[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 117 (Friday, August 2, 1996)]
[Senate]
[Pages S9555-S9559]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

      By Mr. CRAIG (for himself, Mr. Simon, Mr. Thomas, Mr. Reid, Mr. 
        Graham, Mr. Akaka, and Mr. Cohen):
  S. 2019. A bill to provide for referenda to resolve the political 
status of Puerto Rico, and for other purposes; to the Committee on 
Energy and Natural Resources.


                        puerto rico legislation

  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation which 
would establish a congressionally recognized self-determination process 
to resolve the political status of Puerto Rico. This proposal is made 
in light of the formal request of the Legislature of Puerto Rico, 
expressly directed to the 104th Congress, for a response to the 1993 
plebiscite on Puerto Rico's future political status conducted under 
local law.
  Puerto Rico Legislature Resolution 62, adopted by the elected 
representatives of the residents of Puerto Rico on November 14, 1994, 
specifically calls upon this Congress to state the ``specific 
alternatives that it is willing to consider, and the measures it 
recommends the people of Puerto Rico should take as part of the process 
to solve the problem of their political status.'' Even though time is 
running out on the 104th Congress, this Senator believes it would be 
wrong to adjourn

[[Page S9556]]

later this year without introducing in the Senate a proposal which 
addresses the manner in which Puerto Rico's status can be resolved 
consistent with both self-determination and the national interest.
  The solution to Puerto Rico's status cannot be one which imposes a 
result on the residents of Puerto Rico or on the United States. The 
process we are proposing recognizes the right of self-determination on 
both sides of the relationship. Let me explain why my colleagues should 
support the bill I am offering.
  Puerto Rico has been an unincorporated territory of the United States 
for almost 100 years, subject to the plenary powers of Congress under 
the territorial clause of the U.S. Constitution, article IV, section 3, 
clause 2. Congressional authorization for the adoption of a local 
constitution and delegation of authority for internal self-government 
in 1952 represented progress in the evolution of the territory's 
status, but the 3.8 million U.S. citizens residing in Puerto Rico do 
not yet have equal legal and political rights with their fellow 
citizens living in the States, or a guaranteed permanent status 
protected by the U.S. Constitution.
  Puerto Ricans have a statutory citizenship status prescribed by 
Congress in 1917, with less than equal legal standing and political 
rights while residing in Puerto Rico because it is not a State. In 1980 
the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Harris v. Rosario (446 U.S. 651) that 
as long as Puerto Rico is an unincorporated territory subject to the 
territorial clause it does not violate the fundamental rights which all 
U.S. citizens have under the Constitution for Congress to treat the 
U.S. citizens residing in Puerto Rico differently than their fellow 
citizens in the 50 States as long as there is a rational basis for such 
unequal treatment.
  While any self-determination process we establish should allow the 
people in Puerto Rico to express approval of this present status, the 
idea that perpetual territorial status for such a large and populous 
area is desirable for either Puerto Rico or the nation as a whole needs 
to be examined closely. To begin with we need to recognize that 
Americans from Puerto Rico have served with valor along side their 
fellow citizens in every war this century, but Congress never has 
afforded the people an opportunity to express their wishes as to the 
options for full self-government and a permanent status outside the 
territorial clause--either as a state or through separate nationhood.

  In 1953 the U.N. recognized the Resolution 748 (VIII) that 
establishment of internal constitutional self-government with the 
consent of the residents was consistent with self-determination 
principles of the U.N. Charter, and on that basis the United States 
stopped reporting to the United Nations on the status of Puerto Rico. 
While Puerto Rico is no longer a non-self-governing for purposes of 
Article 73(e) of the U.N. Charter, Puerto Rico remains an 
unincorporated territory under the U.S. constitutional process. In 
1956, 4 years after the commonwealth structure for local self-
government was established, the U.S. Supreme Court recognized in Reid 
v. Covert (354 U.S. 1), that the status of all such unincorporated 
territories, results from the exercise of the territorial clause 
authority and ``. . . the power of Congress to provide rules and 
regulations to govern temporarily territories with wholly dissimilar 
traditions and institutions . . . '' (emphasis added).
  The traditions and institutions in Puerto Rico most relevant to the 
political status of the people there are no longer wholly dissimilar to 
those of the United States. Puerto Ricans have been U.S. nationals 
since 1899, with U.S. citizenship for 80 years. Puerto Rico has been 
within the U.S. legal and political system and customs territory for 
nearly a century. A republican form of constitutional internal self-
government was instituted through a democratic process 45 years ago.
  Clearly, the time has come to establish a process through which the 
current territorial status can be ended in favor of a constitutionally 
guaranteed permanent status consistent with full self-government, full 
political participation and equal citizenship rights. That means full 
integration into the United States on the basis of equality, or full 
citizenship and a constitutionally protected political status through 
separate nationhood.
  Again, if the residents of Puerto Rico prefer to remain in an 
unincorporated status and continue the present commonwealth structure 
for local government, any congressionally recognized self-determination 
process should enable them freely to express their wishes in this 
regard. But they will not be able to make a free and informed choice 
unless the legal and political nature of the current status is defined 
in a constitutionally valid and intellectually honest manner.
  Therein lies the problem with the 1993 plebiscite, in which the 
status options were formulated by the local political parties. The 
commonwealth option on the 1993 ballot included elements which were 
simply unconstitutional, and policy proposals that were so implausible 
and misleading as to make the voting results highly ambiguous. For 
example, commonwealth received the lowest voter approval ever at 48 
percent, while statehood received the highest vote ever at 46 percent. 
But the commonwealth ballot definition include permanent union, the 
same citizenship rights as persons born in the States, increased 
Federal programs, and parity with the States in Federal budget outlay--
features which are constitutional guaranteed and/or politically 
possible only with statehood.
  At the same time, the commonwealth option also called for Federal tax 
exemptions, fiscal autonomy, a local veto over Federal laws passed by 
Congress under a so-called bilateral pact, and other features more 
consistent with independence than territorial status. Independence 
received 4 percent voter approval. The combined vote for the have it 
both ways definition of commonwealth and independence was 52 percent, 
but the combined vote for statehood and commonwealth as options which 
involved guaranteed permanent union and U.S. citizenship was over 95 
percent.
  I doubt that the 103d Congress would have adjourned more than a year 
after the 1993 vote without breaking a deafening silence regarding the 
results of the plebiscite if the ballot definitions had not rendered 
those results both ambiguous and confusing.
  Apparently due in large part to Resolution 62, in this Congress the 
House committees with primary jurisdiction with respect to Puerto 
Rico's status conducted hearings on the 1993 voting results on October 
17, 1995. Each of Puerto Rico's political parties were given a full and 
fair hearing regarding their views on the 1993 vote.
  Based on the record of that hearing, the leadership of the concerned 
House committees transmitted a comprehensive statement to the leaders 
of the Puerto Rico Legislature on February 29, 1996, setting forth 
authoritative policy statements and points of law regarding the 1993 
voting results. On March 6, 1996, legislation consistent with the 
principles set forth in the February 29 policy statement was introduced 
in the House. After hearings in San Juan Puerto Rico in which all 
parties were heard once again regarding H.R. 3024--United States-Puerto 
Rico Political Status Act--the bill was amended to meet certain 
concerns that had been raised and unanimously approved by the Committee 
on Resources on June 26, 1996.

  On June 28, 1996, senior minority members on the two House committees 
which had conducted the hearings on the 1993 vote also transmitted 
views to leaders in the Puerto Rico Legislature regarding the results 
thereof. In addition, on July 18, 1996, 11 members of the minority in 
the House, including some of the most knowledgeable and experienced 
Members of Congress where the issue of Puerto Rico's status is 
concerned, wrote to that body's minority leader expressing their 
support for the Puerto Rico status bill reported unanimously by the 
Resources Committee on June 26, 1996.
  What the measures taken by House committees and members to date 
demonstrate is that there is some important new thinking in Congress 
about the Puerto Rico status issue. There is an emerging bipartisan 
consensus that the time has come for Congress to recognize that a 
process which makes definitive self-determination and permanent full 
self-government available to Puerto Rico is in the U.S. national 
interest, as well as that of the residents of Puerto Rico.

[[Page S9557]]

  In particular, I want to point out that the July 18, 1996 letter from 
concerned members of the minority to House Minority Leader Gephardt 
defends the specific approach to legitimate self-determination for 
Puerto Rico set forth in H.R. 3024 against criticism generated by 
supporters of the fatally-flawed and discredited definition of 
commonwealth presented on the 1993 plebiscite ballot. Specifically, the 
July 18 letter notes that:

       Some have tried to revive discussion over the language and 
     citizenship provisions of the bill, even though these issues 
     were dealt with in the reported text of H.R. 3024. Others 
     claim that the ballot process is unfairly skewed toward one 
     option or another, hoping to revert back to the three-way 
     ballot in 1993 which yielded no clear majority. More than 
     just attempts to amend the legislation, these efforts are 
     aimed at delaying its consideration or tainting its language 
     so that it will never see the light of day.

  I have described the response in the House to Resolution 62 of the 
Puerto Rico Legislature in some detail so that my Senate colleagues can 
better appreciate the need for some demonstration that Members of this 
body have an interest in the issues raised by the formal request 
directed by the local constitutional authorities to the 104th Congress. 
The bill we are introducing today is not a definitive or final formal 
response to that request, but it sends an important message to the 
House and to Puerto Rico that the Senate also will address this matter 
consistent with the principles of self-determination and the national 
interest.
  Accordingly, the legislation we are proposing, like the House 
version, recognizes that the commonwealth option can and should be 
presented accurately and fairly on a status referendum ballot. The 
voters must be able to evaluate the current status and the commonwealth 
structure for local government on the merits. But those who think that 
Congress is required to adopt the same 3-option ballot format employed 
in the 1993 local plebiscite format need to think again. While we need 
to respect, study, and consider the 1993 vote despite obvious flaws in 
the ballot, Congress cannot restrict itself to considering only past 
practices in Puerto Rico or the approach previously considered by 
Congress.
  We need to keep an open mind, and this bill proposes a new approach 
consistent with that being developed in the House. It recognizes that 
Congress may determine that it could be misleading to present the 
status quo option without distinguishing it in any way from the options 
for ending territorial status and instituting fundamental changes that 
would be required to establish permanent full self-government and a 
constitutionally guaranteed status.
  Only when the people who live in Puerto Rico are allowed to vote in a 
referendum process which defines the choices in a way that is valid and 
accurate will Congress be able to understand the meaning of the 
results. Then Congress can respond to those results by proposing the 
terms under which the preferred option would be possible, after which 
an additional informed stage of self-determination can take place. If 
the terms for change are not approved by the people, or the people vote 
for the option of continued commonwealth, then Congress will have to 
consider its response to that result as well.
  Before my colleagues, or those responsible for these issues in the 
administration, attempt to defend the approach of the 1993 plebiscite 
ballot, I suggest they review all of the congressional documents 
responding to Puerto Rico Legislature Resolution 62 referred to above. 
To facilitate an openminded consideration of what we are proposing, 
those documents are included here in the order mentioned above.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that additional material be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:
                                         House of Representatives,


                                       Committee on Resources,

                                Washington, DC, February 29, 1996.
     Hon. Roberto Rexach-Benitez,
     President of the Senate.
     Hon. Zaida Hernandez-Torres,
     Speaker of the House, of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, San 
         Juan, PR.
       Dear Mr. Rexach-Benitez and Ms. Hernandez-Torres: The 
     Committee on Resources and the Committee on International 
     Relations are working cooperatively to establish an official 
     record which we believe will enable the House to address the 
     subject-matter of Concurrent Resolution 62, adopted by the 
     Legislature of Puerto Rico on December 14, 1994. While the 
     specific measures addressing Puerto Rico's status which the 
     104th Congress will consider are still being developed, we 
     believe the history of the self-determination process in 
     Puerto Rico, as well as the record of the Joint Hearing 
     conducted on October 17, 1995 by the Subcommittee on Native 
     American and Insular Affairs and the Subcommittee on Western 
     Hemisphere, lead to the following conclusions with respect to 
     the plebiscite conducted in Puerto Rico on November 14, 1993:
       1. The plebiscite was conducted under local law by local 
     authorities, and the voting process appears to have been 
     orderly and consistent with recognized standards for lawful 
     and democratic elections. This locally organized self-
     determination process was undertaken within the authority of 
     the constitutional government of Puerto Rico, and is 
     consistent with the right of the people of Puerto Rico freely 
     to express their wishes regarding their political status and 
     the form of government under which they live. The United 
     States recognizes the right of the people of Puerto Rico to 
     self-determination, including the right to approve any 
     permanent political status which will be established upon 
     termination of the current unincorporated territory status. 
     Congress will take cognizance of the 1993 plebiscite results 
     in determining future Federal policy toward Puerto Rico.
       2. The content of each of the three status options on the 
     ballot was determined by the three major political parties in 
     Puerto Rico identified with those options, respectively. The 
     U.S. Congress did not adopt a formal position as to the 
     feasibility of any of the options prior to presentation to 
     the voters. Consequently, the results of the vote necessarily 
     must be viewed as an expression of the preferences of those 
     who voted as between the proposals and advocacy of the three 
     major political parties for the status option espoused by 
     each such party.
       3. None of the status options presented on the ballot 
     received a majority of the votes cast. While the commonwealth 
     option on the ballot received a plurality of votes, this 
     result is difficult to interpret because that option 
     contained proposals to profoundly change rather than continue 
     the current Commonwealth of Puerto Rico government structure. 
     Certain elements of the commonwealth option, including 
     permanent union with the United States and guaranteed U.S. 
     citizenship, can only be achieved through full integration 
     into the U.S. leading to statehood. Other elements of the 
     commonwealth option on the ballot, including a government-to-
     government bilateral pact which cannot be altered, either are 
     not possible or could only be partially accomplished through 
     treaty arrangements based on separate sovereignty. While the 
     statehood and independence options are more clearly defined, 
     neither of these options can be fully understood on the 
     merits, unless viewed in the context of clear Congressional 
     policy regarding the terms under which either option could be 
     implemented if approved in a future plebiscite recognized by 
     the federal government. Thus, there is a need for Congress to 
     define the real options for change and the true legal and 
     political nature of the status quo, so that the people can 
     know what the actual choices will be in the future.
       4. Although there is a history of confusion and ambiguity 
     on the part of some in the U.S. and Puerto Rico regarding the 
     legal and political nature of the current ``commonwealth'' 
     local government structure and territorial status, it is 
     incontrovertible that Puerto Rico's present status is that of 
     an unincorporated territory subject in all respects to the 
     authority of the United States Congress under the Territorial 
     Clause of the U.S. Constitution. As such, the current status 
     does not provide guaranteed permanent union or guaranteed 
     citizenship to the inhabitants of the territory of Puerto 
     Rico, nor does the current status provide the basis for 
     recognition of a separate Puerto Rican sovereignty or a 
     binding government-to-government status pact.
       5. In light of the foregoing, the results the November 14, 
     1993 vote indicates that it is the preference of those who 
     cast ballots to change the present impermanent status in 
     favor of a permanent political status based on full self-
     government. The only options for a permanent and fully self-
     governing status are: 1) separate sovereignty and full 
     national independence, 2) separate sovereignty in free 
     association with the United States; 3) full integration into 
     the United States political system ending unincorporated 
     territory status and leading to statehood.
       6. Because each ballot option in the 1993 plebiscite 
     addressed citizenship, we want to clarify this issue. First, 
     under separate sovereignty Puerto Ricans will have their own 
     nationality and citizenship. The U.S. political status, 
     nationality, and citizenship provided by Congress under 
     statues implementing the Treaty of Paris during the 
     unincorporated territory period will be replaced by the new 
     Puerto Rican nationhood and citizenship status that comes 
     with separate sovereignty. To prevent hardship or unfairness 
     in individual cases, the U.S. Congress may determine the 
     requirements for eligible persons to continue U.S. 
     nationality and citizenship, or be naturalized, and this will 
     be governed by U.S. law, not Puerto Rican law. If the voters 
     freely choose separate sovereignty, only those born in Puerto 
     Rico who have acquired U.S. citizenship on some other

[[Page S9558]]

     legal basis outside the scope of the Treaty of Paris 
     citizenship statutes enacted by Congress during the 
     territorial period will not be affected. Thus, the automatic 
     combined Puerto Rican and U.S. citizenship described under 
     the definition of independence on the 1993 plebiscite ballot 
     was a proposal which is misleading and inconsistent with the 
     fundamental principles of separate nationality and non-
     interference by two sovereign countries in each other's 
     internal affairs, which includes regulation of citizenship. 
     Under statehood, guaranteed equal U.S. citizenship status 
     will become a permanent right. Under the present Commonwealth 
     of Puerto Rico government structure, the current limited U.S. 
     citizenship status and rights will be continued under Federal 
     law enacted under the Territorial Clause and the Treaty of 
     Paris, protected to the extent of partial application of the 
     U.S. Constitution during the period in which Puerto Rico 
     remains an unincorporated territory.
       7. The alternative to full integration into the United 
     States or a status based on separate sovereignty is 
     continuation of the current unincorporated territory status. 
     In that event, the present status quo, including the 
     Commonwealth of Puerto Rico structure for local self-
     government, presumably could continue for some period of 
     time, until Congress in its discretion otherwise determines 
     the permanent disposition of the territory of Puerto Rico and 
     the status of its inhabitants through the exercise of its 
     authority under the Territorial Clause and the provisions of 
     the Treaty of Paris. Congress may consider proposals 
     regarding changes in the current local government structure, 
     including those set forth in the ``Definition of 
     Commonwealth'' on the 1993 plebiscite ballot. However, in our 
     view serious consideration of proposals for equal treatment 
     for residents of Puerto Rico under Federal programs will not 
     be provided unless there is an end to certain exemptions from 
     federal tax laws and other non-taxation in Puerto Rico, so 
     that individuals and corporations in Puerto Rico have the 
     same responsibilities and obligations in this regard as the 
     states. Since the ``commonwealth'' option on the 1993 
     plebiscite ballot called for ``fiscal autonomy,'' which is 
     understood to mean, among other things, continuation of the 
     current exemptions from federal taxation for the territory, 
     this constitutes another major political, legal and economic 
     obstacle to implementing the changes in Federal law and 
     policy required to fulfill the terms of the ``Definition of 
     Commonwealth.''
       8. In addition, it is important to recognize that the 
     existing Commonwealth of Puerto Rico structure for local 
     self-government, and any other measures which Congress may 
     approve while Puerto Rico remains an unincorporated 
     territory, are not unalterable in a sense that is 
     constitutionally binding upon a future Congress. Any 
     provision, agreement or pact to the contrary is legally 
     unenforceable. Thus, the current Federal laws and policies 
     applicable to Puerto Rico are not unalterable, nor can they 
     be made unalterable, and the current status of the 
     inhabitants is not irrevocable, as proposed under the 
     ``commonwealth'' option on the 1993 plebiscite ballot. 
     Congress will continue to respect the principle of self-
     determination in its exercise of Territorial Clause powers, 
     but that authority must be exercised within the framework of 
     the U.S. Constitution and in a manner deemed by Congress to 
     best serve the U.S. national interest. In our view, promoting 
     the goal of full self-government for the people of Puerto 
     Rico, rather than remaining in a separate and unequal status, 
     is in the best interests of the United States. This is 
     particularly true due to the large population of Puerto Rico, 
     the approach of a new century in which a protracted status 
     debate will interfere with Puerto Rico's economic and social 
     development, and the domestic and international interest in 
     determining a path to full self-government for all 
     territories with a colonial history before the end of this 
     century.
       9. The record of the October 17, 1995 hearing referred to 
     above makes it clear that the realities regarding 
     constitutional, legal and political obstacles to implementing 
     the changes required to fulfill the core elements of the 
     ``commonwealth'' option on the ballot were not made clear and 
     understandable in the public discussion and political debate 
     leading up to the vote. Consequently, Congress must determine 
     what steps the Federal government should take in order to 
     help move the self-determination process to the next stage, 
     so that the political status aspirations of the people can be 
     ascertained through a truly informed vote in which the wishes 
     of the people are freely expressed within a framework 
     approved by Congress. Only through such a process will 
     Congress then have a clear basis for determining and 
     resolving the question of Puerto Rico's future political 
     status in a manner consistent with the national interest.
       Ultimately, Congress alone can determine Federal policy 
     with respect to self-government and self-determination for 
     the residents of Puerto Rico. It will not be possible for the 
     local government or the people to advance further in the 
     self-determination process until the U.S. Congress meets its 
     moral and governmental responsibility to clarify Federal 
     requirements regarding termination of the present 
     unincorporated territory status of Puerto Rico in favor of 
     one of the options for full self-government.
       The results of the locally administered 1993 vote are 
     useful in this regard, but in our view are not definitive 
     beyond what has been stated above. The question of Puerto 
     Rico's political status remains open and unresolved.
           Sincerely,
     Don Young,
       Chairman, Committee on Resources.
     Elton Gallegly,
       Chairman, Subcommittee on Native American and Insular 
     Affairs.
     Ben Gilman,
       Chairman, Committee on International Relations.
     Dan Burton,
       Chairman, Subcommittee on the Western Hemisphere.


                                Congress of the United States,

                                    Washington, DC, June 28, 1996.
     Senator Charlie Rodriguez,
     Majority Leader, Puerto Rico Senate, the Capitol, San Juan, 
         PR.
       Dear Senator Rodriguez: As the senior democrats on the 
     House Resources and International Relations Committees we 
     have always been concerned about the economic and political 
     future of Puerto Rico. As the 104th Congress considers 
     proposed legislation regarding the process of self-
     determination for Puerto Rico, we believe that it is time to 
     reexamine the status issue in light of the 1993 plebiscite.
       On December 14, 1994 the Legislature of Puerto Rico adopted 
     Concurrent Resolution 62 which sought congressional guidance 
     regarding the results of the 1993 status plebiscite. 
     Recently, the Chairman of the relevant committees and 
     subcommittees that deal with Puerto Rico's political status 
     responded to this important resolution. Although we agree 
     with many portions of the letter, we would like to outline 
     some of our views on the issue as well.
       We believe that the definition of Commonwealth on the 1993 
     plebiscite ballot was difficult given Constitutional, and 
     current fiscal and political limitations. Through numerous 
     Supreme Court and other Federal Court decisions, it is clear 
     that Puerto Rico remains an unincorporated territory and is 
     subject to the authority of Congress under the territorial 
     clause. Another aspect of this definition called for the 
     granting of additional tax breaks to Section 936 companies 
     and an increase in federal benefits in order to achieve 
     parity with all the states without having to pay federal 
     taxes. It is important that any judgment on the future of 
     Puerto Rico be based on sound options that reflect the 
     current budgetary context in the United States. This context 
     should also reflect the bi-partisan agreement being worked on 
     by Congress which reduces Section 936 benefits.
       Since Congress has neither approved nor resolved the 1993 
     plebiscite results, we are in favor of legislation that will 
     establish a future process of self-determination for the 
     people of Puerto Rico. This legislation should include a 
     requirement for status plebiscites to take place within a 
     certain number of years and define various status options in 
     a realistic manner.
       In two years, Puerto Rico will celebrate its 100th year as 
     part of the United States. Congress has both a political and 
     moral responsibility to ensure that the 3.5 million Americans 
     living in Puerto Rico have a right to express their views on 
     the important issue of political status on a regular basis.
       We hope this additional response to Concurrent Resolution 
     62 is helpful.
           Sincerely,
     Robert Torricelli,
     Bill Richardson,
     Lee Hamilton,
     Dale Kildee,
                                                                    ____

                                    Congress of the United States,


                                     House of Representatives,

                                    Washington, DC, July 18, 1996.
     Hon. Richard Gephardt,
     Minority Leader, the Capitol, Washington, DC.
       Dear Minority Leader Gephardt: Given the short time before 
     the adjournment of the 104th Congress, we are eagerly trying 
     to secure floor time for a bill that is of great importance 
     to us, H.R. 3024, the United States-Puerto Rico Political 
     Status Act. Unfortunately, we understand that certain 
     Representatives have approached you in recent days in hopes 
     of derailing this legislative effort.
       After nearly 100 years as a territory of the United States, 
     Puerto Rico must be provided with the opportunity to 
     determine its future. While some would have you believe that 
     there is no need for a self-determination process, it must be 
     clear that the existing ``Commonwealth'' structure was never 
     meant to be a permanent solution for Puerto Rico, 
     particularly since the 3.8 million U.S. citizens in Puerto 
     Rico are disenfranchised under the current arrangement. Just 
     as the United Nations has called for an end to colonialism by 
     the year 2000, the United States must lead by example by 
     putting an end to the disenfranchisement of its own citizens 
     and allowing Puerto Rico to resolve, once and for all, its 
     status dilemma.
       As you know, H.R. 3024 establishes a process whereby the 
     U.S. citizens of Puerto Rico would be allowed to vote on 
     self-determination by the end of 1998. On the first ballot, 
     the voters would choose to either change their status or 
     maintain the status quo. Then, assuming the majority votes to 
     change their status, they would then again vote to choose 
     between a path toward separation (independence or free 
     association) or a path

[[Page S9559]]

     toward integration (statehood). In each instance, the results 
     would be definitive and would produce a majority.
       With over sixty cosponsors in the House, H.R. 3024 has 
     strong bipartisan support. During the full Resources 
     Committee markup last month, the bill was reported 
     unanimously after adopting only minor perfecting amendments. 
     It is now before the Rules Committee and we are hopeful that 
     it will soon proceed to the House floor. Opponents of H.R. 
     3024, however, are using a number of tactics to try to delay 
     this process and confuse the issue.
       Some have tried to revive discussions over the language and 
     citizenship provisions of the bill, even though these issues 
     were dealt with in the reported text of H.R. 3024. Others 
     claim that the ballot process is unfairly skewed toward one 
     option or another, hoping to revert back to the three-way 
     ballot in 1993 which yielded no clear majority. More than 
     just attempts to amend the legislation, these efforts are 
     aimed at delaying its consideration or tainting its language 
     so that it will never see the light of day this year on the 
     House floor.
       All told, these efforts should not obscure the original 
     intent of the legislation: to provide Puerto Rico with a fair 
     process of self-determination for the first time in the 
     Island's history. Your support for this effort is needed and 
     would help Congress give the U.S. citizens of Puerto Rico the 
     voice and participation in the democratic process which they 
     are entitled to and deserve.
       Thank you for your interest in the affairs of Puerto Rico. 
     If you would like to discuss this matter further, please do 
     not hesitate to contact us.
           Sincerely,
         Carlos A. Romero-Barcelo, Robert A. Underwood, Nick 
           Rahall, Sam Farr, Esteban E. Torres, Bill Richardson, 
           Patrick J. Kennedy, Jose E. Serrano, Dale E. Kildee, 
           Pat Williams, Neil Abercrombie.

  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I am proud to be an original cosponsor of 
the legislation introduced by my colleague from Idaho, Senator Craig, 
with whom I have worked closely on many issues over the years.
  This important bill establishes a process whereby the people of 
Puerto Rico can vote for a retention or a change of their current 
Commonwealth status, a status preserved as a result of the November 14, 
1993 plebiscite. If Puerto Ricans choose change, they can select a path 
toward separation--independence or free association--or a path toward 
incorporation--statehood. In short, the bill establishes an orderly 
path toward true self-determination in the true democratic spirit of 
our Nation.
  One might ask why such legislation is necessary given that less than 
3 years ago, a plurality of U.S. citizens in Puerto Rico chose the 
Commonwealth option on the November 14 ballot. This option--drafted by 
the Commonwealth party itself, under the agreed-upon terms of the 
plebiscite--presented the people of Puerto Rico with utterly inflated 
and unrealistic expectations regarding the island's future relationship 
with the United States. In effect, the Commonwealth option guaranteed 
United States citizens of Puerto Rico many of the benefits of statehood 
and many of the benefits of separation without any of the accompanying 
responsibilities of either. Given these pie-in-the-sky promises, it is 
no wonder that a plurality of Puerto Ricans--though, important, not a 
majority--chose the Commonwealth option. However, the future of Puerto 
Rico's relationship with the United States remains unclear, and 
congressional action providing Puerto Ricans with the power to 
determine their fate through a fair and orderly process is long 
overdue.
  It is time that Congress' silence on the results of the November 14, 
1993 Puerto Rican plebiscite end, and that we afford United States 
citizens in Puerto Rico realistic and just options for determining 
Puerto Rico's future relationship with the United States of America. 
The Puerto Rican Government has asked that we do as much. On December 
14, 1994, the legislature of Puerto Rico adopted Concurrent Resolution 
62 which formally requested congressional guidance regarding the 
results of the 1993 status plebiscite. This legislation provides this 
guidance.
  The process established by this legislation would be unprecedented 
and long overdue, affording Puerto Ricans for the first time a fair 
process of self-determination that is consistent with everything 
America stands for. We owe Puerto Rico--which in 2 years will have been 
part of the United States for 100 years--at least this much.
  For decades, we have treated the right to self-determination as a 
cornerstone of our foreign policy. It is time that we practice what we 
preach.
                                 ______