[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.

                          ____________________