[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 20 (Wednesday, March 4, 1998)]
[House]
[Pages H763-H772]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 856, UNITED STATES-PUERTO RICO
POLITICAL STATUS ACT
Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I
call up House Resolution 376 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 376
Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this
resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 1(b) of rule
XXIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the
Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of
the bill (H.R. 856) to provide a process leading to full
self-government for Puerto Rico. The first reading of the
bill shall be dispensed with. General debate shall be
confined to the bill and shall not exceed ninety minutes
equally divided and controlled by Representative Young of
Alaska, Representative Miller of California, Representative
Solomon of New York, and Representative Gutierrez of Illinois
or their designees. After general debate the bill shall be
considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. In lieu
of the amendment recommended by the Committee on Resources
now printed in the bill, it shall be in order to consider as
an original bill for the purpose of amendment under the five-
minute rule the amendment in the nature of a substitute
printed in the Congressional Record and numbered 1 pursuant
to clause 6 of rule XXIII. That amendment in the nature of a
substitute shall be considered as read. Points of order
against that amendment in the nature of a substitute for
failure to comply with clause 5(a) or rule XXI are waived.
Sec. 2. (a) Before consideration of any other amendment, it
shall be in order to consider the amendment printed in the
Congressional Record and numbered 3 pursuant to clause 6 of
rule XXIII. Consideration of that amendment shall be preceded
by an additional period of general debate, which shall be
confined to the subject of that amendment and shall not
exceed one hour equally divided and controlled by
Representative Solomon of New York and a Member opposed to
that amendment.
(b) Consideration of the amendment printed in the
Congressional Record and numbered 2 pursuant to clause 6 of
rule XXIII shall be preceded by an additional period of
general debate, which shall be confined to the subject of
that amendment and shall not exceed thirty minutes equally
divided and controlled by Representative Serrano of New York
and a Member opposed to that amendment.
(c) Amendments specified in subsections (a) and (b) of this
resolution shall be considered as read and shall not be
subject to a demand for division of the question in the House
or in the Committee of the Whole. Consideration of those
amendments, and all amendments thereto, shall not exceed one
hour.
[[Page H764]]
Sec. 3. During consideration of the bill for amendment, the
Chairman of the Committee of the Whole may accord priority in
recognition on the basis of whether the Member offering an
amendment has caused it to be printed in the portion of the
Congressional Record designated for that purpose in clause 6
of rule XXIII. Amendments so printed shall be considered as
read. The Chairman of the Committee of the Whole may: (1)
postpone until a time during further consideration in the
Committee of the Whole a request for a recorded vote on any
amendment; and (2) reduce to five minutes the minimum time
for electronic voting on any postponed question that follows
another electronic vote without intervening business,
provided that the minimum time for electronic voting on the
first in any series of questions shall be fifteen minutes. At
the conclusion of consideration of the bill for amendment the
Committee shall rise and report the bill to the House with
such amendments as may have been adopted. Any Member may
demand a separate vote in the House on any amendment adopted
in the Committee of the Whole to the bill or to the amendment
in the nature of a substitute made in order as original text.
The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the
bill and amendments thereto to final passage without
intervening motion except one motion to recommit with or
without instructions.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from New York (Mr. Solomon) is
recognized for 1 hour.
Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield the
customary 30 minutes to my good friend, the gentleman from
Massachusetts (Mr. Moakley), pending which I yield myself such time as
I may consume. During consideration of the resolution, all time yielded
is for debate purposes only.
Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 376 is an open rule providing for
consideration of H.R. 856, which is the the United States-Puerto Rico
Political Status Act. The rule provides 90 minutes of general debate,
equally divided and controlled by the gentleman from Alaska (Mr.
Young), the gentleman from California (Mr. Miller), myself, the
gentleman from New York (Mr. Solomon), and the gentleman from Illinois
(Mr. Gutierrez), or their designees.
The rule makes in order the amendment in the nature of a substitute
offered by the gentleman from Alaska (Chairman Young) and printed in
the Congressional Record and numbered 1, which shall be considered as
read.
The rule also waives clause 5(a) of rule XXI prohibiting
appropriations in a legislative bill against the amendment in the
nature of a substitute. The Committee on Rules understands this waiver
to be technical in nature, and further understands that the Committee
on Appropriations has no objection to it.
Mr. Speaker, this is an open rule. However, the Committee on Rules
decided to single out two significant policy amendments for particular
treatment for debate on this floor. The committee determined that these
amendments should receive a specified debate time and a time certain to
close debate on those amendments and any amendments thereto.
These two amendments are the Solomon amendment, which clarifies the
official role of English in government activities, and the Serrano
amendment, which relates to eligibility of mainland U.S. citizens of
Puerto Rican descent to vote in a referendum.
After general debate on the bill, there will be an additional period
of general debate on the Solomon amendment, and then 1 hour of
consideration of the amendment.
Mr. Speaker, the rule also provides that the amendment of the
gentleman from New York (Mr. Serrano) will have 30 minutes of
additional general debate time, similar to the Solomon amendment, and 1
hour of consideration for the amendment process; in other words,
amendments offered to that amendment.
The rule further provides that both the Solomon amendment and the
Serrano amendment shall be considered as read and shall not be subject
to a demand for a division of the question in the House or in the
Committee of the Whole, but there will be second degree amendments
allowed to it, similar to an open rule process.
Mr. Speaker, the rule also provides that the Chair is authorized to
accord priority in recognition to Members who have preprinted their
amendments in the Congressional Record that appeared today.
The rule also allows for the Chairman of the Committee of the Whole
to postpone votes during consideration of the bill and to reduce voting
time to 5 minutes on a postponed question if the vote follows a 15-
minute vote.
Finally, the rule provides for one motion to recommit, with or
without instructions.
Mr. Speaker, as the Members are well aware, this is an extremely
controversial issue. It is controversial among the American people, and
it is certainly controversial among the people that reside on the
islands of Puerto Rico. Members of the House are divided on this issue,
and not necessarily by party.
However, despite our differences over the substance of the
legislation, many of us have agreed that the fairest way to consider
this very controversial and difficult issue is under an open rule, and
I commend Chairman Young for his cooperation in bringing this matter to
the floor under these considerations today.
{time} 1045
The gentleman is an outstanding Member of this body, and even though
he and I will tangle somewhat on the floor, we will remain good friends
when we leave here. He and I very rarely ever differ. He and I have
fought hundreds of battles on this floor in the last 20 years on the
issue of property rights, individual property rights of individual
Americans, and we will continue to do that as long as the two of us are
left standing on this floor.
Mr. Speaker, I admonished Members who appeared before the committee
yesterday to comport themselves in a dignified fashion and to exercise
restraint in determining which amendments to offer and how many would
be offered. I am pleased to note that the Members who appeared
yesterday before the Committee on Rules agreed to offer a finite and
limited number of amendments. That means that those in opposition to
the bill will probably offer 10 or 12 amendments at the very most. Then
there are several amendments by those that might be supportive of the
bill itself, that might have some perfecting amendments as well. But
other than that, we would expect that this debate would continue
through the day, but under no circumstances would carry over into
tomorrow.
So we would hope that Members would come here, that they would be
dignified in their remarks, and that we would speak to the issues and
not get into a lot of superfluous conversation. I would urge support of
the rule.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
(Mr. MOAKLEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New York (Mr.
Solomon), my very dear friend, for yielding me the customary half-hour.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this open rule, and I commend my
Chairman for allowing the rule to come to the floor in this position.
Mr. Speaker, the issue of self-determination for the people of Puerto
Rico has been an issue for many, many decades. This year marks the
100th anniversary of Puerto Rico's being part of the United States.
Eighty-three years ago, Mr. Speaker, in the midst of World War I,
Congress extended American citizenship to the residents of Puerto Rico
with all of its rights and responsibilities, including being subject to
the military draft. Since then, over 200,000 Puerto Ricans have served
in this country's various military endeavors. Puerto Ricans presently
abide by all American laws passed by this Congress. They are also
required to serve on juries. They pledge their allegiance to the flag
of the United States.
This bill we consider today, Mr. Speaker, is a bill giving 3.8
million people of Puerto Rico their long-overdue right to self-
determination. Contrary to what some people say, this is not a
statehood bill. It simply allows the people of Puerto Rico to decide
for themselves what kind of relationship they will have with the United
States rather than having it forced upon them.
Under this bill, Puerto Rico has several options. They can be
integrated into the Union, as has Hawaii, or they can remain a separate
Nation as the
[[Page H765]]
Philippines did. And since 80 percent of the voters of Puerto Rico go
to the polls, we can be assured that their decision will represent a
very strong majority.
Once they make that decision, no matter what that decision may be, I
believe we should support them. And I am not the only one who feels
that way.
Mr. Speaker, eight years ago I was an original cosponsor of the
legislation which passed the House to allow Puerto Ricans to vote on
the status of their relationship with this country. Unfortunately, Mr.
Speaker, that bill died in the Senate, but it did have the support of
the majority of this House.
Self-determination also had the support of one of America's most
popular Presidents. I have here, Mr. Speaker, a statement by the idol
of the gentleman from New York (Mr. Solomon), President Reagan. He
supported Puerto Rican self-determination in a statement dated January
12, 1982, which I would like to put in the Record.
In his statement, President Reagan says: ``Puerto Ricans have fought
beside us for decades and have worked beside us for generations. We
recognize the right of the Puerto Rican people to self-determination.
President Reagan also said that he believed that statehood would
benefit both the people of Puerto Rico and their fellow American
citizens in the States.''
President Clinton supports the legislation, as did every Republican
President since Dwight Eisenhower. Mr. Speaker, it is a good idea whose
time is long overdue. After 83 years of American citizenship, this
country owes these people the right to make their own decision. We owe
them self-determination. They are American citizens, Mr. Speaker, and
they should be treated as such.
Unfortunately, in addition to Puerto Rican self-determination, which
is a very popular idea, there is another issue which is being linked to
the bill, the issue of whether the United States will pick an official
government language. Although English is certainly the de facto
language of our country, the Framers of our Constitution deliberately
refused to establish a national religion or a national language. People
come from all over the world to live here, and are not linked to one
another by common language. They are linked to one another, Mr.
Speaker, because of their love of freedom, their love of liberty.
President Reagan said, and I would like the gentleman from New York,
my dear friend, the former Marine to hear this, Mr. Reagan said, and I
quote, ``In statehood, the language and culture of the island, rich in
history, would be respected, for in the United States the cultures of
the world live together with pride.''
In fact, when the Constitution was drafted, there were nearly as many
people speaking German in this country as there were speaking English.
English is already the primary language used in business, government,
cultural affairs in the United States. But if we require English in all
governmental functions, people who call 911 and cannot speak fluent
English might be in a lot of trouble.
So rather than mandating English and prohibiting technicians from
doing their jobs in life-threatening situations involving non-English
speakers, I suggest we recognize the primary role of English in our
national affairs, but allow the use of languages in other governmental
functions when it is appropriate.
I think what I am trying to say, Mr. Speaker, is that people should
be allowed to speak whatever language gets the job done at 911, in
police departments, and with emergency and medical technicians. In
doing so we would not only be respecting the wishes of our Founding
Fathers but also probably saving many lives in the process.
So I urge my colleagues to support this rule, and I would like to
just read one other statement which is attributed to Ronald Reagan. It
appeared in Roll Call Thursday, February 26. And I quote again from
Ronald Reagan who said this January 12, 1982. He said ``In statehood,
the language and the culture of the island, rich in history and in
tradition, would be respected, for in the United States, the cultures
of the world live together with pride.''
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this rule, to support
the bill, and to defeat the English-only amendment.
Mr. Speaker, I include the following for the Record:
[The White House, Office of the Press Secretary, Jan. 12, 1982]
Statement by the President
When I announced my candidacy for this office more than two
years ago, I pledged to support statehood for the
Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, should the people of that island
choose it in a free and democratic election. Today I reaffirm
that support, still confident in my belief that statehood
would benefit both the people of Puerto Rico and their fellow
American citizens in the 50 states.
While I believe the Congress and the people of this country
would welcome Puerto Rican statehood, this Administration
will accept whatever choice is made by a majority of the
island's population.
No nation, no organization nor individual would mistake our
intent in this. The status of Puerto Rico is an issue to be
settled by the peoples of Puerto Rico and the United States.
There must be no interference in the democratic process.
Puerto Ricans have borne the responsibilities of U.S.
citizenship with honor and courage for more than 64 years.
They have fought beside us for decades and have worked beside
us for generations. Puerto Rico is playing an important roll
in the development of the Caribbean Basin Initiative and its
strong tradition of democracy provides leadership and
stability in that region. In statehood, the language and
culture of the island--rich in history and tradition--would
be respected, for in the United States the cultures of the
world live together with pride.
We recognize the right of the Puerto Rican people to self-
determination. If they choose statehood, we will work
together to devise a union of promises and opportunity in our
Federal union of sovereign states.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume,
just to respond to the gentleman from Boston, Massachusetts (Mr.
Moakley) my very, very close friend.
Mr. Speaker, I would say, yes, I did serve in the United States
Marine Corps back during the Korean War. I did not have the privilege
of serving in combat, but I served with a great many Puerto Rican
citizens of the United States and to this day they are some of the
greatest friends that I have.
Unfortunately, they are divided on this issue just as the rest of the
Puerto Rican people are, those that are still alive, some of which I
talked to just in the last 48 hours. It breaks down where one-third of
them are for statehood, one-third of them are for commonwealth, and
surprisingly, one-third of them are for independence. I did not think
that would be that high, but that is the issue.
Mr. Speaker, I take a little umbrage at the gentleman, my good
friend, pointing to the ads that appeared in Roll Call, and not just in
Roll Call but in the Washington Times and all kinds of papers. Millions
of dollars have been spent by lobbyists trying to force a particular
issue on this Congress, and I do not think the Congress is going to
listen to that today because they are a pretty astute body.
But concerning my hero Ronald Reagan and, yes, he is my hero and he
will forever be, even in spite of his physical condition today. It is
so sad. But President Reagan, yes, he did. He supports self-
determination, but he does not support this bill or its deliberately
skewed language favoring statehood.
Mr. Speaker, let me read this letter that I just received dated
February 27, and it is from the Ronald Reagan Foundation. It says,
``Dear Congressman Solomon, thank you for your request to clarify
President Reagan's participation in the current debate on Puerto Rican
statehood. As I am sure you understand, President Reagan is no longer
participating in campaigns of any kind.'' Despite the unauthorized use
of his name, appearing in that Roll Call, ``photograph and quotes in a
recent ad in the Washington Times and Roll Call, he is not now nor will
he ever be taking any position on H.R. 856, the issue of statehood for
Puerto Rico, or self-determination for the Puerto Rican people.'' And
it goes on to say, ``I hope this clarifies that issue.''
Mr. Speaker, I was not going to get into a debate on this during the
rule because I was hopeful that we could move on to the general debate
time itself so that we would not be interrupted by other votes. But
there are many things that have held this country together over the
last 200 years. Many of them, as I quoted before, ``e pluribus unum''
means out of many
[[Page H766]]
one. It means patriotism, it means pride, it means volunteerism. But
above all it means that we speak a common language in this country.
We are a melting pot of the entire world, of every ethnic background
in the entire world, and we are proud of that. But had we let these
various languages become a part of our American culture, this democracy
would not be here today. And if my colleagues do not believe it, come
up to my congressional district which borders on Canada, and see how we
are faced with a situation in Quebec that literally tears that country
asunder. We just cannot allow that to happen. And that is why at the
appropriate time I will be offering an amendment that will clarify the
English-first language in this country.
Having said all of that, I appreciate the remarks of the gentleman
from Massachusetts (Mr. Moakley).
Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman
from Alaska (Mr. Young), one of the men I respect most in this body,
chairman of the Committee on Resources, and the single representative
from the great State of Alaska.
(Mr. YOUNG of Alaska asked and was given permission to revise and
extend his remarks.)
Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the rule for
consideration of the United States-Puerto Rico Political Status Act,
H.R. 856.
The proposed open rule is consistent with the process which is
followed by the Committee on Resources in the development of this bill
to resolve the United States political status problem with Puerto Rico.
This was an effort to reach out and include as many sectors as
possible in a fair manner in which the facts were openly aired and
examined without respect to special interests or local political
considerations.
I can confirm that as the chairman of the House committee of
jurisdiction for territorial affairs, the committee followed and
completed every legislative step in the development of this initiative
during the past 4 years from 1995 to the present time.
Five extensive hearings with the broadest participation possible were
held in Washington and Puerto Rico. Testimony was heard from
individuals with many different views on the future relationship of
Puerto Rico and the United States. Special attention was given to allow
the three principal parties in Puerto Rico, each representing the
status of commonwealth, independence, or statehood, to present their
preferred definition with their respective status options.
Subsequent deliberations by Members of Congress were complete and
exhaustive. All the issues have been raised and debated.
Once Members examined the complexity of the problems, they realized
that this bill is the most viable way to address the problems facing
the United States due to failure to permanently resolve Puerto Rico's
status.
The bill's self-determination process in H.R. 856 is a carefully
crafted three-stage process, a three-stage process leading to full
self-government for Puerto Rico as a separate sovereign nation or a
State of the Union if the majority of the people are ready to change
the current form of local self-government as the Commonwealth of Puerto
Rico.
{time} 1100
Congress and the Americans of Puerto Rico will be required to vote in
each of the three stages of the bill. I want to stress that. Congress
and the Americans of Puerto Rico will be required to vote in each of
the three stages of the bill, an initial referendum, a 10-year
transition plan, and the final implementation act. If there is no
majority for change, then the status quo continues and United States
citizens of Puerto Rico are consulted again by referendum at least once
every 10 years.
The Committee on Resources overwhelmingly approved and reported it
twice, first in the 104th Congress and now in the 105th Congress. I
firmly believe it is appropriate and necessary for the full House to
now consider the United States-Puerto Rico Political Status Act, H.R.
856.
In carrying out congressional responsibilities under the Constitution
for territories, Congress will be able to directly respond to the
request of the Legislature of Puerto Rico to the 105th Congress to
define the status choices and authorize a process to resolve Puerto
Rico's political status dilemma. I support this rule, and I will
discuss in debate the merits of all amendments that come before us.
I want my colleagues to understand this is nothing new. This is a
project I worked on, my committee has worked on, the people of Puerto
Rico have worked on for the last 4 years. It is time to act. It is time
for this Congress, this House, to pass this legislation for America,
for the people of Puerto Rico. This rule is a good rule, and I urge
passage of the rule but, more than that, the defeat of some amendments
and final passage of this legislation, long overdue for the people of
Puerto Rico.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Maybe I did not make myself clear. I am not insinuating in any way that
former President Ronald Reagan is for this bill. All I want to do was
to read a statement he put out in a press release. Once a President
speaks, use of that language is never unauthorized because that is his
statement. It is history. Once again, he said, in statehood, the
language and culture of the island, rich in history, rich in tradition,
would be respected, for in the United States the cultures of the world
live together with pride. Ronald Reagan.
The reason I wanted to make it so plain is because I know my dear
friend, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Solomon), idolizes President
Reagan, and rightly so. I just wanted to be sure he knew what the
President's thoughts were when he did address the Puerto Rican
situation.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr.
Serrano).
(Mr. SERRANO asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this rule and
in strong support of the bill which we are dealing with today. This is
indeed a historic moment because, make no mistake about it, this is the
first time that a rule has come on this floor accompanying a bill of
this nature that will, in my opinion, begin a process to end what I and
many other people consider, and all should consider, the present
colonial status of Puerto Rico.
In order to do this, we have to put forth a process. This rule puts
forth a process for the debate, and the bill puts forth the process for
ending the colonial status. We have to immediately attack that which is
being said either with a lack of information or viciously to defeat the
bill, which is that this bill leads Puerto Rico towards statehood. How
can it do that if this Congress is not committing itself at this point
to any of the three options?
What this Congress is saying is, we will allow you in consultation
with us to take a vote, and then the results of that vote will become
our consideration here on the House floor. Some may be afraid that the
vote would come out against the option they favor. That is democracy.
Some may be afraid that the option somebody favors will never be dealt
with. We can only find out. But I assure my colleagues that nothing
will happen unless we approve this rule and approve this bill. In fact,
I often tell people, I have a 31-year-old daughter and a 4-year-old
granddaughter. I suspect that if this bill fails today, my
grandchildren, as adults, will still be discussing the colonial status
of Puerto Rico.
As we get close to the year 2000, and once in a while we listen to
the U.N., the U.N. has suggested that all countries unload their
territories and colonies before 2000. The greatest democracy on Earth
still holds close to 4 million people in that kind of a situation. I do
not care if statehood wins. I do not care if independence wins. I do
care every day when I get up and I realize that the children of Puerto
Rico are all members of a colony. It is good for the U.S. Government to
change this. It is good for the Puerto Rican people to change it.
So I congratulate the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young) for bringing
this bill, and I congratulate my colleague the gentleman from New York
(Mr. Solomon) for this rule. I will not agree with the gentleman from
New York (Mr. Solomon) on everything today, and I will not agree on
many things during the session with the gentleman from Alaska (Mr.
Young), but we agree on this beyond anything else, and that is why I
was proud to add my name as a co-prime sponsor early on.
[[Page H767]]
I do not move back from that commitment. I support the Young bill
with every bit of strength in this body, because after 100 years with
the U.S. and 405 years with Spain, it is time that Puerto Rico knew
whether it can join the community of nations as an independent Nation
or gain sovereignty by joining the Union.
Either one is correct. The present is not. I support the rule. Vote
for it. And I will support the bill strongly today. I am sure that if I
am given time, you will hear from me a few times during the day today.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from
Puerto Rico (Mr. Romero-Barcelo).
(Mr. ROMERO-BARCELO asked and was given permission to revise and
extend his remarks.)
Mr. ROMERO-BARCELO. Mr. Speaker, I rise to support the rule for this
H.R. 856. Today this House will consider the United States-Puerto Rico
Political Status Act. For the people I represent, the 3,800,000 United
States citizens living in Puerto Rico, the enactment of this
legislation would be the single most important political development in
100 years. Yet many of my colleagues may wonder why this legislation is
necessary and why they or their constituents should care about Puerto
Rico.
They should care because, geography aside, no citizen and no
constituency in this Nation is an island. They should care because the
rights and privileges denied to one group of citizens threaten the
rights and privileges enjoyed by the entire body politic. They should
care because as individuals and as a Nation, to paraphrase the English
author C.S. Lewis, we are defined by the choices we make.
Incrementally, in seemingly insignificant small steps, we make
decisions, and those decisions define us. Our choices tell us who we
are.
The fundamental choice before this House today is this: Do we cherish
the principles of our democracy enough to put an end to 100 years of
colonialism and extend the right of full self-determination to the U.S.
citizens of Puerto Rico? A century ago when the victorious United
States signed the Treaty of Paris ending the Spanish-American War, it
acquired Puerto Rico as a possession. Article 9 of the treaty stated
that the civil rights and political status of the native inhabitants of
the territories hereby ceded to the United States shall be determined
by the Congress. Subsequent Supreme Court decisions have ruled that
Puerto Rico's status is that of an incorporated territory subject to
the plenary authority of Congress under the territorial clause of the
Constitution.
Exercising its powers, Congress granted citizenship to the residents
of Puerto Rico by statute in 1917. And in 1950, with the passage of the
Puerto Rico Federal Relations Act, Congress authorized the people of
Puerto Rico to draw up a Constitution and organize a local government.
Let us be clear about what the Puerto Rico Federal Relations Act did
and did not do. After nearly a half century of obfuscation, some
partisans would have us believe that Puerto Rico's current commonwealth
status is the product of a bilateral pact between Puerto Rico and the
United States and that the island is really a free associated State or
an associated Republic. But the unvarnished truth is that Puerto Rico's
colonial status remains unchanged. As a territory, we are self-governed
in local matters not covered by Federal laws, but we have never
exercised self-determination.
The Congressional record is clear. The intent of the Puerto Rico
Federal Relations Act was to create a provisional government until the
issue of status was resolved, and if anything was decided in the 1993
plebiscite, it is that for the first time since the United States
arrived on our shores, Puerto Rico is being ruled by Congress under an
agreement that does not have the support of the majority of the people
of Puerto Rico. We are being governed without the consent of the
governed.
Like Dorothy in the Land of Oz, we could sit here, click our heels
three times, and wish the problem would disappear. Where would it go,
to Kansas? But it will not. The fact is that only Congress has the
authority to resolve this dilemma, and only Congress can create an
environment in which Puerto Ricans can legitimately address this issue.
This is precisely what the United States-Puerto Rico Political Status
Act is designed to do. This legislation does not endorse one political
choice over another. It is status neutral. All it seeks to do is create
constitutionally sound and congressionally approved definitions of
status options to be considered by the people of Puerto Rico.
The bill proposes a timetable for referendums on status, and it makes
provisions, should they prove necessary, for a smooth transition to and
for the implementation of a new political status. These measures are
critical if the status process is to go forward and if self-
determination by the people of Puerto Rico is to have any meaning of
legitimacy. The people of Puerto Rico, to borrow words of Israel's
Golda Meir from 1946, only want that which is given naturally to all
peoples of the world, to be masters of our fate. That for which the
Puerto Ricans fought side by side with our fellow citizens in the
mainland, defending other countries on foreign shores, to stand for the
right of people's self-determination, is being denied to 3.8 million
U.S. citizens.
Some of my colleagues in this House whose districts include large
Puerto Rican communities would deny us this. But unlike my
constituents, these expatriate Puerto Ricans enjoy voting
representation in Congress and the right to vote in Presidential
elections, and although the economic, social and political affairs of
the residents of Puerto Rico are in great measure controlled by the
government in which we have little to say, they would still deny the
right to vote and the right to voting representation by opposing this
bill.
All of my colleagues here today have the privilege of voting yes or
no on the United States-Puerto Rico Political Status Act. Yet I am the
sole Representative of this House for 3.8 million U.S. citizens in
Puerto Rico. I cannot vote. This is the defining legislation for my
constituents, and I cannot vote. This legislation would end 100 years
of Puerto Rico's colonial relationship with the Nation, yet I cannot
vote.
I ask you, do you cherish the principles of our democracy enough to
dismantle 100 years of colonialism and extend the right of full self-
determination to the U.S. citizens of Puerto Rico? I hope you do, for
our sake and for the Nation's sake.
Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume
just to respond somewhat to the last several speakers.
Just responding to the statement of the gentleman from Massachusetts
(Mr. Moakley) about the position of President Ronald Reagan on this
bill, I did not read the last sentence in this letter from his Chief of
Staff Joanne Drake. It says, I hope this clears up any
misunderstandings that these ads may have caused. These ads did not
receive the authorization of Ronald Reagan to run.
{time} 1115
Now, let me also state for the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr.
Moakley) that I had another idol, too, that I idolized very much, and
he used to sit in that chair up there. He was a good friend of the
gentleman's, and his name was Tip O'Neill. He was one pretty tough
hombre, but he was pretty fair to us in the minority and that is why I
also respected him a great deal
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. SOLOMON. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I would point out to the gentleman that he
just used a non-English word. Is the gentleman sure he wants to put
that in the Record, ``hombre''?
Mr. SOLOMON. Well, Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, let me also
respond a little bit on the colonialism issue by my very, very good
friend, the gentleman from Puerto Rico (Mr. Romero-Barcelo). And I was
willing to even yield him an additional minute if he had needed it. But
it really hurts a lot of our feelings on both sides of the aisle to
talk about this issue of colonialism because, my colleagues, there is
no colonialism.
If the people of Puerto Rico overwhelmingly want statehood in this
country, I will be the first to help lead the fight to bring them in,
just as we did for the Northern Marianas, for the Marshall Islands, for
Palau and for Micronesia. When the issues came up, we
[[Page H768]]
pushed for them to make a decision one way or the other, but we did not
try to jam one particular idea on them.
And, consequently, the Marshall Islands and Palau and Micronesia
became sovereign Nations under a free association with the United
States whereby we do help them, they provide military bases to us, and
there is a very close relationship. But under no circumstances did we
try to keep them in a colonial position.
The Northern Marianas chose to stay as a trust to the United States
of America, but they chose it. We did not ask them to. So is that
colonialism? The answer is absolutely not. And the truth of the matter
is when the Puerto Rican people, when they overwhelmingly want
statehood, as did the people of Alaska and as did the people of Hawaii,
when the vote came in a plebiscite in Alaska, 83 percent of the people
wanted statehood. Eighty-three percent. When the people of Hawaii
wanted to come into this Nation of ours as the 49th State, they wanted
it by 94 percent.
Today, my good friend, the gentleman from Puerto Rico (Mr. Romero-
Barcelo), indicated that the majority of people in Puerto Rico want
statehood. That just is not true. In the last plebiscite of 1993, a
majority of the people wanted something other than statehood. And I
defy anyone to come down here and show me the facts any differently.
Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman
from the State of Mississippi (Mr. Wicker), a very, very important
Member of this body and a member of the Committee on Appropriations.
Mr. WICKER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time. I have the greatest respect for the gentleman from New York (Mr.
Solomon), the chairman of the Committee on Rules. He is put in a very
difficult position today. He has a tough job, Mr. Speaker. He is put in
the position of presenting a rule to this body on a bill that he is
vigorously, vigorously opposed to. So I have always respected him for
the hard job he has, but even more so today because of the position
that he has found himself in.
I also have the greatest respect for some of the proponents of this
legislation. The gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young), chairman of the
Committee on Resources, is a very effective leader in the House of
Representatives. He believes fervently in this issue, and he is
entitled to his beliefs and his opinions and has worked very
effectively for the legislation, and I have great respect for his
viewpoint.
However, I do oppose the bill and oppose the rule, Mr. Speaker,
because I do not believe the American people have enough facts about
this issue. I do not believe the American people are prepared to have
their national legislature move on a decision concerning Puerto Rican
statehood.
Now, there are people who have risen on the floor today and
previously, who said this is not a statehood bill, but I would submit
to my colleagues, Mr. Speaker, that this is very much a statehood bill.
And this is the reason--as the chairman has previously stated, Puerto
Rico has voted previously, very recently, on the issue of statehood,
and they rejected the idea of statehood; 1993, I believe, was the
latest plebiscite. This bill, if passed by the House of
Representatives, and if enacted by the Senate and signed by the
President, would say to the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, ``Vote again,
you did not get it right last time.'' If Puerto Rico votes for
statehood with 50 percent plus 1, a bare majority, then the Congress of
the United States will have to decide the issue to decide. We must vote
on a bill to decide whether to grant the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico
their statehood. However, in this referendum that is proposed by this
bill, if Puerto Ricans vote once again for commonwealth status, this
bill says, ``Wait a minute, you didn't get it right. We will let that
decision stand, but just for a little while. And after 10 years you
must vote again and you must vote again and you must vote again until
you get it right. And the right decision is statehood.''
So I would say that the bill is designed to eventually get a decision
by the Puerto Rican people for statehood. And because of that, I say
that enactment of the bill would inevitably put us down the path to
admitting Puerto Rico as the 51st State, and that is a serious, serious
decision. This is a major decision.
Adding a star to the United States flag is a major decision for
Americans to make. It is a serious matter which Congress and the
American people need to have a full understanding about. I do not think
the American people know this issue is out there. When I went home to
my constituents, they had no idea that Congress was about to vote on a
bill which will inevitably lead to statehood.
So for that reason, I oppose the rule. I respect the chairman for
bringing it forward, but I think that if we as a body want to take the
position today that, having had this debate this morning, this issue is
not ripe for a decision and we need to go back and have a further
national conversation about this, I think the correct decision is to
vote ``no'' on the rule. And that will be my vote, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume
to say that this is the first time I have heard that one of the major
problems with this bill is adding a star to the flag. Betsy Ross did
not have any trouble, and she did not even have the machinery we have
today.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr.
Gutierrez).
Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this bill but in
support of the rule. I would like to thank the gentleman from New York
(Mr. Solomon), the chairman of the Committee on Rules, and the
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Moakley), for having an open rule
today, because, finally, we are going to have some debate on this very
critical issue, debate that I must say that on numerous occasions I, as
a Member of this Congress, who represents over 150,000 Puerto Ricans in
my district, was not allowed to participate in that debate. I think
that was wrong. And now we want to have a debate here. So I want to
thank both of the gentlemen for that.
I only come to raise one issue right now. I have a very deep
preoccupation at this point, concern, and that is that all of these
proceedings are being conducted in English. All of these proceedings
are being conducted in English, and yet the people of Puerto Rico are
the ones who are going to have to interpret everything that this
Congress is doing. Many of them are not going to be able to understand
what is going on here today, Mr. Speaker.
I know some of my colleagues will smile and chuckle, but it really is
not anything funny. It is serious. People should understand, American
citizens should understand what it is this Congress is doing in terms
of their position.
Let me give my colleagues an example, gentlemen. If I walk into a
theater, a movie theater today anywhere in Puerto Rico, anywhere in
Puerto Rico, there are subtitles to everything said in English, in
every movie theater in Puerto Rico. Why? So that the people can grasp
what is going on in the movie. Many times I would laugh two seconds
ahead of the rest of the audience because by the time they read the
translation, I am an English native speaker, and I would understand
that.
So I bring that as an issue that even in movie theaters, even in
entertainment, and this is much more important than that. Look, if we
were in the House of Representatives in San Juan, Puerto Rico, all of
this would be going on in Spanish. So the legislators, when they
legislate in Puerto Rico, do it all in Spanish. If we were in the
Senate in Puerto Rico it would all be being conducted in Spanish so
that the people would understand the proceedings of the representatives
they elect.
If we were in a courtroom, the judge and the lawyers would all be
speaking in Spanish. If we were buying a piece of property today, we
would register that piece of property, not in English, but in Spanish.
So I would like to ask the chairman of the Rules Committee to see if
there is some way that we might not have some simultaneous broadcast of
this, a way in which this House of Representatives could translate so
that the people of Puerto Rico can be fully informed of the farce of
self-determination which is being perpetuated upon them with this bill
here today.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I have two remaining speakers. How much
time do I have, Mr. Speaker, and how
[[Page H769]]
much time does the gentleman from New York (Mr. Solomon) have?
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Pease). The gentleman from Massachusetts
(Mr. Moakley) has 9 minutes remaining, and the gentleman from New York
(Mr. Solomon) has 10 minutes remaining.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from
the Virgin Islands (Ms. Christian-Green).
Ms. CHRISTIAN-GREEN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from
Massachusetts for yielding me time.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the rule. This is an important day
for the people of Puerto Rico. As a representative of the Virgin
Islands, an unincorporated territory of the U.S., we fully support our
brothers and sisters and our neighbor to the northwest on their journey
to determine their relationship to the United States and achieve full
self-government.
As we do so, we fully recognize how much what is done here today will
likely influence and impact on the determination of our future
relationship as well.
For this reason, it is of the utmost importance to us that Congress
and the administration support the process of self-determination, which
it does. It is also important, however, that the process be one
generated, determined, and driven by the people of Puerto Rico, and
that the integrity of this process be maintained.
I am, therefore, Mr. Speaker, very sympathetic to the concerns of the
supporters of commonwealth for fairness in the presentation of the
option they represent and all other options of H.R. 856.
Mr. Speaker, I am concerned not only that the definition presently in
the bill does not reflect their input from the PDP, but also that H.R.
856 contains language which could lead one to conclude that the status
of commonwealth would be a less than desirable choice for the people of
Puerto Rico.
What may be viewed, Mr. Speaker, by supporters of statehood for
Puerto Rico and reflected in this bill as an insupportable,
undemocratic, and colonial status, could in fact be what my
constituents and those of other territorial delegates aspire to, given
the same opportunity.
While commonwealth may not be a status which provides complete and
full self-government today, its constitutional limitations should not
be trumpeted for the sake of expediency.
This Congress has a responsibility to ensure that any process it
creates for the people of Puerto Rico or any of the island territories
to exercise their right to self-determination must be balanced and
provide inclusion and fair treatment for all of the options available.
In this regard, I look forward to supporting an amendment in the
nature of a substitute which I understand will be offered later and
which was worked out by the authors of H.R. 856 and the gentleman from
California (Mr. Miller), the ranking member.
Mr. Speaker, the people of Puerto Rico have waited 100 years for the
opportunity to be given a legitimate chance to exercise the full right
to complete self-determination. While not perfect, the bill before us
today is a good beginning.
We have an opportunity to say to the people of Puerto Rico, as well
as the Virgin Islands and the other territories, that the Congress of
the United States respects us and will provide a fair and comprehensive
process for us to make known our choice on the further political status
of our islands whenever we are ready to do so.
The question of political status has for too long dominated the
political landscape in Puerto Rico. What we do here today will go a
long way towards finally resolving this issue once and for all. I urge
passage of the rule.
I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts for yielding me time.
{time} 1130
Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I submit for the Record a short explanation
of section 6 of H.R. 856, an analysis of that section of the expedited
procedures.
The document is as follows:
Analysis of Section 6 of H.R. 856
Requires the majority leaders in both the House of
Representatives and the Senate to introduce legislation to
implement the transition plan and implementation plan, as the
case may be, no later than 5 legislative days after the
President submits such legislation to Congress.
Requires such legislation to be immediately referred to the
committee or committees of jurisdiction and, if not reported
within 120 calendar days of session after its introduction,
automatically discharged and placed on the appropriate
legislative calendar.
Makes in order, as a highly privileged matter in the House
and a privileged matter in the Senate, a motion to proceed to
the consideration of the legislation qualified under these
expedited procedures by a Member favoring the legislation,
but not until: (1) the legislation has been on the calendar
for 14 legislative days; (2) the Member consults with the
presiding officer of the respective House as to scheduling;
and (3) after the third legislative day after the Member
gives notice to the respective House.
Waives all points of order against the motion and against
consideration of the motion and, if agreed to, requires the
House or the Senate, as the case may be, to proceed to
immediate consideration of the legislation without
intervening motion (except one motion to adjourn) or other
business.
Stipulates that in the House of Representatives, the
legislation would be: considered in the Committee of the
Whole; debatable for four hours equally divided between a
proponent and an opponent; and subject to a four hour
amendment process (excluding recorded votes and quorum
calls).
Requires, after the committee rises, that the previous
question be considered as ordered to final passage without
intervening motion, except one motion to recommit with or
without instructions.
Provides procedures in the House and Senate for the hook-up
of identical legislation passed by both Houses or, in the
event that one House receives a request for a conference from
the other House, to a make in order after three legislative
days following the receipt of such a request a motion by any
Member to disagree to the amendment of the other House and
agree to the conference.
Defines the term ``legislative day'' in the House and the
Senate to mean a day on which such House is in session.
Provides that the procedures of H.R. 856 are enacted as an
exercise of the constitutional rulemaking authority of the
House and the Senate with full recognition of the right of
either House to change its rules at anytime.
Short Explanation of Section 6 of H.R. 856
H.R. 856 requires a referendum to be held by December 31,
1998, on Puerto Rico's path to self-government either through
U.S. statehood or through sovereign independence or free
association. It requires the President to submit to the
Congress for approval legislation for: (1) a transition plan
of up to ten years which leads to full self-government for
Puerto Rico; and (2) a recommendation for the implementation
of such self-government consistent with Puerto Rico's
approval.
Section 6 of H.R. 856 specifies the expedited procedures in
the House of Representatives and the Senate for the
consideration of legislation introduced to implement a
transition plan and an implementation plan. Legislation
introduced in the 104th Congress (H.R. 3024) contained
procedures that the Rules Committee found to be unworkable
and inconsistent with the stated goals of the legislation.
Consequently, on September 18, 1996, the Committee reported
H.R. 3024 with a new Section 6, which more clearly reaches
the stated goal and rational behind including the expedited
procedures in the bill, as well as being consistent with the
Rules of the House governing normal procedure. Those same
provisions are contained in Section 6 of H.R. 856.
Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman
from California (Mr. Rohrabacher), an extremely outstanding Member of
this body.
Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, first let me thank the gentleman from
New York (Mr. Solomon) for the leadership that he is providing on this
issue. We have learned quite often that providing leadership on
controversial issues leads one to personal attacks. The gentleman from
New York (Mr. Solomon) has courageously stepped forward to provide
leadership on this issue that is not only important to the people of
Puerto Rico but also important to the people of the United States of
America as a whole.
Mr. Speaker, while I oppose H.R. 856 in its current form, I do
support an open rule for its consideration. The number one reason why
this bill should be opposed is because it sets up basically, as we have
heard in this debate so far, an unfair and undemocratic process that
will cause the largest group of Puerto Rican voters to boycott the
election, thus producing a phony majority for statehood.
Whenever any other territory has come into the Union, they have
petitioned for giving their residents the opportunity for an up or
down, yes or no vote. That is the normal process that is expected, but
it is not good enough for Puerto Rico. Why? Because the Puerto
[[Page H770]]
Rican Government is controlled by statehood supporters who know from
past balloting and current polling that they would lose a fair up and
down vote on statehood.
The statehood supporters have maneuvered the Committee on Resources
into constructing a ballot that will not reflect the will of the
people. This is because the definition of ``commonwealth'' in the bill
describes a colonial status that is unacceptable to commonwealthers,
leaving them no choice but to boycott the election since they oppose
all 3 options offered by the bill.
Back in Puerto Rico, statehood supporters are gloating about how the
definition being used in the bill will guarantee a victory for
statehood even though they know the majority of people do not support
statehood. They are right about the outcome of this bill, but they are
wrong to do this to the people of Puerto Rico.
The phony pro-statehood majority produced by this bill then sets in
motion a mandatory statehood vote in Congress next year and two more
votes in Puerto Rico. But even then, that far down the road to
statehood, H.R. 856 still does not provide the people of Puerto Rico an
up or down vote, a yes or no vote as to whether or not they want to
become a State.
Why are we so afraid to treat the people of Puerto Rico as we have
every other State that has entered the Union? This is what we have done
to every other people who wanted to join the Union. We have given them
a yes or no vote on statehood. Why are people now trying to maneuver it
so the people of Puerto Rico do not have this opportunity? Because they
know that the people of Puerto Rico, given the opportunity, will vote
``no'' on statehood.
Mr. Speaker, the fair way to handle this is the way we have always
done it, is to give the people a chance for an up or down vote. If this
is a first step toward statehood, if this is a first step toward
treating the Puerto Rican people as all other citizens of the United
States, they should be treated just as every other group trying to join
the United States were treated. H.R. 856 rejects the simple, fair way
that was good enough for everybody else and substitutes a skewed ballot
with foreordained results. We should not stand for this unfair,
undemocratic process. We should reject H.R. 856 while accepting the
rule.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from
New York (Ms. Velazquez).
Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from
New York (Ms. Velazquez).
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Pease). The gentlewoman from New York
(Ms. Velazquez) is recognized for 2 minutes.
Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to the bill.
I thank the gentleman from New York (Mr. Solomon) for providing the
only thing that is fair about this bill, that is, to provide a rule
that will provide a free and open debate. That is what this bill needs.
Mr. Speaker, this is not about self-determination. This is
legislation that has been drafted by the statehood supporters. They
were the ones who provided the definition for the commonwealth, indeed
denying access to the democratic process by not allowing 48 percent of
the people of Puerto Rico to participate in this debate. Forty-eight
percent of the people of Puerto Rico supported commonwealth 5 years ago
when the last plebiscite was held. But here we are presenting to the
House floor legislation that will favor the statehood for Puerto Rico.
Mr. Speaker, make no mistake. By voting on this legislation, we are
imposing statehood to the people of Puerto Rico. It is a shame that
today by providing in the commonwealth definition that citizenship is
statutory, it is shameful, it is a lack of respect to the people of
Puerto Rico, it is a lack of respect to the men and women who have
died, who have fought defending this country, and it is to say to even
the supporters of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, you cannot support
the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico because we will take the citizenship
away from you. This is not about self-determination. This is about
making Puerto Rico the 51st State of the Nation.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the
gentleman who represents the northern part of Puerto Rico, that is,
Providence, Rhode Island (Mr. Kennedy).
Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from
Massachusetts (Mr. Moakley) for yielding me the time. I appreciate the
chance to address the point of the gentlewoman from New York (Ms.
Velazquez) about this bill because it was addressed earlier by the
gentleman from Chicago, Illinois (Mr. Gutierrez) about the fact that
this process was not fair. It is ironic that this process was not fair
because it did not include the commonwealth definition. Yet in the bill
itself, the commonwealth has an opportunity to vote for the status quo
in this legislation.
But let me address the issue that she brought up. The reason why this
is so awful to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Velazquez) and people
of Puerto Rican descent is the same reason it is awful for people who
feel that we ought to have statehood for Puerto Rico. That is, without
statehood the people of Puerto Rico are put down.
Just as she said, without statehood, the people of Puerto Rico can
have their citizenship denied, because it will be up to this Congress
in its constitutional authority, given the fact that Puerto Rico is a
territory under the territorial clause of this United States
Constitution, that at any time this Congress can take away the
citizenship of the people of Puerto Rico. At any time the people of
Puerto Rico can have the Solomon language imposed on them.
The irony with the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Gutierrez) saying ``I
wish this was in Spanish'' is that the only way to guarantee the people
of Puerto Rico that they have a right to speak their own language is if
they get to become a State. Because if they are a State, they have the
rights under the 10th Amendment of the United States Constitution. They
reserve the power to decide what their local language will be, just as
every other State in this Union is able to do.
The irony is, unless Puerto Rico becomes a State, they will not be
able to decide what their language will be, they will not ever be able
to vote for the things that we vote on regularly that affect them. The
irony in this debate is that we keep hearing that this process is
unfair.
Let us understand. The gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Wicker) said
that we already had a referendum. Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, the
problem is it does not matter what Puerto Rico does. The whole purpose
of this debate is that the Congress has to give its approval so that
Puerto Rico can decide.
They cannot decide now. They never had the decision. Those
plebiscites were not sanctioned by the United States Congress. And
because they were not sanctioned by the United States Congress, they
have no meaning. Why? Because, once again, Puerto Rico is under the
territorial clause of the United States Constitution, meaning until
they become a State or until they become an independent nation, they
cannot choose for themselves.
That is why we are putting this bill forward, because we believe they
ought to be able to decide for themselves. That is what this debate is
all about. I want to commend the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young), and
I want to commend the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Moakley). I
want to thank them for having this debate and allowing this debate to
come on the floor.
I need to repeat this. We can argue until we are blue in the face
about any other issue. Just understand this. Puerto Rico is under the
territorial clause of the United States Constitution. I am a member of
the Committee on Resources. The Committee on Resources has jurisdiction
over territories and commonwealths and Native American reservations.
Have my colleagues ever heard of that before? It is called the
territorial clause. We have to vote on a bill to allow the people of
Puerto Rico the right to make a choice.
I am really looking forward to this debate because the fact of the
matter is, if we understand the simple fact that this is simply about
giving the congressional authority to the people of Puerto Rico so they
can make up their own mind, then I think this debate will become
clearer.
Let me just conclude by saying with respect to English as the
mandatory
[[Page H771]]
language by the Solomon amendment, there will be an amendment to the
Solomon amendment that will allow us to treat Puerto Rico, in the event
that it becomes a State, which I hope it does, like any other State in
this country. But the Solomon amendment is very unfair and
discriminatory because it affects the people of Puerto Rico singularly
and it does not apply to the people of Puerto Rico the same way it
applies to everyone else in this country. I might add, English is the
official language in all the proceedings within government on the
island of Puerto Rico.
Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I look forward to the debate with the
gentleman from Rhode Island on the Solomon amendment. I might also add
that the gentleman ought to be a little more benevolent in his praise
for those who brought this bill to the floor. Think about that, when he
only mentioned the names of Young and Moakley.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms.
Velazquez).
Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Speaker, I just would like to respond to the
gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Kennedy).
The problem with this bill is due process. If we are talking here
about self-determination, what we are saying is we are going to provide
an open, democratic process for all the political parties and all the
political sectors in Puerto Rico to participate. This legislation does
not do that. Why, instead of writing the definition among the gentleman
from California (Mr. Miller), the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young) and
the gentleman from Puerto Rico (Mr. Romero-Barcelo).
In fact the president of the Popular Democratic Party knew about the
new definition when he was approached by a reporter in Puerto Rico. The
definition was rewritten when El Nuevo Dia, the largest newspaper in
Puerto Rico, published a poll that said that 75 percent of the people
of Puerto Rico favored a commonwealth option to be included in this
bill.
Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Let me be brief so we can get on with the debate on the bill.
I would like to point out that there are those that think that some
people are pandering for the Hispanic vote. I would just like to point
out that in the national Latino poll back in 1992, which is the last
official poll on record, that the Mexican-American people in the United
States of America that live here opposed statehood by 55.4 percent. In
other words, they were supporting a commonwealth. The Cuban-American
people supported commonwealth by 60 percent. And the Puerto Rican
people supported commonwealth by 69 percent. I just wanted to get that
in. I submit this poll for the Record.
The document referred to follows:
H.R. 856 (The United States-Puerto Rico Political Status Act) is not
Only Bad Policy, it is Bad Politics
Polls you may have heard of urge support for H.R. 856
``[I]t is clear that the key to winning the Latino vote is
to find issues that specifically appeal to them. Puerto Rico
is just such an issue.''--Luntz Research Companies, Language
of the 21st Century
Polls you may not have heard of disagree with Frank Luntz
(1) Hispanics are not uniformly in support of statehood.
SUPPORT FOR STATUS OF PUERTO RICO BY ETHNIC INDICATORS
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
National origin Nativity
--------------------------------------------
Status of Puerto Rico Puerto Foreign Native
Mexican Rican Cuban born born
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Statehood.......................................................... 22.3 27.2 28.6 23.4 27.4
Commonwealth....................................................... 60.3 69.2 65.3 68.5 55.5
Independence....................................................... 17.3 3.6 6.2 8.1 17.0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--de la Garza, Hernandez, Falcon, Garcia and Garcia,
``Mexican, Puerto Rican and Cuban Foreign Policy
Perspectives,'' Garcia, Pursing Power, 1997.
[In percent]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Puerto
Preferred status of Puerto Rico Mexican Rican Cuban Anglo
------------------------------------------------------------------------
A state............................. 23.9 27.1 35.2 26.4
A commonwealth...................... 55.4 69.4 60.7 47.9
Independent......................... 20.7 3.5 4.1 25.7
------------------------------------------------------------------------
--National Latino Political Survey, 1992.
(2) Support for Puerto Rico statehood among U.S. voters
declines as they are told more about the costs and demands of
statehood
Percent
U.S. voters favoring statehood for Puerto Rico.......................65
Percentage still in favor after being told English and Spanish would
share equal status in Puerto Rico..................................55
(Mason-Dixon Research, 1997. Note: Mason Dixon did not
mention that roughly 60 percent of the residents of the
island of Puerto Rico, according to its Governor, Rafael
Hernandez Colon, speak little or no English. Other estimates
place this figure at the 80% level. Nor did they mention that
statehood would cost the taxpayers as much as $4 billion
annually, according to the General Accounting Office.)
{time} 1145
Mr. Speaker, this whole debate is going to boil down to a statement
which was made by one of the most respected Members of this body, the
gentleman from Puerto Rico (Commissioner Romero-Barcelo), in his book,
when he said, ``As I have stated many other times, our language and our
culture are not negotiable.''
Mr. Speaker, that is a very, very true statement. This entire debate
that will take place over the next 7 or 8 hours will set forth the
principle that any State that will be brought into this Union, as all
previous States before, will come under the exact same laws as every
other State in the Nation. That means that they will have no special
national anthem, they will have no special flag, they will have no
special Olympic team; they will be the same as every other State in
this union.
Mr. ROMERO-BARCELO. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. SOLOMON. I yield to the gentleman from Puerto Rico.
Mr. ROMERO-BARCELO. Mr. Speaker, I think to deny to yourself and to
your children and to your people your heritage, to deny your language
and who you are, is to deny yourself, your being. The fact that we want
to maintain Spanish does not mean that we are going to not want to
speak English also. What we are asking is, do not impose English only.
Let us be bilingual, and let us help the Nation in our relationship
with Latin America.
Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, if the gentleman reads
the Solomon amendment, the Solomon amendment is setting forth into law
that for every State of the Union, all 50 States today, that English
will be the official language of instruction. That is what it does.
If this bill becomes law tomorrow, then all 50 States are affected
tomorrow by that Solomon amendment. It does not affect Puerto Rico. But
if Puerto Rico 2 years or 3 or 4 years from now would become a State,
then English would be the official language of instruction, but it
would in no way prohibit a second language of Spanish or any other
language from being taught on the Island of Puerto Rico. That is a
fact, and that is what we will debate here in a few minutes.
Mr. Speaker, I urge support for this rule would hope there would not
be a vote on it.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the
previous question on the resolution.
The previous question was ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Pease). The question is on the
resolution.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. WICKER. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a
quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not
present.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present.
The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 370,
nays 41, not voting 19, as follows:
[Roll No. 27]
YEAS--370
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Andrews
Armey
Baesler
Baker
Baldacci
Ballenger
Barcia
Barr
Barrett (NE)
Barrett (WI)
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Bateman
Becerra
Bentsen
Bereuter
Berman
Berry
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop
Blagojevich
Bliley
Blumenauer
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonior
Borski
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Brady
Brown (CA)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Bunning
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Canady
Cannon
Cardin
Castle
Chambliss
Christensen
Clay
Clayton
[[Page H772]]
Clement
Clyburn
Coble
Coburn
Collins
Combest
Condit
Conyers
Cook
Cooksey
Cox
Coyne
Cramer
Crapo
Cubin
Cummings
Cunningham
Danner
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
Davis (VA)
Deal
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
DeLay
Deutsch
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Dicks
Dingell
Dixon
Doggett
Dooley
Doyle
Dreier
Dunn
Edwards
Ehlers
Ehrlich
Engel
English
Ensign
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Everett
Farr
Fattah
Fawell
Fazio
Filner
Foley
Forbes
Ford
Fossella
Fowler
Fox
Franks (NJ)
Frelinghuysen
Frost
Furse
Gallegly
Ganske
Gejdenson
Gekas
Gephardt
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Goodlatte
Gordon
Goss
Granger
Green
Greenwood
Gutierrez
Gutknecht
Hall (OH)
Hamilton
Hansen
Hastert
Hastings (FL)
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Hefner
Herger
Hill
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hobson
Hoekstra
Holden
Hooley
Horn
Hostettler
Houghton
Hoyer
Hulshof
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hyde
Inglis
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
John
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (WI)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnson, Sam
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kasich
Kelly
Kennedy (MA)
Kennelly
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kim
Kind (WI)
King (NY)
Kleczka
Klink
Klug
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Kucinich
LaFalce
Lampson
Lantos
Largent
LaTourette
Lazio
Leach
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (GA)
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
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Mica
Millender-McDonald
Miller (CA)
Miller (FL)
Minge
Mink
Moakley
Mollohan
Moran (KS)
Moran (VA)
Morella
Murtha
Myrick
Nadler
Neal
Nethercutt
Neumann
Ney
Northup
Nussle
Oberstar
Olver
Ortiz
Owens
Oxley
Packard
Pallone
Pappas
Parker
Pascrell
Pastor
Paul
Paxon
Payne
Pease
Pelosi
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Pickering
Pickett
Pitts
Pombo
Pomeroy
Porter
Portman
Price (NC)
Pryce (OH)
Quinn
Radanovich
Rahall
Ramstad
Rangel
Redmond
Reyes
Riggs
Rivers
Rodriguez
Roemer
Rohrabacher
Rothman
Roukema
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Ryun
Sabo
Sanchez
Sanders
Sandlin
Sanford
Sawyer
Saxton
Schaefer, Dan
Schumer
Scott
Serrano
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Sherman
Shuster
Sisisky
Skaggs
Skeen
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (OR)
Smith (TX)
Smith, Adam
Snowbarger
Snyder
Solomon
Souder
Spratt
Stabenow
Stearns
Stenholm
Stokes
Strickland
Stump
Stupak
Sununu
Talent
Tanner
Tauscher
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Thomas
Thompson
Thornberry
Thune
Thurman
Tierney
Traficant
Turner
Upton
Velazquez
Vento
Visclosky
Walsh
Waters
Watkins
Watt (NC)
Watts (OK)
Waxman
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Wexler
Weygand
White
Wise
Wolf
Woolsey
Wynn
Yates
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NAYS--41
Aderholt
Archer
Bachus
Bryant
Carson
Chabot
Costello
Crane
Duncan
Emerson
Goode
Goodling
Graham
Hall (TX)
Hefley
Hilleary
Istook
Jenkins
Jones
Kingston
LaHood
Latham
Lewis (KY)
Metcalf
Norwood
Obey
Petri
Regula
Riley
Rogers
Royce
Salmon
Schaffer, Bob
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Smith, Linda
Spence
Wamp
Weller
Whitfield
Wicker
NOT VOTING--19
Chenoweth
Doolittle
Ewing
Frank (MA)
Gibbons
Gonzalez
Harman
Kennedy (RI)
Luther
Poshard
Rogan
Ros-Lehtinen
Scarborough
Schiff
Shimkus
Stark
Tiahrt
Torres
Towns
{time} 1209
Messrs. ARCHER, GRAHAM, HEFLEY and RILEY changed their vote from
``yea'' to ``nay.''
Ms. DeLAURO changed her vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
So the resolution was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________