-only language amendment offered by the
gentleman from New York.
At the outset, I want to extend my full support to my fellow
colleagues, Nydia Velazquez (D-NY) and Jose Serrano (D-NY), in their
efforts to ensure that the people of Puerto Rico have a ``voice'' in
this process. As Congresswoman Velazquez stated earlier today, ``Why
don't we let Puerto Rico decide what's best for Puerto Rico.''
For close to one hundred years, Puerto Rico has been a Commonwealth
of the United States. Puerto Rican citizens have abided by the laws of
the United States; they have participated in defending the United
States in various wars; and even joined the military during peaceful
times. Both English and Spanish are the official languages of Puerto
Rico. They clearly are an integral part of our representative
government. We should take extreme caution and listen to their
concerns.
Moreover, we should not, as some of our colleagues are trying to do,
force them to abide by a stringent English-only language requirement.
How can we force such an arbitrary requirement on the citizens of
Puerto Rico when none exists for any of the 50 states? As the bridge to
Latin America, already over 85% of Puerto Ricans are fluent in both
English and Spanish. Further, the United States does not have an
official language law, and we should not start by imposing one on a
geographic area as diverse as Puerto Rico. For over four hundred years,
our country has been a ``melting pot'' for people of all racial and
ethnic backgrounds. In fact, we pride ourselves on this unique aspect
of our history. We are a nation founded on the principles of freedom
and equality for all.
Mr. Chairman, I hope that my colleagues will remember these
principles and support the right of self-determination for the citizens
of Puerto Rico.
Mr. ORTIZ. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to oppose the English-only
provisions being offered to this bill to define the political status of
Puerto Rico.
I have consistently opposed English-only provisions to bills that
have been before the House and do so again today. While I understand my
friends who advocate these changes, we simply disagree. As the
representative of a border district--as a man who has grown up speaking
two languages every day of my life--I understand the dynamics of this
proposal.
People on one side see the English language as the defining and
unifying element of the United States. Those who believe as I do, that
the English language is the most important element of economic
development in our country, also realize that it is the democratic
institutions and history of the United States that define us as a
country and a community.
This policy, while well intentional, will make some untenable
changes. It will rescind the use of bilingual education, a valuable
program to children of new immigrants. It will prohibit the use of
bilingual voting materials and ballots. In a democracy, su voto es su
voz--your vote is your voice. We would be stifling a deep democratic
tradition if we kept voting and balloting information out of the hands
of those who speak a language other than English.
Probably the most insidious thing an English-only policy would do
would prohibit the use of dual language public health notices. Now, it
has been our experience in South Texas that health care knows no single
language, and it has been our experience that diseases know no border.
This would be a profoundly bad idea, and it would only hurt everyone,
not just those who do not speak English.
I would like to associate myself with the remarks of my friend Chet
Edwards who said that we need to teach English, not preach it. Spanish
is the language of commerce in most countries of the Americas. The
Spanish-speaking countries are the largest potential market for U.S.
goods--we must not let the opportunity to sell them our products go by.
Our schools, and this government, must learn the language of world
commerce--which is primarily English, but is also increasingly Spanish.
Let us not take a bad idea and make it worse. Please join me in
opposing the English only provisions of this bill.
Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Burton-McCollum-
Young substitute to the Solomon English amendment to H.R. 856.
[[Page H810]]
Under this amendment, the English language would be immediately
fostered in Puerto Rico--unlike the Solomon amendment, which applies
the English language requirements only if the U.S. citizens of Puerto
Rico choose to become a State. The Burton substitute would allow all
students to be proficient in the English language by age 10.
Please join me in supporting the Burton substitute to the Solomon
English amendment. This bipartisan substitute provides an impartial and
equitable alternative.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. I rise in opposition to the amendment to HR
856, offered by Representative Solomon, requiring English to be the
official language of all government functions across the entire United
States and support the substitute amendment offered by Representatives
Burton, Miller, and Young, which would treat Puerto Rico the same as
every other state; which recognizes the primary role of English in our
national affairs; and which would not preclude the use of other
languages in government functions when appropriate.
As a member of the House Judiciary Committee, it comes as no surprise
to me that yet again the proponents of the English-only movement are
attempting to divide this country with English-only legislation.
While we in this country do not always agree, we share a common set
of democratic ideals and values--a commitment to freedom, equality,
tolerance and opportunity. This is what holds us together--not
language.
On the same principle, I want to make my position clear that there is
no place for English-only legislation in this country. English-only is
nothing more than a political tactic. Why else would we be seeking to
implement English-only policies when 95 percent of the U.S. population
already speaks English?
What the Solomon amendment really does is effectively to
disenfranchise a large population of citizens for the purely political
reason that they traditionally vote Democratic rather than Republican.
Specific to this bill, the real fear of the Republicans is that in
the event that Puerto Rico joins the Union as a state, the majority of
the voting population may turn out voting Democratic. Puerto Ricans see
through this veiled political attempt. So do current registered voters.
English-only alienates ordinary citizens. Let's face the reality of
the 21st century--we live in a multicultural and multilingual society,
and this is America's strength. We are a proud nation of immigrants.
Many immigrants recently have become citizens, and embrace the
opportunity which many were deprived in their native country to vote.
Many immigrants also are learning English faster than ever, as
indicated by increased enrollment in English classes. By abolishing
bilingual ballots, the English-only measure seeks to undermine standing
law--the Voting Rights Act of 1965--and to frustrate the participation
of U.S. citizens in the political process.
We need to keep out English-only legislation and retain bilingual
voting materials not only to allow voters to engage meaningfully in our
democracy, but also to permit voters to participate on an informed
basis. They need to know who is running for office and also to
understand more complex voting issues such as constitutional
amendments.
Republicans may misguide the American people with the argument that
empowering voters with bilingual assistance costs tax dollars. Nothing
could be farther from the truth. Studies show that the cost of
bilingual assistance for voting is either nominal or causes no
additional costs. A GAO report shows that of 295 responding
jurisdictions, written assistance costs less than 8 percent of election
expenditures and it estimates that costs 18 states nothing. Oral
language assistance is even less burdensome.
As important as voting, ordinary citizens need access to our
government. We do not want to cripple government with English-only
mandates, lest the police, 911 operators and Emergency Medical Service
technicians would be unable to do their jobs in life threatening
situations involving an individual with little fluency in English.
Conversely, the government needs to continue to provide services to
ordinary citizens. Restricting the ability of agencies to dispense
information to the public in a language other than English would
undermine important government functions such as collecting taxes,
informing citizens of their fundamental rights, promoting equal
educational opportunity and public health and safety, and ensuring due
process under the law.
English-only isolates the U.S. from the rest of the world. Similar to
the evolving society in which we live, our world is also changing. We
live in a global economy, requiring Americans to be more cognizant of
the language, the cultural norms and sensitivities and business
practices of our international trading partners. The time calls for us
to adapt--which does not mean imposing that our government functions in
one language--English only.
The majority of federal documents are already in English. According
to the General Accounting Office, only 0.06 percent of federal
documents are printed in non-English languages. Rather than restrict
the use of non-English languages, we should be expanding our fluency in
several different languages. Thirty-two million Americans speak a
second language. They are competitive with the rest of the world.
I urge my colleagues to vote against the Solomon amendment, and
resist this latest attempt to divide our country, and weaken its
position globally and vote in favor of the substitute to the Solomon
amendment offered by Representatives Burton, Miller, and Young.
Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Gutierrez), to the amendment offered by
the gentleman from New York (Mr. Solomon).
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Recorded Vote
Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
Parliamentary Inquiry
Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state it.
Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Chairman, I understood that we were going to try to
reduce the second vote down to 5 minutes. How do we do that? How do we
propound a recorded vote at this time?
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair has the authority to do it. Pursuant to the
rules, the Chair will announce the subsequent two votes (if ordered)
will be 5 minute votes.
Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Chairman, before we vote, there have been some
pretty scandalous things occurring.
The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote is ordered. The gentleman from Illinois
is out of order.
Mr. GUTIERREZ. If the Chairman will, please, I do have a very good
point. This is very serious. We are violating the rules of the House,
Mr. Chairman. This is being handed out against our rules.
The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman have a parliamentary inquiry?
Parliamentary Inquiry
Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state it.
Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Chairman, can this be handed out to Members of the
House of Representatives as they are walking in here, to ask people to
vote yes or no on different amendments as they walk in here, without
having the letterhead of the U.S. Congress and without it being signed
by some Member of Congress?
The CHAIRMAN. Handouts handed out to the membership must indicate who
authorized them.
Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Chairman, then I bring to the attention of the
Chair that this is being handed out amongst us without signature,
without the letterhead, not in accordance with our rules, and I would
ask that the Chair protect in any way possible the integrity of the
rules of the House.
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair will do everything possible so that the rules
of the House are adhered to and complied with.
Pursuant to clause 2(c) of rule XXIII, the Chair may reduce to not
less than 5 minutes the time for any recorded vote, if ordered, on the
Burton substitute amendment to the Solomon amendment or on the Solomon
amendment without intervening business or debate.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 13,
noes 406, answered ``present'' 1, not voting 10, as follows:
[Roll No. 28]
AYES--13
Conyers
Davis (IL)
Gutierrez
Kennedy (MA)
McKinney
Meeks (NY)
Owens
Pastor
Payne
Rush
Serrano
Towns
Velazquez
NOES--406
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Aderholt
Allen
Andrews
Archer
Armey
Bachus
Baesler
Baker
Baldacci
Ballenger
Barcia
Barr
Barrett (NE)
Barrett (WI)
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Bateman
Becerra
Bentsen
Bereuter
Berman
Berry
Bilbray
Bilirakis
[[Page H811]]
Bishop
Blagojevich
Bliley
Blumenauer
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonior
Borski
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Brady
Brown (CA)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Bryant
Bunning
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Canady
Cannon
Cardin
Carson
Castle
Chabot
Chambliss
Chenoweth
Christensen
Clay
Clayton
Clement
Clyburn
Coble
Coburn
Collins
Combest
Condit
Cook
Cooksey
Costello
Cox
Coyne
Cramer
Crane
Crapo
Cubin
Cummings
Cunningham
Danner
Davis (FL)
Davis (VA)
Deal
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
DeLay
Deutsch
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Dicks
Dingell
Dixon
Doggett
Dooley
Doyle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Edwards
Ehlers
Ehrlich
Emerson
Engel
English
Ensign
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Everett
Ewing
Farr
Fattah
Fawell
Fazio
Filner
Foley
Forbes
Ford
Fossella
Fowler
Fox
Frank (MA)
Franks (NJ)
Frelinghuysen
Frost
Furse
Gallegly
Ganske
Gejdenson
Gekas
Gephardt
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Goode
Goodlatte
Goodling
Gordon
Goss
Graham
Granger
Green
Greenwood
Gutknecht
Hall (OH)
Hall (TX)
Hamilton
Hansen
Hastert
Hastings (FL)
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Hefley
Hefner
Herger
Hill
Hilleary
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hobson
Hoekstra
Holden
Hooley
Horn
Hostettler
Houghton
Hoyer
Hulshof
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hyde
Inglis
Istook
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Jenkins
John
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (WI)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kasich
Kelly
Kennedy (RI)
Kennelly
Kildee
Kim
Kind (WI)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kleczka
Klink
Klug
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Kucinich
LaFalce
LaHood
Lampson
Lantos
Largent
Latham
LaTourette
Lazio
Leach
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lipinski
Livingston
LoBiondo
Lofgren
Lowey
Lucas
Maloney (CT)
Maloney (NY)
Manton
Manzullo
Markey
Martinez
Mascara
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McCrery
McDade
McDermott
McGovern
McHale
McHugh
McInnis
McIntosh
McIntyre
McKeon
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Menendez
Metcalf
Mica
Millender-McDonald
Miller (CA)
Miller (FL)
Minge
Mink
Moakley
Mollohan
Moran (KS)
Moran (VA)
Morella
Murtha
Myrick
Nadler
Neal
Nethercutt
Neumann
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nussle
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Oxley
Packard
Pallone
Pappas
Parker
Pascrell
Paul
Paxon
Pease
Pelosi
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pickett
Pitts
Pombo
Pomeroy
Porter
Portman
Price (NC)
Pryce (OH)
Quinn
Radanovich
Rahall
Ramstad
Rangel
Redmond
Regula
Reyes
Riggs
Riley
Rivers
Rodriguez
Roemer
Rogan
Rogers
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Rothman
Roukema
Roybal-Allard
Royce
Ryun
Sabo
Salmon
Sanchez
Sanders
Sandlin
Sanford
Sawyer
Saxton
Scarborough
Schaefer, Dan
Schaffer, Bob
Scott
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Sherman
Shuster
Sisisky
Skaggs
Skeen
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (OR)
Smith (TX)
Smith, Adam
Smith, Linda
Snowbarger
Snyder
Solomon
Souder
Spence
Spratt
Stabenow
Stark
Stearns
Stenholm
Stokes
Strickland
Stump
Stupak
Sununu
Talent
Tanner
Tauscher
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Thomas
Thompson
Thornberry
Thune
Thurman
Tiahrt
Tierney
Traficant
Turner
Upton
Vento
Visclosky
Walsh
Wamp
Watkins
Watt (NC)
Watts (OK)
Waxman
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Wexler
Weygand
White
Whitfield
Wicker
Wise
Wolf
Woolsey
Wynn
Yates
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
ANSWERED ``PRESENT''--1
Waters
NOT VOTING--10
Doolittle
Gonzalez
Harman
Kilpatrick
Luther
Poshard
Schiff
Schumer
Shimkus
Torres
{time} 1651
Messrs. JACKSON of Illinois, BECERRA, SMITH of Texas, SMITH of
Michigan, MALONEY of Connecticut, BATEMAN, and RANGEL changed their
vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
Ms. McKINNEY and Messrs. OWENS, KENNEDY of Massachusetts, and CONYERS
changed their vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
So the amendment to the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton) as a substitute for the amendment
offered by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Solomon).
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the ayes
appeared to have it.
Recorded Vote
Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the Chair's prior announcement, this will
be a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 238,
noes 182, not voting 10, as follows:
[Roll No. 29]
AYES--238
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Andrews
Baldacci
Ballenger
Barcia
Barrett (WI)
Barton
Becerra
Bentsen
Berman
Berry
Bishop
Blagojevich
Blumenauer
Boehlert
Bonilla
Bonior
Borski
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Brown (CA)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Burton
Buyer
Camp
Campbell
Cannon
Cardin
Carson
Castle
Clay
Clayton
Clement
Clyburn
Condit
Cook
Costello
Coyne
Cramer
Cummings
Danner
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Deutsch
Diaz-Balart
Dicks
Dingell
Dixon
Doggett
Dooley
Doyle
Edwards
Ehlers
Ehrlich
Engel
English
Ensign
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Fazio
Filner
Foley
Forbes
Ford
Fox
Frank (MA)
Frost
Furse
Gallegly
Gejdenson
Gekas
Gephardt
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gilman
Gordon
Granger
Green
Greenwood
Hall (OH)
Hamilton
Hansen
Hastings (FL)
Hefner
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hooley
Hostettler
Houghton
Hoyer
Hulshof
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
John
Johnson (WI)
Johnson, E. B.
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kelly
Kennedy (MA)
Kennedy (RI)
Kennelly
Kildee
Kim
Kind (WI)
Kleczka
Klink
Klug
Kolbe
Kucinich
LaFalce
Lampson
Lantos
Lazio
Leach
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lofgren
Lowey
Maloney (CT)
Maloney (NY)
Manton
Markey
Martinez
Mascara
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McHale
McInnis
McIntyre
McKeon
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Mica
Millender-McDonald
Miller (CA)
Minge
Mink
Moakley
Mollohan
Moran (VA)
Morella
Murtha
Nadler
Neal
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Owens
Oxley
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Pelosi
Peterson (MN)
Pombo
Pomeroy
Portman
Price (NC)
Rahall
Rangel
Redmond
Reyes
Riggs
Rivers
Rodriguez
Roemer
Ros-Lehtinen
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Sabo
Sanchez
Sanders
Sandlin
Sawyer
Saxton
Scott
Serrano
Shaw
Sherman
Skaggs
Skeen
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (NJ)
Smith, Adam
Snyder
Spratt
Stabenow
Stark
Stokes
Strickland
Stupak
Tanner
Tauscher
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Thompson
Thornberry
Thurman
Tierney
Turner
Vento
Visclosky
Walsh
Waters
Watt (NC)
Waxman
Wexler
Weygand
Wise
Woolsey
Wynn
Yates
Young (AK)
NOES--182
Aderholt
Archer
Armey
Bachus
Baesler
Baker
Barr
Barrett (NE)
Bartlett
Bass
Bateman
Bereuter
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bliley
Blunt
Boehner
Brady
Bryant
Bunning
Burr
Callahan
Calvert
Canady
Chabot
Chambliss
Chenoweth
Christensen
Coble
Coburn
Collins
Combest
Conyers
Cooksey
Cox
Crane
Crapo
Cubin
Cunningham
Davis (VA)
Deal
DeLay
Dickey
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Emerson
Everett
Ewing
Fawell
Fossella
Fowler
Franks (NJ)
Frelinghuysen
Ganske
Gillmor
Goode
Goodlatte
Goodling
Goss
Graham
Gutierrez
Gutknecht
Hall (TX)
Hastert
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Hefley
Herger
Hill
Hilleary
Hobson
Hoekstra
Holden
Horn
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hyde
Inglis
Istook
Jenkins
Johnson (CT)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Kasich
King (NY)
Kingston
Knollenberg
LaHood
Largent
Latham
LaTourette
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lipinski
[[Page H812]]
Livingston
LoBiondo
Lucas
Manzullo
McCrery
McDade
McHugh
McIntosh
Menendez
Metcalf
Miller (FL)
Moran (KS)
Myrick
Nethercutt
Neumann
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nussle
Packard
Pappas
Parker
Paul
Paxon
Pease
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pickett
Pitts
Porter
Pryce (OH)
Quinn
Radanovich
Ramstad
Regula
Riley
Rogan
Rogers
Rohrabacher
Roukema
Royce
Ryun
Salmon
Sanford
Scarborough
Schaefer, Dan
Schaffer, Bob
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shays
Shuster
Sisisky
Smith (MI)
Smith (OR)
Smith (TX)
Smith, Linda
Snowbarger
Solomon
Souder
Spence
Stearns
Stenholm
Stump
Sununu
Talent
Taylor (NC)
Thomas
Thune
Tiahrt
Towns
Traficant
Upton
Velazquez
Wamp
Watkins
Watts (OK)
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
White
Whitfield
Wicker
Wolf
Young (FL)
NOT VOTING--10
Doolittle
Gonzalez
Harman
Kilpatrick
Luther
Poshard
Schiff
Schumer
Shimkus
Torres
{time} 1701
Messrs. BOB SCHAFFER of Colorado, HASTERT, BAESLER, ROGAN, and HALL
of Texas changed their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
Mrs. KELLY and Mr. SMITH of New Jersey changed their vote from ``no''
to ``aye.''
So the amendment offered as a substitute for the amendment was agreed
to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from New York (Mr. Solomon), as amended.
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the ayes
appeared to have it.
Recorded Vote
Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the Chair's prior announcement, this will
be a 5-minute vote.
Parliamentary Inquiry
Mr. ROMERO-BARCELO (during the vote). Mr. Chairman, I have a
parliamentary inquiry. I was standing here, and the Chairman did not
see me.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state it.
Mr. ROMERO-BARCELO. Mr. Chairman, I have to explain to everyone what
this second vote is. There is confusion in the hall as to what this
second vote is.
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair has explained to the Members what this vote
is.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 265,
noes 153, not voting 12, as follows:
[Roll No. 30]
AYES--265
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Andrews
Baldacci
Ballenger
Barcia
Barrett (NE)
Barrett (WI)
Barton
Becerra
Bentsen
Bereuter
Berry
Bishop
Blagojevich
Boehlert
Bonilla
Bonior
Borski
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Brown (CA)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Burton
Buyer
Camp
Campbell
Canady
Cannon
Cardin
Carson
Castle
Christensen
Clay
Clayton
Clement
Clyburn
Condit
Cook
Costello
Coyne
Cramer
Cummings
Danner
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Deutsch
Diaz-Balart
Dicks
Dingell
Dixon
Doggett
Dooley
Doyle
Duncan
Edwards
Ehlers
Ehrlich
Engel
English
Ensign
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Ewing
Farr
Fattah
Fazio
Filner
Foley
Forbes
Ford
Fossella
Fox
Frank (MA)
Frost
Gallegly
Gejdenson
Gekas
Gephardt
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Gordon
Granger
Green
Greenwood
Hall (OH)
Hamilton
Hansen
Hastings (FL)
Hefner
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Holden
Hooley
Hostettler
Houghton
Hoyer
Hulshof
Hunter
Istook
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Jenkins
John
Johnson (WI)
Johnson, E. B.
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kelly
Kennedy (MA)
Kennedy (RI)
Kennelly
Kildee
Kim
Kind (WI)
King (NY)
Kleczka
Klink
Klug
Kolbe
Kucinich
LaFalce
Lampson
Lantos
Lazio
Leach
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lofgren
Lowey
Lucas
Maloney (CT)
Maloney (NY)
Manton
Markey
Martinez
Mascara
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McCrery
McDade
McDermott
McGovern
McHale
McHugh
McInnis
McIntyre
McKeon
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Mica
Millender-McDonald
Miller (CA)
Minge
Mink
Moakley
Mollohan
Moran (KS)
Moran (VA)
Morella
Murtha
Nadler
Neal
Northup
Nussle
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Owens
Oxley
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Pease
Pelosi
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Pickering
Pombo
Pomeroy
Portman
Price (NC)
Quinn
Rahall
Ramstad
Rangel
Redmond
Reyes
Riggs
Rivers
Rodriguez
Roemer
Ros-Lehtinen
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Ryun
Sabo
Sanchez
Sanders
Sandlin
Sawyer
Saxton
Schaffer, Bob
Serrano
Shaw
Sherman
Skaggs
Skeen
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith, Adam
Snyder
Spratt
Stabenow
Stark
Stokes
Strickland
Stupak
Tanner
Tauscher
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Thomas
Thompson
Thornberry
Thurman
Tierney
Turner
Vento
Visclosky
Walsh
Wamp
Waters
Watt (NC)
Waxman
Wexler
Weygand
Wise
Woolsey
Wynn
Yates
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NOES--153
Aderholt
Archer
Armey
Bachus
Baesler
Baker
Barr
Bartlett
Bass
Bateman
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bliley
Blumenauer
Blunt
Boehner
Brady
Bryant
Bunning
Burr
Callahan
Calvert
Chabot
Chambliss
Chenoweth
Coble
Coburn
Collins
Combest
Conyers
Cooksey
Cox
Crane
Crapo
Cubin
Cunningham
Davis (VA)
Deal
DeLay
Dickey
Dreier
Dunn
Emerson
Everett
Fawell
Fowler
Franks (NJ)
Frelinghuysen
Ganske
Goode
Goodlatte
Goodling
Goss
Graham
Gutierrez
Gutknecht
Hall (TX)
Hastert
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Hefley
Herger
Hill
Hilleary
Hobson
Hoekstra
Horn
Hutchinson
Hyde
Inglis
Johnson (CT)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Kasich
Kingston
Knollenberg
LaHood
Largent
Latham
LaTourette
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lipinski
Livingston
LoBiondo
Manzullo
McIntosh
Menendez
Metcalf
Miller (FL)
Myrick
Nethercutt
Neumann
Ney
Norwood
Packard
Pappas
Parker
Paul
Paxon
Petri
Pickett
Pitts
Porter
Pryce (OH)
Radanovich
Regula
Riley
Rogan
Rogers
Rohrabacher
Roukema
Royce
Salmon
Sanford
Scarborough
Schaefer, Dan
Scott
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shays
Shuster
Sisisky
Smith (MI)
Smith (OR)
Smith, Linda
Snowbarger
Solomon
Souder
Spence
Stearns
Stenholm
Stump
Sununu
Talent
Taylor (NC)
Thune
Tiahrt
Towns
Traficant
Upton
Velazquez
Watkins
Watts (OK)
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
White
Whitfield
Wicker
Wolf
NOT VOTING--12
Berman
Doolittle
Furse
Gonzalez
Harman
Kilpatrick
Luther
Poshard
Schiff
Schumer
Shimkus
Torres
{time} 1711
Mr. SALMON, Mr. COOKSEY, and Ms. DUNN changed their vote from ``aye''
to ``no.''
Mr. PASCRELL and Mr. BERRY changed their vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
So the amendment, as amended, was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The CHAIRMAN. The Committee will rise informally in order that the
House may receive a message.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Hastert), assumed the Chair.
____________________