[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 20 (Wednesday, March 4, 1998)]
[House]
[Pages H772-H812]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




             UNITED STATES-PUERTO RICO POLITICAL STATUS ACT

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Pease). Pursuant to House Resolution 376 
and rule XXIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the 
Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the 
bill, H.R. 856.

                              {time}  1212


                     In the Committee of the Whole

  Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the 
Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill 
(H.R. 856) to provide a process leading to full self-government for 
Puerto Rico, with Mr. Diaz-Balart in the chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered as having 
been read the first time.
  Under the rule, the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young), the gentleman 
from California (Mr. Miller), the gentleman from New York (Mr. Solomon) 
and the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Gutierrez) each will control 22\1/
2\ minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young).
  (Mr. YOUNG of Alaska asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend his remarks.)
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, this is a very historical moment, one that is long 
overdue. In debate on the rule, there were some statements made that I 
think should be clarified before I go into the full text of my 
presentation today, why I support this legislation.
  The Northern Marianas were mentioned and other territories were 
mentioned, and how they came into this great united part of our United 
States, even as territories are separate governments. But, for 
instance, the Northern Marianas, the Government of the United States 
and the Government of the Northern Marianas will consult regularly on 
all matters affecting the relationship between them. At the request of 
either government, and not less frequently than every 10 years there 
shall be an additional consultation taken.
  Mr. Chairman, over 100 years ago, this Congress was passionately 
discussing the 400-year-old colonial grip that Spain had on the islands 
adjacent to and south of Florida. Just over 2 weeks earlier, on 
February 15, 266 American servicemen lost their lives in Havana harbor 
with the explosion of the United States warship, the Maine.

[[Page H773]]

                              {time}  1215

  The monument to these gallant mean stands highest above all else in 
Arlington National Monument. Many others lost their lives in the 
ensuing Spanish-American War amid the cries of ``Remember the Maine.'' 
But why?
  This Congress declared war and sent Americans in harm's way in the 
defense of the sacred ideal: self-determination. America won the war, 
and assumed sovereignty over Cuba, Puerto Rico, and some of Spain's 
Pacific possessions. All but one are no longer territories. Only Puerto 
Rico still stands, after 100 years, a territory.
  Mr. Chairman, Congress promptly delivered on its promise of self-
determination to the people of Cuba by providing for a process which 
permitted Cuba to become a separate sovereign after a few brief years.
  In contrast, the Rough Rider who had charged up San Juan Hill to 
ensure the United States' victory in the Caribbean had become President 
of the United States and urged Congress to grant United States 
citizenship to the people of Puerto Rico in his 1905 State of the Union 
address. Quote, ``I earnestly advocate the adoption of legislation 
which will explicitly confer American citizenship on all citizens of 
Puerto Rico. There is, in my judgment, no excuse for the failure to do 
this.''
  I believe President Teddy Roosevelt's words are even more true today 
to this bill as when he spoke them in 1905.
  Our fellow Americans in Puerto Rico, now numbering some 4 million, 
have been loyal to this Nation and have valiantly fought in every major 
conflict. We have all benefited in ways that cannot be calculated from 
the bravery, the loyalty, and the patriotism of over 200,000 Americans 
from Puerto Rico who have served in our Nation's Armed Forces.
  It is clear that a heavy price has been paid by Puerto Rico for this 
country, which has yet to fully deliver on the promise of the U.S. 
General Miles when he landed in Puerto Rico 100 years ago this year:
  ``In the continuation of the war against the Kingdom of Spain by the 
people of the United States, in the cause of freedom, justice and 
humanity, their military forces have come to occupy the island of 
Puerto Rico. They come bearing the flag of freedom. They bring you the 
encouraging strength of a Nation of free people whose greatest power 
consists of justice and humanity for all those who live in their 
community. The principal objective will be to give the people of your 
beautiful island the largest extent of freedom possible. We have not 
come to wage war, but to bring protection, not just for you but for 
your property, in order to promote your prosperity and in order to 
obtain for you the privileges and the blessings of our government. It 
is not our purpose to interfere with any of the laws and customs 
present that are wise and beneficial.''
  The Congress provided Puerto Rico with increasing levels of self-
government for the first half of this century, culminating with the 
authorization in 1950 for the process of a development of a local 
constitutional government.
  By 1952, Congress conditionally approved a draft constitution 
submitted by the legislature of Puerto Rico. After those changes were 
made by Puerto Rico, the new constitutional government of the territory 
became effective under the name declared by the constitutional 
convention as the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico.
  The establishment of local constitutional self-government did not 
alter Congress' constitutional responsibility under the Territorial 
Clause for Puerto Rico. However, it was under the first years of the 
commonwealth that President Eisenhower established the Eisenhower 
Doctrine regarding Puerto Rico which is still in effect today and is 
reflected in the United States-Puerto Rico Political Status Act.
  After the local constitutional government of Puerto Rico was 
established, Puerto Rico was removed from the United Nations' 
decolonization list, prompting questions as to whether Puerto Rico was 
still a territory under the sovereignty of the United States and 
subject to the authority of Congress. President Eisenhower, a 
Republican, acted decisively by sending a message to the United Nations 
that he recommended that the United States Congress grant Puerto Rico 
separate sovereignty if requested by the Puerto Ricans through the 
legislature of Puerto Rico.
  While the legislature has never petitioned for separate sovereignty, 
the legislature sent joint resolutions to Congress in 1993, 1994, and 
1997 requesting congressional action. Keep that in mind, because I have 
heard time and again that the Congress, by doing this, is dictating to 
the Puerto Rican people. But the legislature sent to this Congress in 
1993, 1994, 1997 requesting congressional action to define the 
political status and establish a process to resolve, establish the 
process to resolve Puerto Rico's political status dilemma.
  Although in recent years the Puerto Rican legislature formally 
requested the Congress to resolve Puerto Rico's political status, U.S. 
citizens in Puerto Rico had been advocating action for over a decade. I 
remember the submission to Congress in 1985 to 1987 of over 350,000 
individually signed petitions for full citizenship rights. This 
incredible grassroots effort was led by Dr. Miriam Ramirez of the 
nonprofit, nonpartisan civic organization, Puerto Ricans in Civic 
Action.
  Mr. Chairman I believe this initiative influenced the then president 
of the Senate to include in his first State of the Union address as 
President on February 9, 1989, the following request: ``I've long 
believed the people of Puerto Rico should have their right to determine 
their own political future. Personally, I strongly favor statehood. But 
I urge the Congress to take the necessary steps to allow the people to 
decide in a referendum.''
  Mr. Chairman, about the same time as President Bush requested 
Congress authorize a political status referendum in Puerto Rico, the 
three presidents of the three principal political status parties in 
Puerto Rico asked Congress to help resolve Puerto Rico's political 
status, as Puerto Rico has never been formally consulted as to their 
choice of ultimate political status.

  While Congress has yet to formally respond to the request of the 
President, the leaders of Puerto Rico, and the petitions of the 
Americans in Puerto Rico, this bill will do just what has been asked by 
the people of Puerto Rico in numerous years and numerous times by the 
president of the Senate, by the Presidents in the past in their 
platforms.
  The United States-Puerto Rico Political Status Act, H.R. 856, 
establishes in Federal law for the first time a process to resolve 
Puerto Rico's political status. I remind my colleagues it will not 
happen overnight, regardless of what we do here today. This is just a 
process that will take place.
  My colleague who was speaking on the rule said that the public is not 
aware of this action today. May I remind my colleagues that if we were 
to pass this bill today, and I hope we do pass this bill today, it must 
be passed by the Senate and the people of Puerto Rico must also pass it 
in 1998. It comes back to the Congress in 1999, and by 1999 we again in 
Congress must act. We must pass a bill approving the transitional 
stage. Then it goes back to the people of Puerto Rico. And, by the way, 
the start of the transition period begins in the year 2000.
  But this more than anything else is a bill that establishes the right 
to determine for the first time in 100 years their self-determination. 
It is a fair and balanced process that has been developed with an 
enormous amount of input. Mr. Chairman, I resent certain Members saying 
that this has not been fair. We asked all of those people involved, all 
three parties, to submit what their definition should be in this bill. 
We have in my substitute recognized commonwealth. We recognize 
independence. We set forth a process which will create a State.
  Mr. Chairman, if it does become a State, I am one of the few people, 
along with the gentleman from Hawaii (Mr. Abercrombie) that has gone 
through this process.
  I have heard some statements here today about English language only. 
When Alaska became a State, that was not a requirement. We had 52 
different dialects in Alaska. People speak English. They also speak 
many other languages. It was not a requirement. Hawaii has two official 
languages. They have English and Hawaiian. New Mexico has two official 
languages, English and Spanish.
  The concept of the amendments that will be offered to this bill, 
especially the amendment of the gentleman from New York (Mr. Solomon), 
he is my

[[Page H774]]

good friend and we talk about what good friends we are, it is a poison 
pill amendment. America is a melting pot. It is a group of people 
coming together under one flag. We all speak different languages at 
different times. Some of us are more fortunate to speak more than one 
language, but we must always recognize the cohesive part of the United 
States, and that is being an American. English will come. But to pick 
out one part of this bill and to say this is a requirement before it 
ever happens is a poison pill amendment to this legislation.
  Let us talk about history again. This is the last territory of the 
greatest democracy, America. A territory where no one has a true voice, 
although our government does an excellent job, but there are 
approximately 4 million Puerto Ricans that have one voice that cannot 
vote. This is not America as I know it. This is an America that talks 
one thing and walks another thing. This is an America that is saying, 
if Members do not accept this legislation, ``no'' to who I think are 
some of the greatest Americans that have ever served in our armed 
forces and are proud to be Americans but do not have the representation 
that they need.
  This legislation is just the beginning. It is one small step of many 
steps. It is a step for freedom, it is a small step for justice, it is 
a small step for America. But collectively it is a great stride for 
democracy and for justice.
  This legislation should pass. The amendment of the gentleman from New 
York (Mr. Solomon) should be defeated. We should go forth and show the 
people of America, show the people of Puerto Rico, that our hearts are 
true, so that the rest of the world will follow the example of the 
great United States and free their territories and free the people so 
they can have self-determination. This is what this bill does, and that 
is all it does.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the 
gentleman from Puerto Rico (Mr. Romero-Barcelo).
  Mr. ROMERO-BARCELO. Mr. Chairman, I would love to be able to speak 
for 30 minutes, an hour or two hours on this subject, but there are so 
many other people that want to speak on this subject, and many of my 
colleagues have heard me over and over on this, that I am going to 
yield some of the time that I would have been allotted so that other 
Members of this Congress can address the House in support of this bill 
which is a very, very important bill for the people of Puerto Rico, for 
the 3,800,000 U.S. citizens in Puerto Rico.
  Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 4\1/2\ 
minutes.
  (Mr. MILLER of California asked and was given permission to revise 
and extend his remarks.)
  Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, the Committee on Resources of 
the House of Representatives had an obligation to report to this floor 
a fair and accurate plan for the citizens of Puerto Rico to choose 
their status. I believe that this committee has met that obligation.
  Mr. Chairman I thank the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young), chairman 
of the committee, for leading us through what has been a difficult 
process. I also thank the gentleman from Puerto Rico (Mr. Romero-
Barcelo), our friend, for all of his help in this process.
  Mr. Chairman, the people of Puerto Rico, if this bill is passed, will 
be given the opportunity by the Congress of the United States under the 
laws of this Nation to choose their status. They can choose to continue 
in the commonwealth arrangement, they could choose to become an 
independent nation, they could choose to become one of the States of 
the United States of America.
  Our obligation was to see that when this process went forward to the 
people of Puerto Rico, that it was a fair process, that it was an 
accurate process. We had had an earlier plebiscite where the parties 
wrote their own definitions and the people voted, and the Congress has 
done nothing because the Congress knew in fact those definitions, 
whether they were of statehood or of commonwealth, were, in fact, not 
accurate and would not be supported by the Congress of the United 
States and did not reflect the laws and the Constitution of this 
country.
  In the committee, I was very distraught at beginning of this process 
because I felt that those who support commonwealth were not able to 
present their definition to the Congress, to the committee. I worked 
very hard so that that definition could be offered. I offered that 
definition. It was turned down overwhelming on a bipartisan basis. It 
was something called ``enhanced commonwealth.'' It was sort of a make-
believe status of commonwealth.

                              {time}  1230

  The suggestion was that if you voted for commonwealth, you would then 
be empowered to pick your way through the Constitution of the United 
States and the laws of the United States and pick and choose which laws 
you wanted to apply and not have apply, and that you did not have to 
live under the power of the Congress of the United States or of the 
Constitution of the United States. That simply was unacceptable to the 
overwhelming majority of the committee. I believe it is unacceptable to 
the overwhelming majority of this House. Someone can certainly come 
forward and offer that amendment this afternoon, should they choose, 
and I believe it would clearly be unacceptable to the people of this 
country.
  So what we put forth is a definition of commonwealth that recognizes 
their current status today, that they live in a commonwealth 
arrangement. It says Puerto Rico is joined in relationship under the 
national sovereignty of the United States. It is the policy of the 
Congress that this relationship should only be dissolved by mutual 
consent. That is the situation that we have.
  We went on to say that in the exercise of the sovereignty, the laws 
of the commonwealth shall govern Puerto Rico to the extent that they 
are consistent with the Constitution of the United States. There is no 
other way to do business, consistent with the Constitution of the 
United States, treaties and laws of the United States, and the Congress 
retains its constitutional authority to enact laws that it deems 
necessary relating to Puerto Rico.
  That is the burden of commonwealth. That is why some people do not 
like it. Some people would prefer independence over commonwealth, and 
some people would prefer statehood. There is a certain burden to 
commonwealth. We cannot pretend that there is not. But the people of 
Puerto Rico ought to be able to choose that. They have to be able to 
choose the status that they want.
  That is what this legislation does. It enables the people of Puerto 
Rico to make their choice; not our choice, their choice. And hopefully 
under this legislation, the Congress would then honor that choice after 
the President and others have worked out a plan to enable that choice 
to go forward. That is what this legislation does. Nothing more, 
nothing less.
  I think it is an important piece of legislation. I think it is 
recognized that the people of Puerto Rico are entitled to and must have 
a free and fair vote on this matter. I would hope that my colleagues 
would support this legislation to allow that to happen.
  Mr. Chairman, the House today considers H.R. 856, a complex bill that 
has, at its core, a very basic concept: the right of a free people to 
determine the political system under which they live.
  Puerto Rico has been a part of the United States for a century. Its 
residents, whether they live in San Juan, Mayaguez, New York or San 
Francisco, are United States citizens. H.R. 856 gives those 4 million 
Americans the right to decide their future status relationship to the 
rest of the United States: to become an independent nation, to become a 
state, or to remain in commonwealth status.
  Unlike some of my colleagues who have worked on this issue over the 
past decade, I do not have a personal preference. I believe status 
should be determined by the governed. Our obligation is to present fair 
and accurate status options to the voters of Puerto Rico--options that 
reflect Constitutional and political reality--and to honor the choice 
made by a majority of the voters.
  During much of the consideration of this legislation by the Resources 
Committee in this Congress and the previous Congress, I could not 
support the legislation because I did not believe that the very 
sizeable number of Puerto Rican voters who support the Commonwealth 
option were treated fairly. Originally, this bill did not even contain 
any Commonwealth option.
  But I am pleased to say that Chairman Young worked closely with me 
and with others to ensure that each of the political parties

[[Page H775]]

was heard, and that we ultimately agreed on definitions that are fair 
and accurate. They are included in Mr. Young's substitute, and I 
support that substitute strongly.
  Rarely have we seen more intense lobbying on an issue. It is obvious 
that opinions are divided on Puerto Rico's status and on this 
legislation. But let them address some of the misconceptions and 
misrepresentations that are being circulated about this bill, because 
Members should not be confused and should not be deceived into voting 
on this subject based on inaccuracies.
  No one in this Chamber is more qualified than I to speak about how we 
addressed the Commonwealth issue. I so strongly advocated inclusion of 
a Commonwealth option that I was accused of being pro-Commonwealth. The 
definition of Commonwealth supplied by that party, which is similar in 
many respects to the definition on the ballot during the 1993 
referendum in Puerto Rico, is not accurate and is not acceptable to the 
Congress. It is not acceptable that Puerto Rico would be eligible for 
full participation in all federal programs without paying taxes; it is 
not acceptable that Puerto Rico would pick and choose which federal 
laws apply on the island; it is not acceptable that Puerto Rico would 
be free to make its own foreign treaties.
  I appreciate that this is what the supporters of ``enhanced 
Commonwealth'' want. But the Congress is not prepared to give such 
unprecedented rights to Puerto Rico while denying them to every state 
in the Union. Nevertheless, I offered that definition in the Resources 
Committee so that it would be clear what is and is not acceptable to 
the Congress. It was overwhelmingly, and bipartisanly, defeated. And 
Congress should not offer an option to the voters of Puerto Rico that 
we are not prepared to embrace.
  The definition of Puerto Rico now included in the substitute by Mr. 
Young may not be utopian, but it is historically and Constitutionally 
accurate.
  There are some who argue that this bill is unfair because it fails to 
recognize that Puerto Rico is a ``nation.'' Puerto Rico, like many 
other areas of the United States, has a unique history and unique 
culture; that is in part what makes our country so remarkable and 
enduring. But Puerto Rico is not a nation in any sense under U.S. law 
or international law. Our refusal to recognize Puerto Rico as a 
``nation'' in H.R. 856 is not a slight; it is accurate.
  There are some who oppose this bill because they do not want America 
to ``wake up tomorrow'' and find out Puerto Rico is going to be the 
51st state. This bill provides for a plebiscite to choose among three 
options, only one of which is statehood. Even if that option is chosen, 
there is a transition period of up to a decade during which a plan for 
achieving statehood would be developed, and then voted on in the 
Congress and in Puerto Rico. And Congress also will vote on an 
admissions act. So no one should be under a misimpression that this 
legislation railroads statehood.

  Some have raised concerns that admitting Puerto Rico at some point in 
the future will cost some states seats in this House. I personally 
support increasing the size of the House to 441 seats to accommodate 
the 6 new seats Puerto Rico would occupy. In any event, that is a 
statutory decision to be made by the Congress, just as Congress 
increased the size of the House permanently when other multi-Member 
territories were admitted in the 19th and early 20th century.
  There are those who argue that Puerto Rico would cost the federal 
government money were it to become a state. I would hope that the 
financial status of citizens would not be an issue in determining 
whether they are accorded the full rights of citizenship. I thought we 
had resolved that issue by declaring the poll tax and properly 
ownership unconstitutional. And we should be careful about applying 
such a standard: as of FY 1996, 29 states--more than half--received 
more federal expenditures than they paid in taxes. Let's not impose a 
standard on Puerto Rico that we wouldn't apply to other states.
  I also have noted some questions as to why the bill calls for 
periodic referenda should either permanent status--independence or 
statehood--not be selected. Let us be clear that the bill authorizes 
additional referenda, it does not mandate them. The purpose of the 
referenda is to determine a permanent status, and commonwealth is 
generally recognized not to meet that test. Should the voters of Puerto 
Rico decide to continue as a commonwealth, they could do so 
indefinitely.
  Lastly, let me address what has unfortunately become a centerpiece of 
this debate: whether we should, in this legislation, mandate English as 
the official national language.
  The House voted on that legislation in 1996; the leadership could 
bring it before the full House again at any time. But this is not the 
time or place to do it. The Solomon amendment declares English to be 
the national language, but it imposes a series of additional 
unconstitutional burdens on the people of Puerto Rico, requiring that 
``all communications with the federal government by the government or 
people of Puerto Rico shall be in English''; requiring that ``English 
will be the sole official language of all federal government activities 
in Puerto Rico''; imposing English as the ``language of instruction in 
public schools.''
  We don't need to single out Puerto Rico like this, to inflame this 
debate and insult the 500-year-old culture of 4 million Americans. We 
have a reasonable alternative amendment that is going to be introduced 
by Congressmen Dan Burton, Bill McCollum, Don Young and myself that 
takes a different, and fairer, approach. The Clinton Administration 
supports our substitute.
  Our amendment says Puerto Rico, if it becomes a state, will be 
treated exactly like every other state. If Congress decides that 
English is to be the official language and passes a comprehensive law 
to that effect, then Puerto Rico will be covered Just like every other 
state. But let's not single out Puerto Rico in a divisive and 
unconstitutional manner for special treatment.
  Our amendment also calls for Puerto Rico to promote the teaching of 
English because that language is clearly the language that allows for 
the fullest participation in all aspects of American life. And we call 
for inclusion in any transition plan of proposals and incentives for 
promoting English proficiency in the schools and elsewhere in Puerto 
Rico. Surely, we can reasonably address this issue in an equitable 
manner without passing a confrontational and unfair insult to our 
fellow countrymen and women.
  The time has come to tell the people of Puerto Rico that the rest of 
the nation of which they are a part is prepared to hear their views and 
respond to their desires. That we will stand by our historic and legal 
tradition that inclusion in America is not dependent on one's 
background or ethnicity, but on a common allegiance to this nation and 
its Constitution. After being a part of the United States for 100 
years, after sending its sons to war five times in this century, it is 
time that this Congress recognized the right of Puerto Rico to 
determine its future in a democratic fashion. That is the purpose and 
the policy contained in H.R. 856, and I call on the House today to pass 
this bill, and defeat the divisive Solomon amendment.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  In April of 1775, hundreds of brave men stormed the bridges of 
Lexington and Concord, setting in motion a revolutionary struggle for 
liberty that culminated in my hometown of Saratoga, New York, in the 
greatest victory for individual freedom and democracy in all of human 
history. That blood-stained victory of our forefathers has left the 
legacy that you and I and all of us call America.
  Liberty and justice and democracy, these are words that do more than 
describe our Nation's ideals and principles. They are the very essence 
of this country of ours. These ideals are able to thrive and to 
dominate the political and economic landscapes of the United States 
because of the people's devotion to its unit as a Nation, to an idea 
that there is something unique, something distinct about being an 
American.
  Throughout my military service, my small-business career and the last 
31 years in public office, I have dedicated my life to further the 
principles of freedom and democracy and self-determination throughout 
this world. Like all of my colleagues, I have been blessed to live in 
this most free and democratic Nation in the world, and sometimes you 
ought to travel overseas into the former Soviet Union and see how much 
they respect this democracy of ours. It was a product of blood and 
sweat and commitment to principle, of those who have gone before us.
  While serving in the United States Marine Corps during the Korean 
era, I was privileged to serve side by side with so many Puerto Rican 
Americans, great people, great personal friends of mine, and to be 
stationed for a time on the island of Viacus in Puerto Rico where I 
made some of my closest friendships that today still exist, and during 
that time I was able to gain a personal affection for the people of 
Puerto Rico and for their love of liberty and their distinct culture. 
As a result Puerto Rico and its people hold a very warm space in my 
heart.
  Today the House considers a bill which may lead to a dramatic and 
permanent change in the lives of these U.S. citizens. It is billed by 
its supporters as a bill to permanently resolve the political status of 
Puerto Rico through a process of self-determination. But however lofty 
and worthy the objectives of this bill, it is a flawed measure

[[Page H776]]

that flips the very principles of self-determination and democracy on 
their heads, Mr. Chairman. In establishing a self-determination process 
for Puerto Rico, Congress, under the U.S. Constitution, must answer to 
two distinct yet equally important interests, my colleagues should 
listen to this, the citizens of Puerto Rico and the citizens of the 
United States. I believe this bill as currently drafted fails to answer 
to either interest, either the Puerto Rican citizens or the American 
citizens on this mainland, for this bill actually violates self-
determination. Read the conference, read the report of this bill which 
was authored by the gentleman from California (Mr. Miller).
  I strongly support allowing the citizens of Puerto Rico to vote on 
the future of their political status. In fact, they actually do not 
need to get permission from this Congress of the United States to do 
so. In fact, they already did in 1952, in 1967, and again in 1993. 
However, I firmly believe that in order for a political process to 
deliver self-determination, it must always allow for the participation 
of all of its citizens, not just some. This bill as currently drafted 
not only requires, but listen to this, it demands that Puerto Rico hold 
a plebiscite before the end of this year, 1998. Who are we to tell 
them? In that referendum the citizens of Puerto Rico will be asked to 
choose between commonwealth, between separate sovereignty and 
statehood. This seems to be simple enough. However, Mr. Chairman, there 
is a catch to it.
  Members of this House should be aware that the Statehood Party of 
Puerto Rico supports the ballot definition of statehood in this bill, 
and the Puerto Rican Independence Party supports the ballot definition 
of independence in this bill. However, the Commonwealth Party, the 
party that actually won every past referendum on political status, does 
not support the definition of commonwealth in this bill. And ask 
yourself why not?
  In fact, the definition of commonwealth was written not just once but 
twice by the supporters of the statehood option without the approval of 
the vast majority of the people in Puerto Rico, the Commonwealth Party. 
What this means is that the largest political party in Puerto Rico is 
faced with a grave choice under this bill. They can either choose to 
campaign, to support, to vote for a ballot definition that directly 
contradicts the very premise of their political party's existence, or 
they cannot participate in the referendum. They have chosen not to 
participate, and that is a terrible shame.
  So first and foremost, the House is debating a measure designed to 
determine Puerto Rico's political status in which one of the three 
local political parties, in fact the largest in Puerto Rico, will not 
even participate. How is that going to take an accurate and democratic 
measure of the political choices of those 3.8 million U.S. citizens 
there? The fact is, it is not.
  Mr. Chairman, back in 1990, the last time this House considered 
similar legislation, all of the parties were supportive of the process 
and supported that bill because it was a fair bill. I voted for it. It 
sailed through the House under suspension of the rules only to be 
stalled in the other body. Today we debate a controversial bill not 
just here in the United States, but also in Puerto Rico.
  One final comment on this bill's self-determination problems, Mr. 
Chairman. As this bill currently stands, it requires Puerto Rico 
permanently to hold this referendum every 10 years until statehood gets 
50 percent plus 1. Then the transition and implementation process 
begins. Since the current support for independence hovers around 5 
percent and for statehood around 45 percent, the likely outcome of a 
forced decennial vote seems likely to be statehood with hardly half the 
population supporting it.
  This bill also contains certain constitutional pitfalls. Mr. 
Chairman, Members should listen carefully to what I am about to say 
because their constituents want to know this. Under this bill, if the 
citizens of Puerto Rico choose statehood in the first referendum, the 
constitutional protections given States begin to apply to Puerto Rico 
upon the President's submission of a transition plan taking Puerto Rico 
from commonwealth to statehood.
  What this means is that the process of integrating Puerto Rico into 
this Union begins with a vote of the transition bill. Members better 
remember that. According to the Supreme Court in Balzac v. People of 
Puerto Rico, way back in 1922, once the process of integration begins, 
it is very difficult to reverse, and we will not reverse it.
  The catch with this provision is that under this bill, Congress will 
be required to vote on this transition plan as early as early next 
year. While Puerto Rico may not officially join the Union for another 5 
or 6 or 7 or 10 years, the vote to begin the admissions process could 
take place as early as next year, and there would be no turning back at 
that point.

  Such a voting strategy is almost identical to that done when we gave 
away the Panama Canal to Panama and when Great Britain gave Hong Kong 
back to China. Members better start thinking about that because their 
constituents are thinking about it. A vote to do it occurs now, while 
it actually changes hands sometime in the future. That is what we are 
voting on here today.
  Mr. Chairman, our constituents want to know, they want us to listen 
and to be careful about this. With the referendum required to be held 
before the end of this year, this bill requires the President to send 
Congress transition legislation within 180 days of that referendum. 
That means if that referendum is held in December, as late as December 
of this year, within 180 days the President is ordered to send us a 
transition bill. Within 5 days of the receipt of that bill, the 
majority leaders of the House and the Senate are required to introduce 
the bill. And within 120 days of introduction, a vote occurs on the 
bill on the floor of this House of Representatives, which could happen 
next July or August or September or October or November or December of 
1999. That is how close this is.
  In essence, this bill sets up a process whereby the citizens of 
Puerto Rico are forced to vote until they choose statehood, and then 
the process kicks in to high gear under expedited procedures as I have 
just outlined.
  Yes, it is true that it may take up to 10 years, as the bill says, 
for the process to run its course, but the bulk of the actual process 
occurs up front, and Members had better understand it.
  The most serious constitutional reservation of this bill involves the 
treatment of the rights enjoyed by the people of Puerto Rico currently 
under the commonwealth status. The ballot contained in the bill states 
that Congress may determine which rights under the United States 
Constitution are guaranteed to the people of Puerto Rico.
  This statement is wrong at several levels. First, it rests upon the 
remarkable proposition that Congress has the authority to deprive the 
people of Puerto Rico of any and all of their constitutional rights. 
This provision of this bill is demonstrably false, Mr. Chairman, 
because even Puerto Rico, if it were an unincorporated territory, the 
people of Puerto Rico would be still guaranteed fundamental 
constitutional rights. That is why so many people in Puerto Rico 
support commonwealth.
  The description of the citizenship rights of Puerto Rico is similarly 
flawed. It states that Puerto Ricans are merely statutory citizens and 
implies that their citizenship may be revoked by Congress. Well, the 
people of Puerto Rico are United States citizens within the meaning of 
the 14th amendment. Get the amendment out. Read it. The 14th amendment. 
These points were clearly enunciated yesterday by our colleague, the 
chairman of the House Committee on the Judiciary, Subcommittee on the 
Constitution. We have it over here, if Members want to read it.
  Third and finally, this bill fails to clearly lay out how 
assimilation would occur under the bill for either Puerto Rico or the 
United States, and this is the most important part of this entire 
debate. As I stated earlier, I have a great deal of respect for the 
pride and for the culture of the people of Puerto Rico. They are 
wonderful people. I believe, as do many of my colleagues, that Puerto 
Rico is a nation, it is unique and distinct in its own right, and 
Puerto Rico has every right to preserve and enhance this rich heritage 
of culture and history. That is their right.
  But if the citizens of Puerto Rico freely choose to seek statehood, 
they should understand clearly, and I think my good friend the 
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Gutierrez) made this point

[[Page H777]]

earlier, what are the assimilation expectations of the American people, 
of the 260 million Americans in this country? Puerto Rico deserves a 
clear, concise and direct discussion of these issues. They have not had 
that. They do not know what the assimilation would be. Admitting a 
State requires the assimilation of a territory within the Union of 
States, and language differences are the number one barrier to actual 
assimilation. The bill before us today contains the most vacuous 
statement of language policy that I have ever seen.

                              {time}  1245

  How will the average citizen of Puerto Rico understand what this 
means if we cannot even understand what it means ourselves? And I would 
ask every Member back in their offices to pick up the bill and read it. 
In this regard, the bill's language regarding English is weak, it is 
inadequate, and must be clarified for the benefit of the people of the 
island of Puerto Rico because they need to know what they are getting 
into.
  My fellow colleagues, it was Winston Churchill who stated that the 
gift of common language is a priceless inheritance and, Members, not 
explicitly stating what role Puerto Rico's inherited Spanish language 
and our common tongue, English, would play in a State of Puerto Rico, I 
believe, would be a grave mistake for everyone.
  To rectify this I intend to, later in the debate, offer an amendment 
regarding the role of the English language, which I believe very 
clearly explains this issue to both the American people and to the 
people of Puerto Rico.
  Now, some of my friends are going to argue that I have specifically 
selected the statehood option for the bulk of my criticism with this 
bill and that it is merely a process bill which includes that as an 
option. Let me make something perfectly clear. For my constituents in 
upstate New York, who are wedged between Canada and New York City, 
between Quebec and New York City, the statehood option for Puerto Rico 
is the choice with the most far-reaching and permanent consequences. It 
is a permanent relationship that requires assimilation, and that choice 
needs to be decided by an overwhelming majority of the citizens of 
Puerto Rico before my constituents and before my colleagues' 
constituents will agree to let them join the Union.
  It must be clear to our good friends in Puerto Rico that if they 
choose statehood, it is still within Congress' powers as 
representatives of this country to say no. Statehood may be an option 
at some point in the future, but the American people are going to have 
to examine that situation at that time, and that time is today. We 
cannot force a decision on the citizens of Puerto Rico and the citizens 
of Puerto Rico cannot force the United States to accept a decision.
  The Puerto Rican people deserve to know exactly what they are voting 
on and the American people deserve to know the ramifications of each of 
those options. Until this bill becomes an actual self-determination 
bill, passes constitutional muster in all of its components, and 
fundamentally addresses the issue of assimilation, I will oppose this 
bill. And I hope we can clarify it by adoption of my amendment later on 
this afternoon.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Chairman, I rise as the designee of the gentleman 
from Illinois (Mr. Gutierrez), and I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today to express my strenuous opposition to H.R. 
856, the United States-Puerto Rico Political Status Act. Mr. Chairman, 
I think that we can all agree that the people of Puerto Rico must be 
given the right to self-determination. Unfortunately, H.R. 856 does not 
accomplish this.
  This bill is the product of a flawed legislative process that was 
designed to produce a very specific result. It was written without 
consulting all the parties that have a very real interest in its 
outcome.
  Proponents of H.R. 856 will try to say that this is a bill about 
self-determination. They are misleading their colleagues. Instead, H.R. 
856 is a one-sided bill that is biased in favor of Puerto Rican 
statehood. It was written by the party that supports statehood in a way 
that promotes statehood without consulting all the participants in this 
very, very sensitive process.
  Under H.R. 856, Puerto Ricans will be given the choice between 
statehood, Commonwealth status or separate sovereignty, yet the 
Commonwealth option does not even guarantee citizenship. Why was 
citizenship not statutory back in 1990 when this House voted for this 
bill? I do not understand what happened since 1990.
  The authors of this legislation have said that our citizenship is 
statutory. Simply put, this means that our citizenship can be taken 
away. Tell that to the widows of men who fought and died in foreign 
wars so that citizenship of all Americans will be guaranteed. Mr. 
Chairman, tell that to my uncle, who fought valiantly in Korea for my 
colleagues and for me and for all Americans everywhere.
  Furthermore, if the people of Puerto Rico were to choose Commonwealth 
status, the bill will require further plebiscites until either 
statehood or separate sovereignty wins. This double standard applied to 
Commonwealth shows how the deck is stacked in favor of statehood. Under 
those conditions, not even the most forceful defender of Commonwealth 
status will vote for it.
  Many people forget that the original version of this bill did not 
even include a Commonwealth option. The party that supports 
Commonwealth status had no input in the drafting of H.R. 856 and has 
been repeatedly shut out of the process. Amazingly, the president of 
the Commonwealth party learned about the bill's definition of 
Commonwealth from a reporter.
  In fact, the statehood party had to rewrite the Commonwealth 
definition after a poll in a major Puerto Rican newspaper showed that 
75 percent of Puerto Ricans supported the inclusion of a fair and 
balanced Commonwealth option, which this bill lacks. Today, and I 
repeat, today in Puerto Rico a new poll was released that shows that 65 
percent of the people of Puerto Rico reject this bill.
  Mr. Chairman, it is an outrage to the democratic process that the 
definition for Commonwealth status was written by the very party that 
opposes it. It is like allowing Republicans to decide who could appear 
on a Democratic ballot.
  Five years ago, the people of Puerto Rico held a plebiscite on this 
issue and chose to maintain their current status. This is a situation 
that the losers in that contest do not seem willing to accept. Yet the 
outcome was an important one. It reaffirmed the permanent United States 
citizenship of the people of Puerto Rico that is guaranteed under the 
Constitution. It acknowledged the bilateral nature of the U.S.-Puerto 
Rico relationship. It confirmed the autonomous status of Puerto Rico, 
which can only be changed by mutual consent.
  The supporters of H.R. 856 are rejecting each and every one of these 
arguments when they say that citizenship can only be protected under 
statehood. Puerto Ricans are American citizens and we are proud to be 
American citizens. We do not need a plebiscite to prove that we are 
Americans any more than the people of Massachusetts or Virginia do.
  This bill is not the result of a democratic process. It does not 
define all the choices to the satisfaction of the very people who will 
participate in this plebiscite. By defeating this bill we will be 
sending a message that we truly honor the idea of self-definition for 
the people of Puerto Rico.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to not be fooled by the arguments 
of the other side. A vote for H.R. 856 is a vote for statehood, not a 
vote for self-determination.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the 
gentleman from Florida (Mr. McCollum).
  (Mr. McCOLLUM asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, we have embarked on one of the more 
significant debates this Congress will have in this 2-year period, 
maybe one of the more significant debates that we can have because we 
are trying to find a way to resolve concerns we all have about a part 
of the United States. Make no mistake about it, Puerto Rico is part of 
the United States.
  In my State of Florida, which is right next door, it is a neighbor, 
it is a very

[[Page H778]]

friendly neighbor, the people of Puerto Rico are citizens of the United 
States. There are no Customs checks or boundaries between our country 
and theirs or my State and Puerto Rico.
  Puerto Rico is a Commonwealth. It is a funny kind of status to most 
of us because we do not think of it in that way very often, at least I 
do not. I know that anybody who lives in Puerto Rico can come live at 
my State or Texas or Minnesota or New York, anywhere, any time they 
want to. That is fine.
  Travel is free. People talk to each other all the time. There is a 
common bond that is there. And I think it is important for us as we 
debate this bill today to recognize the depth of this relationship and 
the importance of it and the tenderness of it.
  The people of Puerto Rico have sacrificed many times over for the 
United States. Many men have given their lives in the service of this 
country from Puerto Rico over the years. We have been partners for 
years and years and years.
  I believe it is very, very important that we give the people of 
Puerto Rico, as this bill does, an opportunity to determine what they 
wish us to consider in this Congress in the coming years regarding 
their future status.
  It is not, as has been said before, that this legislation would 
determine whether or not Puerto Rico were to be a State or not. It is 
to give to the people of Puerto Rico a plebiscite, a vote, an 
opportunity to say yes to statehood, we would like you to consider 
that, Congress, or, no, we would rather stay in the Commonwealth 
status, or possibly we would rather be independent.
  If this is not resolved in favor of statehood or independence now, it 
provides a vehicle for there to be future opportunities for the people 
of Puerto Rico to speak out on this issue and to debate all of those 
things that have been discussed today that need to be debated. There 
needs to be that kind of debate. That is what it is all about.

  Yes, if Puerto Rico becomes a State, there will be expectations on 
both sides. We need to have a further airing of that. That is what the 
plebiscite debate in Puerto Rico would be all about.
  Certainly assimilation in that broad sense of the word has always 
been part of the American tradition. But we assimilate immigrants into 
this country, and Puerto Ricans are not immigrants. They are citizens. 
But we assimilate immigrants into this country, and, ultimately, make 
them citizens every year, every day. We have done it since the 
beginning of the nations history.
  We should not be concerned about the challenges involved in it. I do 
not think either side should be concerned. But we should be open about 
it. We should discuss it, and we should have a fair debate about it. 
But above all else, we need to be sure that the people of Puerto Rico 
get the chance to have that debate first.
  So I urge my colleagues in the strongest sort of way to vote for this 
resolution today to give the Puerto Rican people that opportunity.
  I would like to make a couple of comments, too, about who has 
supported this in the past. We have heard people debate, what did 
Ronald Reagan or George Bush say about it? Well, when the Puerto Rican 
statehood plebiscite was being discussed in November 1993, Ronald 
Reagan said,

       My friends, as you consider whether or not you wish to 
     continue being a part of the United States, I want you to 
     know one thing, the United States will welcome you with open 
     arms.
       We've always been a land of varied cultural backgrounds and 
     origins, and we believe firmly that our strength is our 
     diversity.
       There is much Puerto Rico can contribute to our Nation, 
     which is why I personally favor statehood. We hope you will 
     join us.
       Thank you and God bless you.

  So I think that it is important that we understand that the history 
has been of this Nation that many, many, many people have urged 
statehood on Puerto Rico in the past. But, again, that is not the 
purpose of the plebiscite. It is for the people of Puerto Rico to 
decide that.
  We are also going to hear the question about English being discussed 
out here. The gentleman from New York (Mr. Solomon), a moment ago, was 
discussing that question.
  I favor English as the official language of the United States. I have 
been a cosponsor of bills to do that for a long time. All 50 States, 
and if we get a 51st State, the 51st State, too, should abide by that. 
That should be our official language. We should put it in the statute 
of the books of this country to say that. But to attach it to this bill 
sends the wrong signal.
  We are interested in seeing Puerto Rico treated as everybody else. If 
we actually have an official language statute ever become law, and I 
hope it does, it should apply to all of the territories, the 
Commonwealths, the possessions of the United States. It should be known 
that English is the official language of the United States. But I do 
not believe it should be adopted on this bill today.
  I would urge the support for the substitute amendment that I am 
helping cosponsor later on.
  The CHAIRMAN. Who rises as the designee for the gentleman of 
California (Mr. Miller)?
  Mr. ROMERO-BARCELO. I do, Mr. Chairman.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Chairman, we have a Member that has to get back to a 
hearing, so I would take him out of order.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. 
Goodlatte.)
  (Mr. GOODLATTE asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 856 
because I have serious reservations about the constitutionality of this 
legislation which authorizes the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico to hold a 
referendum to determine Puerto Rico's political future and prescribes 
the wording of the ballot to be submitted to the voters.
  Under the Act, the voters of Puerto Rico purportedly may choose to 
maintain the current Commonwealth status, to become a State, or to 
become an independent Nation. The ballot language mandated by the Act, 
however, severely mischaracterizes and denigates Puerto Rico's current 
Commonwealth status.

                              {time}  1300

  The ballot language mandated by the act, however, severely 
mischaracterizes and denigrates Puerto Rico's current commonwealth 
status. These repeated misstatements clearly appear to be designed to 
ensure that the statehood option prevails. Any doubt on this vanishes 
when the act's prescribed ballot is read in conjunction with other 
provisions of the act.
  For instance, the act calls for a referendum every 10 years until the 
statehood option prevails. And the legislative history, the committee 
report is openly hostile to the current commonwealth status. Thus, a 
referendum using the prescribed ballot would deny the people of Puerto 
Rico an informed and accurate choice concerning their future political 
status and would reveal nothing about the true sentiments of the people 
of Puerto Rico on this important question.
  The most serious misstatements contained in the act relate to its 
treatment of the rights enjoyed by the people of Puerto Rico under 
commonwealth status. The ballot contained in H.R. 856 states that 
Congress may determine the rights under the United States Constitution 
that are guaranteed to the people of Puerto Rico. This statement is 
wrong.
  The act's description of the citizenship rights of the people of 
Puerto Rico is similarly flawed. The act states that Puerto Ricans are 
merely statutory citizens and implies that their citizenship may be 
revoked by Congress. The people of Puerto Rico, however, right now are 
United States citizens within the meaning of the 14th Amendment of the 
United States Constitution.
  The ballot language mandated by H.R. 856 also mischaracterizes Puerto 
Rico's current political status. The act describes Puerto Rico as an 
unincorporated territory of the United States. Beyond the pejorative 
connotations associated with this term, which was used to describe the 
United States' colonial possessions, this description is inappropriate 
because the United States Supreme Court has held that Puerto Rico, like 
a State, is an autonomous political entity sovereign over matters not 
ruled by the Constitution. But these falsehoods are to be right on the 
ballot, mischaracterizing the commonwealth's status, when Puerto Ricans 
vote.
  The purpose of the proposed referendum is to learn the sentiments of 
the

[[Page H779]]

people of Puerto Rico. In light of the fundamental inaccuracies, any 
referendum using the prescribed ballot could not be relied upon as an 
honest reflection of the sentiments of the people of Puerto Rico. 
Accordingly, the act as currently formulated necessarily fails to 
accomplish its very purpose.
  Equally important, these fundamental inaccuracies in the ballot's 
description of the commonwealth status option effectively deny the 
people of Puerto Rico their constitutional right to exercise the 
franchise in a meaningful way. As the proponents of Puerto Rican 
statehood well understand, the commonwealth option described in the 
ballot will attract no significant support among Puerto Rico's voters, 
including voters who are otherwise ardent advocates of continuing 
Puerto Rico's commonwealth status.
  Thus, the referendum contained in the act infringes on the voting 
rights of the people of Puerto Rico by presenting them with a factually 
inaccurate choice, a false choice as to their political future status. 
In short, H.R. 856 presents the people of Puerto Rico with a ballot 
that is stacked in favor of the statehood option. From the very start, 
the election is rigged. The ballot language mandated by the act is 
designed to ensure this result regardless of the true sentiments of the 
people of Puerto Rico.
  Such a palpably deficient ballot raises serious constitutional 
issues. Moreover, as a matter of policy, it certainty cannot be 
justified as an effort to give Puerto Ricans meaningful self-
determination. Mr. Chairman, I oppose this legislation and I ask others 
to do so as well.
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds to 
respond to the gentleman's comments. I want everybody to understand one 
thing. As chairman of this committee, we did this job right.
  The gentleman talks about constitutionality. He does not know the 
Constitution from something else. We sent this down to the Justice 
Department. They reviewed it with the best constitutional lawyers. 
Everything in this bill is constitutional. I did this job correctly as 
chairman. To have someone say it is not constitutional or allude it is 
unconstitutional when it has been thoroughly scrubbed by those that 
know the Constitution, I think is inappropriate.
  Mr. ROMERO-BARCELO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman 
from Rhode Island (Mr. Kennedy).
  Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island. Mr. Chairman, let me just underscore 
this. Let us go over it and over it and over it again. If Members do 
not like the language of this bill, if they do not like the definition 
of commonwealth in this bill, they do not like commonwealth. If Members 
find that the language that we use to describe commonwealth is 
repugnant----


                      Announcement by the Chairman

  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will suspend.
  The Chair will admonish those in the gallery and remind all persons 
that they are here as guests of the House, and that any manifestation 
of approval or disapproval of any of the proceedings is a violation of 
the rules of the House and will not be permitted.
  The gentleman may proceed.
  Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island. Mr. Chairman, the fact is that if 
everyone is so insulted by this process, I hear the gentlewoman from 
New York (Ms. Velazquez) and the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. 
Gutierrez) say, ``I don't like this process because they shut out a 
political party in Puerto Rico.'' Let us understand what they are 
shutting out, although it is not the case, I will argue.
  But let us just assume that we are shutting out the PDP, the 
Populares in Puerto Rico. What do they want? They want the commonwealth 
status. What is the commonwealth status? It is colonial status. It is 
saying that this Congress can decide unilaterally, without Puerto 
Rico's opinion or approval, what we want Puerto Rico to do. End of 
story, I say to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Solomon).
  So when you talk about how we are being unfair, think about it. We 
are being unfair because we do not like commonwealth. You bet I do not 
like commonwealth. I do not like the fact that 3.8 million people are 
disenfranchised, 3.8 million United States citizens who fought in our 
wars, who died in our wars are not even allowed to vote for their 
Commander in Chief. Can you imagine?
  This country was founded, at the Boston tea party we declared our 
Revolutionary War, because we did not have representation here. That is 
what they do not have. Puerto Ricans cannot decide this bill. The 
gentleman from Puerto Rico (Mr. Romero-Barcelo) has no vote. He 
represents 3.8 million United States citizens. This is a bill that 
affects them, and they have no vote. What is that, other than 
colonialism?
  This bill will give them statehood if they vote for it. Let us say 
they do not want to vote for statehood now, they still like this quasi-
colonial status. We give them an opportunity, because in the final 
analysis, it has to be the United States.
  I think it is so insulting that I have to be up here deciding on 
something that the people of Puerto Rico should be able to decide with 
or without my approval, with or without the approval of the gentleman 
from New York (Mr. Solomon), with or without the approval of the 
gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young). We represent other States. Why 
should we have any say in the matter with respect to Puerto Rico? We 
were not elected by the Puerto Ricans. They deserve their own 
representation. If we vote for this bill, they will get their own 
representation.
  Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume. Let me explain to the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. 
Kennedy) why we are deciding this bill. We are deciding this bill 
because, unlike the description that the gentleman from Puerto Rico 
(Mr. Romero-Barcelo) has given, we did not welcome the United States to 
Puerto Rico. Puerto Rico was invaded by the United States during the 
Spanish-American Civil War.
  Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island. No argument there. No argument there.
  Mr. GUTIERREZ. Let us be clear. The gentleman is right. We are making 
the decisions because that is what is happening.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise to strongly oppose H.R. 856 because this is the 
exact opposite of what its supporters pretend it to be. H.R. 856 is 
supposed to be a bill for self-determination, not for statehood, which 
my friend from Rhode Island has every ability, he is for statehood. 
That is what he wants. If I were for statehood and I was willing to 
gamble everything for statehood, I would be for this bill because this 
is a guarantee that statehood is going to win the plebiscite. I can 
understand that. Let us be clear.
  Now I want to be clear about my position, also, Mr. Chairman. I am 
for independence for Puerto Rico. I am for independence for Puerto 
Rico. There was a time that the statehooders and the commonwealthers 
and the whole system would jail people like me for being for 
independence for Puerto Rico. That is why there are not more people for 
the independence of Puerto Rico. As they jailed the people of your 
former fatherland, Ireland, for wishing the independence and the 
sovereignty of that nation.
  I would suggest to everybody what we can oppose, and it is wrong. 
Supporters of this bill have approached my colleagues on both sides of 
the aisle, Mr. Chairman, and told them that the passage of this bill 
only means that Congress authorizes the people of Puerto Rico to 
express their preference for political status among 3 options.
  Some supporters of the bill have played a very cynical game of 
telling some of my Democrats, ``Vote for this bill, and you will have 6 
new Democratic Members of the House and 2 new Democratic Senators. That 
is why we should vote for the bill.'' That is being and that should be 
said here, because that is part of the debate and the conversation, and 
we should fully explain to the people of Puerto Rico how it is that 
this Congress is arriving at a decision to make their self-
determination.
  At the same time, some of the very same people have circulated a 
memorandum full of very strange statistics. Mr. Chairman, beware of 
strange numbers for they could be telling stranger lies. It is a 
memorandum entitled ``Puerto Rico, Republican Territory,'' in which 
some magician tries to convince the uninformed that Puerto Rico will 
produce 6 Republican Congressmen and 2 Republican Senators.

[[Page H780]]

  It sounds strange to me. The gentlewoman from New York (Ms. 
Velazquez), a Puerto Rican; the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. 
Gutierrez), of Puerto Rican descent; the gentleman from New York (Mr. 
Serrano); and even the Resident Commissioner has decided to sit on our 
side of the aisle, the main proponent of this bill, and he is in the 
Democratic Caucus. Let us not play games with one side or the other 
getting some advantage over this, because that is not respectful. Mr. 
Chairman, this is a strange manner in which to conduct a serious debate 
on the future of a whole people.
  Self-determination is a serious matter. The sacred right of self-
determination has to be exercised in a totally democratic, open and 
above-board fashion. The true sovereignty of any nation, and Puerto 
Rico is indeed a nation, rests with its people. I think that the 
Members of this Congress should understand what the people of Puerto 
Rico believe, because this is something that is going to affect them.
  They did a poll in Puerto Rico, El Nuevo Dia, that is The New Day, 
the largest paper of circulation in Puerto Rico; by the way, owned by a 
statehooder. They asked the people. On the nationality question, 65 
percent of the people see themselves as Puerto Rican and not American, 
65 percent of the people in Puerto Rico; 62 percent of the people 
consider their Nation to be Puerto Rico and not the United States.
  But at the same time, 75 percent consider their American citizenship 
to be very important. Strange, you say, that sounds like a 
contradiction. It is the contradiction of colonialism, obviously. But 
it is also what the authors of this understand very well. On the one 
hand, they tell you, Puerto Rico is not a nation, it is just a group of 
people. It is this little tropical island that sits out there somewhere 
in the Caribbean.
  But let me tell everybody in this room, the people of Puerto Rico 
which you are deciding today their options, consider themselves as a 
Nation. They consider to have a nationality, that nationality being 
Puerto Rican. You should understand that. You should understand that 
very, very clearly.
  At the same time they want to keep their American citizenship. I 
think that that is very clear. Just March 4, they asked the people of 
Puerto Rico what they think about the Young bill. They asked the people 
of Puerto Rico. They said 35 percent reject the Young bill, 33 percent 
support the Young bill, and another third do not have an opinion on the 
Young bill. It says if Puerto Ricans within the great diaspora of 
Puerto Rico, that is Puerto Ricans in the United States, do not get to 
vote on this, over half of them say we should reject the Young bill.

                              {time}  1315

  That is the people of Puerto Rico. But let me go further, Mr. 
Chairman, because I think it is very, very, very important that we 
understand what is going on here.
  Look, there is a value I hold even dearer than my wish for the 
independence of Puerto Rico, and that is the respect that I have for 
the true aspirations of the Puerto Rican people. That is their 
inalienable right of the people of Puerto Rico to their self-
determination.
  That is precisely why I oppose this bill so strongly. H.R. 856 is 
exactly the opposite. It is a bill, read it, it is a bill that is 
cleverly designed to obtain an artificial majority for statehood for 
Puerto Rico and to lead Congress down an irreversible path, first 
through the incorporation of Puerto Rico, and then to the admission of 
Puerto Rico as the 51st State of this great union. In fact, some 
opponents of H.R. 856 call this a trap.
  Now, Congress makes an offer of statehood to the people of Puerto 
Rico. The only requirement, the only requirement, is that a simple 
majority vote in favor of statehood. But the ballot is so stacked in 
favor of statehood that I am going to read a quote, and, please, listen 
to this quote:
  The Resident Commissioner, Carlos Romero-Barcelo, said, ``Victory for 
statehood is guaranteed because the definition of ``commonwealth'' does 
not include fiscal autonomy and does not include U.S. citizenship, a 
guarantee. The definition of Commonwealth in this bill is that of a 
territory. We just left the word ``territory'' out.'' Quote-end quote 
of the Resident Commissioner of Puerto Rico here.
  So I am not saying this bill is stacked in favor of statehood; the 
very proponent, the Resident Commissioner of Puerto Rico, has stated 
this publicly, and that is wrong, to play politics, partisan politics.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young), 
and I want to thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Miller), because 
both gentlemen have been decent with me. When I asked to participate in 
their hearings, they both know that they had to override objections of 
certain Members to allow me to participate in their committee, but they 
did. The gentleman from California (Mr. Miller) and the gentleman from 
Alaska (Mr. Young) have always listened to me, have always come and 
said, ``Luis, what do you think? Let us talk about this.''
  I know that the gentleman from California (Mr. Miller) tried to fix 
this. I know he did. He did make every attempt to fix this, and I know 
that he went to everybody and tried to bring people together. He 
testified so yesterday, and I know it to be a fact. Unfortunately, it 
was not able to be done. It was not able to be done. This has to be a 
process of consensus, of building people together.
  Mr. Chairman, do you know something? That is why I did not yield, 
because when I asked for the opportunity to speak about this issue, I 
was objected to time and time again. I will respect the wishes of those 
who wish to speak to this issue that have respected the wishes of the 
people of Puerto Rico and all Members of this House, but do not expect 
treatment from me which others have disregarded for others.
  Once the people of Puerto Rico vote for statehood under this rather 
unfair game plan, the Commonwealth Party has said it cannot participate 
in the plebiscite. That is going to be a problem. You have got about 48 
percent of the people who say if you do it this way, we are not going 
to participate in this thing.
  Now, I am going to make one last statement and then reserve the 
balance of my time. Look, this is serious. This is serious. If you 
approve this Young bill, do you know what you have said? You have said 
that 3.8 million Puerto Ricans do not have the protection of the 14th 
Amendment of the Constitution of the United States. You have said that 
their American citizenship is not guaranteed.
  I will tell you what people will say. They will never take it away. 
This Congress would never take an action.
  Do you know something? My dad did not get to see me until I was a 
year old, I would say to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Solomon), 
because when he was called to duty, he served. He served, Mr. Chairman.
  How can we say that my dad and tens of thousands of other Puerto 
Ricans who have served this Nation, right, that their citizenship is 
statutory, can be taken away from them at a whim of Congress? I do not 
believe that.
  As a matter of fact, in the 1950 Nationality Act, this Congress 
approved something that says the 50 states and Puerto Rico, anyone born 
there, is protected by the 14th Amendment and are citizens of this 
country. That is what the 1950 Nationality Act says.
  So do not come back here and say that commonwealth is statutory 
citizenship, because, you know something? I want Puerto Rico to be a 
free and independent nation, and in that I disagree with my colleague, 
the gentleman from Puerto Rico (Mr. Romero-Barcelo). The gentleman 
wants it to be assimilated and a state, but I think it is important, it 
is important, that the people of Puerto Rico have the definitions that 
they can have.
  Lastly, in 1993, when the Resident Commissioner's party was in power 
in Puerto Rico, the Statehood Party, they controlled the two houses, 
the House and the Senate, and they controlled the governorship. They 
had a plebiscite in Puerto Rico.
  Why, when they controlled all the rules in Puerto Rico, was the 
Commonwealth status not not a territory? Why was not the citizenship 
not statutory when that came up?
  Why is it? As a matter of fact, in 1990 we unanimously accepted some 
definitions here, 1990, and none of these considerations. Do you want 
to know why? Because they want to stack the cards.

[[Page H781]]

  If the people of Puerto Rico want statehood, I will be the first one 
to come here and support statehood for Puerto Rico, but it has got to 
be a fair process. People can laugh and people can chide, because they 
do not understand the seriousness of this matter. This is about the 
14th Amendment. This is about my dad, this is about my wife, Soraida, 
born in Moca, Puerto Rico; and I do not intend to go back to her 
tomorrow and say her citizenship is any less than mine. She was born a 
citizen of this country, and I am going to protect her right. It is not 
statutory, it is protected.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. ROMERO-BARCELO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman 
from Missouri (Mr. Gephardt), the minority leader.
  (Mr. GEPHARDT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. GEPHARDT. Mr. Chairman, there is no right more fundamental to our 
democracy than the right of people to decide their political future. 
American democracy was conceived in the great struggle of the 
Revolutionary War, and it originated out of a fight for self-
determination by the American colonists to be able to control their own 
affairs.
  We have long asserted this right, not only for Americans, but for 
people all over the world. We have insisted that this is a universal 
human right that every human being should enjoy. So certainly it should 
and must be a fundamental right for people living under the American 
flag as American citizens. Yet almost 4 million American citizens, the 
people of Puerto Rico, have not enjoyed this right.
  We have the opportunity to ensure today that American citizens who 
have sacrificed their loved ones in our wars, who serve our country in 
and out of uniform, and who obey our laws, should have a say in their 
political future. The people of Puerto Rico deserve an opportunity to 
vote on their future political status, and this bill simply gives them 
that opportunity. The choice should be theirs, and this Congress should 
respect that outcome.
  This is a simple issue of basic human rights. The bill should easily 
become law. But today there are many in this Congress who want to hold 
this legislation hostage to an extreme agenda.
  The Solomon English-only legislation, which House Republicans pushed 
through 2 years ago, but which died in the Senate and which has laid 
dormant ever since, would impose English-only restrictions that are 
unnecessary and divisive. While immigrants from all ethnic groups 
understand the importance and the necessity of learning English, the 
Solomon amendment does nothing to make this happen any quicker or 
easier.
  The fact that some have raised this issue today is a slap in the face 
to the people of Puerto Rico, who love America and love their heritage. 
Instead of enforcing political rights, this amendment would undermine 
them by weakening the Voting Rights Act and ending bilingual access. 
Instead of expanding access to government, the Solomon amendment chills 
communications between Members of Congress and constituents. It imposes 
unique requirements on the people of Puerto Rico that Congress has not 
imposed on citizens of any other State of the United States.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge the Members to support the bipartisan substitute 
that is being put forward by the leadership of this committee. It 
recognizes that it is in the best interests of our Nation and our 
citizens to promote the teaching of English, and it sets the goal of 
enabling students to achieve English language proficiency by the age of 
10. It does not threaten free and open speech and communication of 
public safety, and it does not single out the people of Puerto Rico for 
unique, extraordinary requirements that we ask of no other State in the 
United States of America.
  Finally, it is time to get on with the business at hand. It is time 
to extend the same rights to the people of Puerto Rico that billions of 
other people around the world take for granted. Puerto Rico has been a 
member of our American family for over 100 years. The people of Puerto 
Rico have waited long enough to finally decide their own destiny. More 
than a half decade ago Franklin Roosevelt said this to Congress. He 
said, ``Freedom means the supremacy of human rights everywhere.'' Our 
support, he said, goes to those who struggle to gain those rights or 
keep them.
  Mr. Chairman, we have a magnificent opportunity today, a bipartisan 
opportunity, an opportunity to extend the magic and the blessing of 
freedom and human rights and self-determination to the almost 4 million 
citizens of the United States, the people of Puerto Rico. Vote against 
the Solomon amendment, vote for the bipartisan substitute, and vote for 
this legislation for the meaning of America to be brought to the people 
of Puerto Rico.
  Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the 
gentleman from Guam (Mr. Underwood).
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman 
from Guam.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Guam (Mr. Underwood) is recognized 
for 2\1/2\ minutes.
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. UNDERWOOD. I yield to the gentleman from Alaska.
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I would like to apologize to the 
gentleman. In my passionate plea for Puerto Rico, I forgot the great 
Territory of Guam. We are working very close together. It slipped my 
mind. So I do apologize to the gentleman.
  Mr. UNDERWOOD. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I thank the 
gentleman for entering that into the Record.
  Mr. Chairman, I stand in strong support of H.R. 856 and urge my 
colleagues to vote for this very important legislation. I applaud the 
work of the gentleman from Alaska (Chairman Young), the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Miller), and my fellow statutory citizen, the gentleman 
from Puerto Rico (Mr. Romero-Barcelo).
  H.R. 856 is significant because it establishes Federal responsibility 
in a process of self-determination for the people of Puerto Rico that 
would lead to decolonization. The Treaty of Paris, which ceded Puerto 
Rico and Guam to the U.S. in 1898, clearly gave the responsibility to 
this body for determining the political status of the inhabitants of 
these territories. Until this body does this, these areas will continue 
to remain colonies, 100 years since the end of the Spanish-American 
War. Until we do this, there will not be clarity in the ultimate 
political status of these unincorporated territories.

                              {time}  1330

  The bill before us clearly states that the Federal Government has the 
responsibility to act within a specific time frame and in unequivocal 
terms so that the process itself does not lead to more frustration and 
uncertainty. The Federal responsibility must be consistent with a 
modern 21st century understanding of decolonization, and it must lead 
to a process which forces expeditious action.
  Today, 100 years after the Spanish-American War, the U.S. Congress 
has the unique opportunity and the moral obligation to resolve Puerto 
Rico's quest for a clear political status for its citizens. It is the 
right thing to do.
  Mr. Chairman, if Members support democracy and the principle of 
fairness, I urge Members to vote for 856. It is the right thing to do 
for the citizens of the Caribbean island, to demonstrate that this 
country is second to none in the exercise of self-determination, that 
we are second to none in honoring our treaty obligations, and that we 
are second to none in the full implementation of democracy.
  Mr. ROMERO-BARCELO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman 
from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer).
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Puerto Rico for 
yielding time to me.
  I rise in strong support of this legislation. I rise in strong 
support for the substitute that will be put forth to the Solomon 
amendment, and in opposition to the Solomon amendment.
  Since 1985 I have served on the Helsinki Commission, which was 
charged since 1976 to oversee the implementation of the Helsinki Final 
Act. Within that act it said that the international community ought to 
respect the self-determination of peoples.
  It is one of the most troubling issues that confronts the 
international community and the emerging democracies

[[Page H782]]

around the world. It is difficult because we need to determine what 
group, what size, how many do you need for self-determination. Does it 
need to be an identifiable, geographic area? If so, how large? It is an 
issue that we deal with in Yugoslavia.
  Always, always, always the United States is on the side of those who 
aspire to make their own decisions. On this floor we have heard some 
very articulate expressions on both sides of this issue, from people 
who know the politics of Puerto Rico far more than I. But I know that 
those articulate people will debate this issue vigorously, and it will 
be the people of Puerto Rico who make this decision, as it should be. 
But it is important that this Congress express at home, within our own 
Nation, that same conviction on behalf of self-determination that we 
express around the world.
  I would hope that we would overwhelmingly, in a bipartisan way, pass 
this legislation. I want to commend the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. 
Young) for his leadership on this issue, and the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Miller), and indeed, the delegate from Puerto Rico, and 
all of those who participate in this debate.
  Mr. ROMERO-BARCELO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman 
from Maryland (Mr. Wynn).
  Mr. WYNN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Puerto Rico for 
yielding me this time.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the bill before us today. I rise 
in opposition to the Solomon amendment. I rise in support of the 
bipartisan substitute.
  Mr. Chairman, the essence of the bill before us today is to allow the 
people of Puerto Rico to make the decisions about their own destiny, 
what we like to refer to as self-determination.
  For the last few decades we have talked long and often hard about the 
importance of self-determination in all parts of the world: in Russia, 
in Cuba, around the globe. It is now time to talk about self-
determination for one of our nearest neighbors.
  This is not that complicated. That is the beauty of democratic 
elections. Members have heard here today that there are lots of points 
of view about this issue within Puerto Rico. Those differences can be 
resolved by democratic elections. That is what we are here today to do, 
not to impose any particular form of government, be it statehood, 
independence, or Commonwealth status, but rather, to let the people, 
the people themselves decide what form of government they believe is 
most desirable.
  The point is that today Puerto Ricans can fight in our wars but 
cannot elect the Commander in Chief. They can contribute to Social 
Security, and they do, but they cannot receive Social Security 
benefits. We need to change this, and we need to use our time-honored 
democratic processes to do that.
  Mr. Chairman, let me talk for a moment about this notion embodied in 
the Solomon amendment of English only. We all recognize that English is 
the common language of our country. It is the dominant language of our 
country. But who was it that decided that to be an American you had to 
speak the language of the British Isles? I am not sure that makes 
sense.
  We were a country founded on tolerance, multiculturalism. It seems to 
me we can make room for those people who speak other languages. We left 
the Old World to create the New World for precisely this reason, to 
leave the conformities and traditions of the Old World behind. I think 
it is time we move forward to true multiculturalism and accept the fact 
that we do not have to have an ordered language in our society. I urge 
the adoption of the bill before us.
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman 
from Texas (Mr. Bonilla).
  (Mr. BONILLA asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, the debate we are hearing today reminds me 
of the demagoguing we heard back when the new majority took over in 
January of 1995. We tried to do some things that were right for the 
country, and we were demagogued as those who were trying to end the 
school lunch program, as those who were trying to eliminate Medicare, 
and as those who were trying to hurt the environment. We all knew that 
was not true, but yet the demagoguing continued.
  The demagoguing continues today by those who are opposed to this 
bill, who say that it is going to somehow create a State, a new State, 
instantly. That is false. That is demagoguing.
  There is also demagoguing about how this bill might be promoting 
bilingualism. That is not true at all, but nonetheless the arguments 
continue. They say this is anti-Commonwealth. That is also not true. 
The demagogues know it but they continue to make these arguments, in 
spite of the truth and substance of what we are trying to accomplish 
here today.
  For those who think somehow that this is going to end the official 
language of the world, it is also a case of demagoguing. English is the 
official language of the world. One hundred fifty seven of 168 airlines 
have English as their official language. There are 3,000 newspapers 
printed in English in the country of India. Six members of the European 
Free Trade Association all conduct their business in English, despite 
the fact that none of the six members are from English-speaking 
nations. Three hundred thousand Chinese speak English in their own 
country. Forty-four countries have English as their official language.
  The size of the English language, the number of words in the English 
language, is about 1 million. If we count the insects, and 
entomologists say there are a million known insects that could also 
become words, if we added them to our language, you could make 2 
million words that would be part of the English language, compared to 
other languages, like German, that has about 184,000, and French, that 
has about 100,000 words.
  For those fear-mongers who think we need some kind of amendment on 
this bill to help us promote English, English is already the official 
language of the world. We do not need an amendment to tell us that. It 
is going to continue to be the official language of the world. We 
should support H.R. 856, and all proudly, because of what it stands 
for, and not be fear-mongering about what it might do to the great 
language of English that is used worldwide.
  I say to my friends, let us stop the demagoguing, let us stop the 
fear-mongering that we have injected into this debate. Lighten up and 
support H.R. 856.
  Mr. ROMERO-BARCELO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the 
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Deutsch).
  Mr. DEUTSCH. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to 
me.
  Mr. Chairman, this is truly a historic debate in this Congress. This 
is my sixth year as a Member of this Congress. It is the first time we 
are really talking about an issue about the fundamental union of our 
States. That is really what we are talking about.
  In this Chamber over the last 100 years, and before that in the other 
Chamber just down the hall for 100 years before that, or just about, 
this is the kind of debates that went on. Unless it was one of the 
first original 13 colonies, each State went through a process. There 
were different debates and different things that went through that 
process. But that is where we are now.
  I think part of the acknowledgment of this bill is something that 
obviously is controversial, but I think the fact, and people can debate 
it, is that the status of Commonwealth is an unstable equilibrium. In a 
sense, the bill acknowledges that. It can continue, but it cannot 
continue indefinitely. The process of the legislation specifically puts 
that into statute, and that is why it is critical that this legislation 
pass.
  I would mention that the amendment by the gentleman from New York 
(Mr. Solomon), I think we should acknowledge what the amendment offered 
by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Solomon) attempts to do. We need to 
be direct about this.
  This amendment is really not germane to this bill. It is an issue 
that in and of itself can be discussed and debated, but to turn English 
into the official language of the United States is not about this bill. 
It does not deserve to be on this bill, and it is inappropriately on 
this bill. I think we have to understand the reason it is on this bill 
is to kill the bill.
  However anyone in this Chamber feels about that particular issue, and 
I know it is a passionate issue, I urge the

[[Page H783]]

defeat of the Solomon amendment and the support of the substitute 
offered by the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young) and the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Miller) and others to assure that this historic 
opportunity is taken advantage of.
  Mr. Chairman, H.R. 856 will enable Congress to administer and 
determine the status of Puerto Rico in the same manner this institution 
has been administering and decolonizing territories since the Northwest 
Ordinance of 1789. The historical constitutional practice of the United 
States has been to decolonize non-state territories which come under 
U.S. sovereignty by either full incorporation leading to statehood (as 
in the case of Alaska and Hawaii) or separate nationhood (Philippines).
  For too long Puerto Rico has been diverted from the historical 
process of decolonization. Because local self-government was 
established under P.L. 81-600 in 1952, Congress has pretended that 
Puerto Rico could be administered permanently as a territory with 
internal constitutional self-government. However, the local 
constitution did not create a separate nation as the pro-commonwealth 
party in Puerto Rico argues. Puerto Rican born Americans are still 
disenfranchised in the federal political system which is supreme in the 
territory as long as the U.S. flag flies over the island.
  Puerto Rico is not a ``free associated state'' in the U.S. 
constitutional sense or under international law as recognized by the 
United States. Puerto Rico remains a colony. That is not my choice of 
words, that is the term used by the McKinley Administration to describe 
Puerto Rico. It is also the term used by the former chief justice of 
the Puerto Rico Supreme Court who was one of the architects of the 
commonwealth constitution.
  Because H.R. 856 will define the real and true options that the 
Congress and the people in Puerto Rico have to resolve the status 
question, I strongly support this bill. Informing the voters in the 
territory of the real definition of commonwealth, statehood and 
separate sovereignty including free association is necessary because of 
the misleading adoption in 1952 of the Spanish words for ``free 
association'' by the pro-commonwealth party to describe the current 
commonwealth status. No wonder people are confused!
  Only when people understand the real options can there be informed 
self-determination, and only when there has been informed self-
determination can Congress then decide what status is in the national 
interest. Then the status of Puerto Rico can be resolved if there is 
agreement on the terms for status change. If not the status quo 
continues, but the process to decolonize Puerto Rico will exist. Then 
Puerto Rico's colonial status will continue only as long as the people 
of Puerto Rico are unable to choose between statehood and independence 
on terms acceptable to Congress.
  To promote a better understanding of the nature of free association, 
I would like to share the following background paper on free 
association written by the U.S. Ambassador who negotiated free 
association treaties for President Reagan. The U.S. has a free 
association relationship with three Pacific island nations, and this 
status is very different from the free association espoused by the so-
called ``autonomists in Puerto Rico''--who want to be a separate 
sovereign nation but also keep U.S. nationally and citizenship.
  That ``have it both ways'' approach to free association was attempted 
in the case of the Micronesian Compact of Free Association, but the 
State Department, Justice Department and Congress rejected that model 
as unconstitutional and unwise. It was an attempt to ``perfect'' the 
legal theory of the Puerto Rican commonwealth as a form of permanent 
self-government, a nation-within-a-nation concept that has always 
failed and always will because the U.S. constitution does not allow a 
Quebec-like problem in our Federal system.
  Ambassador Zeder's explanation of free association as an option for 
Puerto Rico makes the ground rules for this form of separate 
sovereignty very clear and easy to understand. I include his statement 
for the Record.
  The statement referred to is as follows:

 Understanding Free Association as a Form of Separate Sovereignty and 
  Political Independence in the Case of Decolonization of Puerto Rico

                   (By Ambassador Fred M. Zeder, II)

       Consistent with relevant resolutions of the U.N. General 
     Assembly, Puerto Rico's options for full self-government are: 
     Independence (Example: Philippines); Free Association 
     (Example: Republic of the Marshall Islands); Integration 
     (Example: Hawaii). See, G.A. Resolution 1514 (1960); G.A. 
     Resolution 1541 (1960); G.A. Resolution 2625 (1970).
       For purposes of international law including the relevant 
     U.N. resolutions international conventions to which the U.S. 
     is a party, the current status of Puerto Rico is best 
     described as substantial but incomplete integration. This 
     means that the decolonization process that commenced in 1952 
     has not been fulfilled.
       As a matter of U.S. domestic constitutional law, a 
     territory within U.S. sovereignty which has internal 
     constitutional self-government but is not fully integrated 
     into the national system of political union on the basis of 
     equality remains an unincorporated territory, and can be 
     referred to as a ``commonwealth.'' (Example: Puerto Rico and 
     the Northern Mariana Islands).
       For purposes of U.S. constitutional law, independence and 
     free association are status options which are created and 
     exist on the international plane. Thus, instead of the 
     sovereign primacy of Congress under the territorial clause, 
     the sources of constitutional authority with respect to 
     nations with separate sovereignty include the article II, 
     section 2 treaty-making power and the applicable article I, 
     section 8 powers of Congress such as that relating to 
     nationality and immigration law.
       Relations between the U.S. and a nation which is 
     independent or in free association are conducted on the basis 
     of international law. Thus, independence and free association 
     are status options which would remove Puerto Rico from its 
     present existence within the sphere of sovereignty of the 
     United States and establish a separate Puerto Rican 
     sovereignty outside the political union and federal 
     constitutional system of the United States.
       Instead of completing the integration process through full 
     incorporation and statehood, either independence or free 
     association would ``dis-integrate'' Puerto Rico from the 
     United States. This would terminate U.S. sovereignty, 
     nationality and citizenship and end application of the U.S. 
     Constitution in Puerto Rico. In other words, the process of 
     gradual integration which began in 1898, and which was 
     advanced by statutory U.S. citizenship in 1917 and 
     establishment of constitutional arrangements approved by the 
     people in 1952, would be terminated in favor of either 
     independence or free association.
       Under either independence or free association, the U.S. and 
     Puerto Rico could enter into treaties to define relations on 
     a sovereign-to-sovereign basis. Free association as practiced 
     by the U.S. is simply a form of independence in which two 
     sovereign nations agree to a special close relationship that 
     involves delegations of the sovereign powers of the 
     associated to the United States in such areas as defense and 
     other governmental functions to the extent both parties to 
     the treaty-based relationship agree to continue such 
     arrangements.
       The specific features of free association and balance 
     between autonomy and interdependence can vary within well-
     defined limits based on negotiated terms to which both 
     parties to the arrangement have agreed, but all such features 
     must be consistent with the structure of the agreement as a 
     treaty-based sovereign-to-sovereign relationship. In U.S. 
     experience and practice, even where free association has many 
     features of a dependent territorial status the sources and 
     allocation of constitutional authority triggered by the 
     underlying separation of sovereignty, nationality and 
     citizenship causes the relationship to evolve in the 
     direction of full independence rather than functional re-
     integration.
       Free association is essentially a transitional status for 
     peoples who do not seek full integration, but rather seek to 
     maintain close political, economic and security relations 
     with another nation during the period after separate 
     sovereignty is achieved. Again, this could be accomplished by 
     treaty between independent nations as well. Thus, free 
     association is a form of separate sovereignty that usually 
     arises from the relationship between a colonial power and a 
     people formerly in a colonial status who at least temporarily 
     want close ties with the former colonial power for so long as 
     both parties agree to the arrangements.
       Free association is recognized as a distinct form of 
     separate sovereignty, even though legally it also is 
     consistent with independence. Specifically, free association 
     is consistent with independence because, as explained below, 
     the special and close bilateral relationship created by a 
     free association treaty or pact can be terminated in favor of 
     conventional independence at any time by either party.
       In addition, the U.S. and the international community have 
     recognized that a separate nation can be a party to a 
     bilateral pact of free association and be an independent 
     nation in the conventional sense at the same time. For 
     example, the Republic of the Marshall Islands is party to the 
     Compact of Free Association with the United States, but has 
     been admitted to the United Nations as an independent nation.
       Thus, the international practice regarding free association 
     actually is best understood as a method of facilitating the 
     decolonization process leading to simple and absolute 
     independence. Essentially, it allows new nations not prepared 
     economically, socially or strategically for emergence into 
     conventional independence to achieve separate nationhood in 
     cooperation with a former colonial power or another existing 
     nation.
       Under international law and practice including the relevant 
     U.N. resolutions and existing free association precedents, 
     free association must be terminable at will by either party 
     in order to establish that the relationship is consistent 
     with separate sovereignty and the right of self-determination 
     is preserved. This international standard, also recognized by 
     the U.S., is based on the requirement that free association 
     not be allowed to become merely a new form of internationally 
     accepted colonialism.

[[Page H784]]

       Specifically, free association is not intended to create a 
     new form of territorial status or quasi-sovereignty. It is 
     not a ``nation-within-a-nation'' relationship or a form of 
     irrevocable permanent union, but is, again, a sovereign-to-
     sovereign treaty-based relationship which is either of 
     limited duration or terminable at will by either party acting 
     unilaterally.
       In other words, both parties have a sovereign right to 
     terminate the relationship at any time. The free association 
     treaty may provide for the terms and measures which will 
     apply in the event of unilateral termination, but the ability 
     of either party to do so can not be conditioned or encumbered 
     in such a manner that the exercise of the right to terminate 
     the relationship effectively is impaired or precluded.
       For that reason, the territory and population of each 
     nation involved must be within the sovereignty, nationality 
     and citizenship of that nation, and the elements and 
     mechanisms of the free association relationship must be 
     defined consistent with that requirement. Separate and 
     distinct sovereignty and nationality must be established at 
     the time of decolonization and preserved under the 
     relationship or the ability of either party to terminate will 
     be impaired.
       Thus, the major power may grant to people of the free 
     associated nation special rights normally associated with the 
     major power's own citizenship classifications, such as open 
     immigration and residence rights.
       However, these arrangements are subject to the same 
     terminability as the overall relationship, and thus may be 
     either for a limited duration or subject to unilateral 
     termination by either party at any time.
       Consequently, there can be no permanent mass dual 
     nationality because this would be inconsistent with the 
     preservation of the underlying separate sovereignty. Any 
     special rights or classifications of the major power extended 
     to the people of a free associated nation are more in the 
     nature of residency rights and do not prevent either nation 
     from exercising separate sovereignty with respect to the 
     nationality its own population.
       Upon termination of the free association relationship by 
     either party, any such classifications or special residency 
     rights will be subject to unilateral termination as well. 
     Both during and after any period of free association, the 
     people of each of the two nations will owe their allegiance 
     to and have the separate nationality of their own country. 
     Any attempt to deviate from these norms of international law 
     and practice would undermine the sovereignty of both nations, 
     and would impair the right of self-determination which must 
     be preserved to ensure the relationship is based on consent 
     rather than coercion.
       In summary, the United States recognizes each of the three 
     U.N. accepted status options for Puerto Rico to achieve full 
     self-government. One of those options, integration, is within 
     U.S. sovereignty and the federal political union, the other 
     two, independence and free association, exist without U.S. 
     sovereignty, nationality and citizenship.
       Obviously, Puerto Rico can not act unilaterally to 
     establish a new status. This is so not only because of U.S. 
     sovereignty and the authority of Congress under the 
     territorial clause, but also because Puerto Rico seeks the 
     agreement of the U.S. to the terms under which any of these 
     options would be implemented. This means Congress must agree 
     to the terms under which a new status is defined and 
     implemented.
       There is no right on the part of Puerto Rico unilaterally 
     to define its relationship with the United States. Nor would 
     it be consistent with U.S. commitments to respect the right 
     of self-determination for non-self-governing people under 
     U.S. administration to dispose of the territory of Puerto 
     Rico in a manner which does not take into account the freely 
     expressed wishes of the residents.
       Thus, as the two parties which must define and carry out a 
     future relationship based on consent and the right of self-
     determination which each must exercise, Congress, on behalf 
     of the United States, and the people of Puerto Rico, acting 
     through their constitutional process, must decide whether 
     decolonization will be completed through completion of the 
     process for integration into union or separation and 
     nationhood apart from the U.S. for Puerto Rico.

  Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from Massachusetts (Mr. Kennedy).
  Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding time to me.
  Mr. Chairman, I have been impressed in this debate thus far about the 
determination of us as Members of Congress to provide for real self-
determination for the great people of Puerto Rico. I think it is 
fundamentally important to the Puerto Rican people themselves and to 
all of us as Americans, when we talk about the most important issue, 
perhaps, that we can determine in this Chamber, as to whether or not 
and who we define as American citizens, that we are clearly saying to 
the Puerto Rican people that they are welcome as not only citizens of 
this country, but they are in fact welcome as a 51st State.
  But, and I mean a serious but, for anyone who has taken the time to 
visit Puerto Rico, to not just visit there in the sense of getting a 
nice suntan, but going there and talking with the Puerto Rican people 
and gaining a better understanding of their own identification, the 
truth of the matter is there are millions of Puerto Ricans that 
consider themselves to be Puerto Ricans, Puerto Ricans first.
  American citizens, yes. They are willing to fight and die for this 
country. But I do not consider myself a Massachusettan first and then 
an American, I consider myself to be an American.
  I think that we as American citizens ought to fundamentally be wide 
enough in the breadth of our knowledge and our sense of other human 
beings to allow them their own self-identification. That means that we 
ought to respect those that believe in the Commonwealth party.
  I have a great many friends that are commonwealthers and 
statehooders. But I have great respect for the Commonwealth party, and 
I believe that this bill unfairly slants the way we define Commonwealth 
by bringing up issues as to whether or not this means that Puerto Rican 
people are going to be forever faced with determinations by this body 
as to whether or not we are going to consider them to be citizens, 
whether or not we are going to tax them, a whole series of questions 
that effectively undermines one group of Puerto Ricans that over and 
over again has stood up for equality status versus statehood.
  If the people of Puerto Rico claim and vote for statehood, I would be 
the first in this Chamber to vote with them and to give them their vote 
and voice here in the Congress of the United States. But if in fact 
they choose Commonwealth status, then let us respect that as well, and 
let us make this an evenhanded debate that does not slight one side or 
the other, but gives this important issue the respect it is due.

                              {time}  1345

  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman), the honorable chairman of the 
Committee on International Relations.
  (Mr. GILMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from New York (Mr. 
Solomon) for yielding me this time. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in 
support of H.R. 856, the United States-Puerto Rico Political Status 
Act, allowing Puerto Ricans to determine their future political status.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of H.R. 856, the United States-
Puerto Rico Political Status Act, which will allow Puerto Ricans to 
determine their future political status.
  This bill would give the U.S. citizens of Puerto Rico the right to 
self-determination. I believe every U.S. citizen should be afforded 
that opportunity.
  The right to self-determination is a foundation or our freedoms. By 
voting against this bill, we would be sending a message that we don't 
believe other citizens should be given the opportunity and privilege of 
voting that we enjoy.
  Puerto Ricans have served and died in wars defending democracy for 
years, yet they cannot elect a President or participate in the 
legislative process. This is unjust and un-American. Voting for H.R. 
856 will entrust 3.8 million Hispanic Americans who reside in Puerto 
Rico with the power of an educated vote on self-determination.
  Furthermore, voting for H.R. 856 does not confer statehood to Puerto 
Rico, but merely establishes a referendum that sets the terms and 
clarifies the choices to allow Puerto Ricans to determine their future 
political status. With regard to the language of the island, Puerto 
Rico recognized English as an official language of the local government 
in 1902--longer than any other American domain. English is the language 
of the local and federal governments, courts, and businesses, and is 
also in the curriculum of all the schools on the island of Puerto Rico.
  As chairman of the International Relations Committee, I recognize the 
importance of supporting democratic principles abroad. Supporting H.R. 
856 were enormously help to strengthen U.S. relations with Latin 
American nations. It is equally important to support these democratic 
standards here in America, by voting for a non-binding referendum.
  For these reasons, I urge my colleagues to join in voting for H.R. 
856, and grant Puerto Ricans the right to self-determination.
  Mr. ROMERO-BARCELO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman 
from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton).

[[Page H785]]

  Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Puerto Rico (Mr. 
Romero-Barcelo) for yielding me this time.
  Mr. Chairman, a matter of self-determination should be a matter that 
brings unanimous consent in this body, and it pains to me to see 
divisions and splits. If the bill is imperfect, there are many hurdles 
yet to go: additional island votes, additional congressional votes 
provided by the bill. Also, the vote to be taken in Puerto Rico is 
nonbinding.
  Above all, we cannot get ahead of the Puerto Rican people. In 1993, 
we in the District of Columbia had a historic vote on statehood. That 
is not what this vote is about. It is about allowing the Puerto Rican 
people to decide what affiliation they themselves desire. This is what 
we say we want people around the world to decide.
  I represent half a million people in the District of Columbia who 
identify with Puerto Ricans because we too are treated as less than 
full Americans, living here right under the noses of the Congress of 
the United States. We know what it is like to fight and die in wars 
while suffering denials of concomitant rights.
  The District has even fewer rights than Puerto Ricans because we do 
not have the right to self-government. We in the District feel a deep 
kinship which demands for self-determination around the world, and 
especially self-determination among our own in Puerto Rico.
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman 
from Mississippi (Mr. Taylor).
  Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Mr. Chairman, as we debate this, there are 
20,000 Puerto Ricans serving in the Armed Forces of the United States. 
In this century, 200,000 have taken the pledge to defend our country. 
As recently as the Vietnam war, almost as many Puerto Ricans as 
Mississippians gave their lives for our country. And as recently as the 
Gulf War, when American casualties were miraculously low, four Puerto 
Ricans died for the United States of America.
  Mr. Chairman, if that is not the price to pay for the privilege of 
deciding whether or not they want to be a State, then what is? They 
have paid the price. They deserve the right to make that decision.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to please vote in favor of this 
bill.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Horn), one of the Members that would probably be 
considered the least partisan of all on both sides of the aisle.
  (Mr. HORN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. HORN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from New York (Mr. 
Solomon), chairman of the Committee on Rules, for yielding me this 
time.
  Mr. Chairman, I feel very strongly in support of the amendment 
offered by the gentleman from New York. I will support it. But I will 
also vote against this bill.
  We have a wonderful Resident Commissioner here from Puerto Rico. 
There is excellent representation from Guam, the District of Columbia, 
Virgin Islands, American Samoa. But I think this is just wrong public 
policy. We should not be raising false expectations of any group. I 
think the one way to do it is to say right now, let us not kid 
ourselves, this is not a good idea.
  Puerto Rico is the result of the Spanish-American War. It has a 
wonderful people. What the gentleman from Mississippi said is 
absolutely correct. Many of them have given their lives for our 
country. There are also wonderful people in Guam, Saipan, the Virgin 
Islands, American Samoa, and the District of Columbia.
  Mr. Chairman, I would say to the gentlewoman from the District of 
Columbia (Ms. Norton) that we can solve the District's problem very 
easily and do what Congress did in the Nineteenth Century when it ceded 
back to Virginia that part of the District of Columbia which had been 
carved out of Virginia. Give it back to Maryland, and the District 
would have full representation.
  But Puerto Rico should never have been a territory. Cuba was never a 
territory. Cuba has been independent. Granted, the Marines occupied 
them and a number of other countries from time to time. But we should 
have left Cuba independent. We did. We should have left Puerto Rico 
independent. We did not. And we need not continue that error forever.
  We kept our promise to the Philippines that they would be independent 
in 1946. There is many a Filipino life of the Philippine Scouts, 
Philippine Army, that helped the United States in the sad, sad days of 
1941 when the Japanese Empire extended its military and Naval forces 
southward in Asia.
  Many of the 50,000 Cambodians in my City of Long Beach have talked to 
me and asked if Cambodia could become a State. Now, that would be a 
wonderful idea. They are wonderful people. No people except the Jews, 
the Kurds, the Armenians, and a few others have had to go through the 
hell that the people of Cambodia have gone through. One million were 
killed by Pol Pot. But as I have told them, it does not make sense for 
them to be a State of the United States. We have to draw the line.
  And for those who have small States and want the second 
representative, just forget about it if six representatives come in 
from anywhere, Puerto Rico or any other territory that seeks statehood.
  The niceness of the people and their heroism, we should honor. But we 
should not be getting ourselves entangled in situations that will be 
another Quebec, no matter how much we teach the English language. And, 
frankly, we have to say ``no'' from the beginning. Let us not make a 
major mistake. Vote ``yes'' for the Solomon amendment and ``no'' on the 
passage of the bill.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Gutierrez) has 1 
minute remaining; the gentleman from Puerto Rico (Mr. Romero-Barcelo) 
has 3\1/2\ minutes remaining; the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young) has 
one-half minute remaining; and the gentleman from New York (Mr. 
Solomon) has one-half minute remaining.


                         Parliamentary Inquiry

  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state it.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Chairman, I believe under the procedures of the 
House that it would be appropriate at this time for the gentleman from 
Illinois (Mr. Gutierrez) to use up his time, then the gentleman from 
Puerto Rico, then myself, and then reserving the close for the chairman 
of the committee. Would that not be in order? I would suggest it, at 
any rate.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair will recognize Members to close general 
debate in reverse of the order in which the Members opened. Therefore, 
the Chair will recognize Members to close debate as follows: The 
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Gutierrez), the gentleman from New York 
(Mr. Solomon), the gentleman from California (Mr. Miller), and the 
gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young).
  Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Chairman, I think the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Taylor) was 
very eloquent when he spoke about the thousands of Puerto Ricans that 
have given their lives in the armed forces. And the gentleman ended his 
statement by saying they should be able to vote for statehood. Indeed, 
they should.
  That is not the question here. The question is should not they be 
able to vote for other statuses also, and should we stack the deck 
against them and in favor of statehood? Listen. I want everybody to 
understand this. We cannot have self-determination if the people who 
are going to have the plebiscite do not agree with the definitions, if 
we say to those people when they walk into the ballot box, and this is 
what we are asking them to do: statehood, citizenship guaranteed; 
commonwealth, maybe, including those thousands and thousands that have 
served in the Armed Forces that are citizens today. That is weighting 
it against, and it is unfair.
  So if we are going to bring up the courage, if we are going to bring 
up the commitment and the service, let them decide in a fair manner 
what their future is. And I remind my colleagues, this is not a group 
of people. It is not a territory. It is a nation. They feel that they 
are a nation. Puerto Rico is a separate and distinct country.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Chairman, briefly, the reason I have opposed this bill in its 
present

[[Page H786]]

form is because it sets in motion a procedure that would possibly bring 
Puerto Rico into the Union with a simple vote of 50 percent plus 1. 
When Alaska came in, 83 percent of the people wanted statehood. When 
Hawaii came in, 94 percent of the people wanted statehood. We cannot 
have another Quebec on our hands like Canada. If the overwhelming 
majority of the people of Puerto Rico want statehood, I will be the 
first to stand up here to fight for their admittance. Until that time, 
I think we should oppose this bill.
  Mr. ROMERO-BARCELO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman 
from Hawaii (Mrs. Mink).
  Mrs. MINK of Hawaii. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Puerto 
Rico (Mr. Romero-Barcelo) for yielding me this time.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of H.R. 856, and oppose the 
Solomon amendment and support the Miller substitute.
  Mr. Chairman, I commend the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young) for his 
leadership in this matter. His State and my State went through years 
and years of agony, of pleading with this Congress to be admitted as a 
complete partner, as a State. We went through much this same type of 
argument on many side issues. And I regret that my dear friends are in 
opposition to this proposal on the grounds that they do not feel that 
the ballot is fairly stated.
  The central issue here is that the people of Puerto Rico are being 
given the decision-making opportunity. They have to cast their ballots 
one way or another. The issue of statehood versus commonwealth will be 
clearly debated by the people.
  Mr. Chairman, I feel that this is an issue which goes to the very 
heart of this democracy and the people of Puerto Rico ought to be given 
the right to vote.
  Mr. Chairman, H.R. 856 is the first congressionally recognized 
framework that establishes a referendum for the people of Puerto Rico 
to determine whether they choose to be a commonwealth, state, or 
independent nation.
  H.R. 856 is not a bill granting statehood, it is a bill to allow 
American citizens to determine their political future. Some argue 
against H.R. 856 because they do not like the definition of 
commonwealth or simply do not support statehood and do not want to see 
the same rights and benefits accorded all states given to Puerto Rico. 
We do not know how the people of Puerto Rico will vote. However, we owe 
our fellow Americans the chance to decide for themselves what 
relationship they wish to have with the United States.
  For example, some say the bill's definition of Puerto Rico's current 
territorial or ``commonwealth'' status is not attractive as statehood. 
Each status has its advantages and disadvantages. If a majority of the 
residents of Puerto Rico were to choose to remain a commonwealth under 
H.R. 856, their relationship with the United States would not change.
  There are some who oppose the possibility of Puerto Rico becoming a 
state because both Spanish and English are the official languages of 
Puerto Rico. These opponents wish to ``assimilate'' Puerto Rico into 
the United States and believe the only way to ``assimilate'' these 
residents is to declare English as the official language. This is not 
true. At least four territories: Louisiana, New Mexico, Oklahoma, and 
Hawaii were admitted as states with constitutional provisions 
protecting the rights of French, Spanish, Native American, and Native 
Hawaiian speaking residents. How can we impose different standards of 
Puerto Rico.
  Many would have us believe that Puerto Rico residents have no 
interest in speaking or teaching or conducting business in English. 
This is simply not true. For example:
  85 percent of Post-Secondary school students speak English and 
Spanish.
  English is used in all official communications by federal agencies on 
the island. All documents presented before the United States District 
Court for the District of Puerto Rico are in English. Court proceedings 
in the Federal Court are conducted in English.
  Since 1900 the public school system has offered bilingual education. 
English is taught from Kindergarten through 12 grade.
  The Puerto Rico Department of Education is implementing a program to 
strengthen the bilingual skills of public school students. This program 
consists of a strong emphasis on reading English and Spanish starting 
in Kindergarten; English textbooks in math and science; English 
immersion programs; as well as teacher exchange programs between the 
continental United States and Puerto Rico to improve English teaching 
skills.
  32 professions in Puerto Rico require their members to take licensing 
examinations in English. They include Accounting, Architecture, 
Engineering, Medicine, and Optometry. Puerto Rico's largest weekly 
newspaper, The Caribbean Business, and the Pulitzer Prize-winning The 
San Juan Star, the third largest daily newspaper, are both completely 
in English.
  Even with this English foundation already existing in Puerto Rico, 
H.R. 856 stresses the need for a continued English presence by stating 
that ``English shall be the common language of mutual understanding in 
the United States.''
  Proposing an ``English-only'' amendment to H.R. 856 opens up an issue 
larger than Puerto Rico. An amendment declaring English as the official 
language of the United States affects every state. This is an 
unnecessary amendment that is larger than the bill at hand and should 
be debated standing alone and not attached to H.R. 856.
  English is by far our Nation's common language. According to the U.S. 
Census Bureau, 95 percent of Americans currently speak English ``well'' 
or ``very well.'' It is because English is already the language of the 
U.S. and its people, and because there is no threat that English will 
be subsumed by other languages, that I do not think English-Only 
amendments affecting all Americans should be enacted.
  For the past 100 years, the people of Puerto Rico have served America 
with loyalty, pride and commitment. They have a right to decide what 
form of relationship Puerto Rico should have with the United States. I 
support a plebiscite. Hawaii as a Territory also was accorded U.S. 
citizens status and later voted to become a state. The people of Puerto 
Rico should also decide this for themselves. H.R. 856 allows them to do 
so.
  I urge the passage of H.R. 856.
  Mr. ROMERO-BARCELO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman 
from New York (Mr. Engel).
  Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of H.R. 856. To me 
this is a question of equity and fairness. There are nearly 4 million 
Puerto Ricans who are American citizens who are denied the right to 
self-determination. This bill simply starts a process. It is nothing 
more, nothing less.
  We will be able to find out from this process what Puerto Ricans 
want. We can then respond to that process. This is only fair. The 
people of Puerto Rico did not ask to be a part of this country 100 
years ago, remember. They became a part by the Spanish-American War, 
and as was pointed out, they have been loyal citizens. They have the 
same right to self-determination as all Americans do.
  Mr. Chairman, I represent a district in the Bronx, in Westchester 
County in New York. We have many, many Puerto Ricans living there and 
the people are positively excited about the fact that their brethren on 
Puerto Rico will have the opportunity to have this dialogue. As my 
colleague from Hawaii said, the people of Alaska and Hawaii went 
through much the same thing. Much of the arguments that were raised 
against them coming into the Union are being raised now.
  We do not favor any one thing. We want the process to start. The 
people of Puerto Rico deserve nothing less.
  Mr. ROMERO-BARCELO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I guess we should be discussing here an amendment as to 
whether this Nation should be allowed to invade any country that does 
not speak English. That is the problem.
  Mr. Chairman, there has been so much demagoguery here. When they 
discuss it they say that we are not allowing the people that support 
commonwealth to vote because we say that citizenship is statutory. What 
else is it? There is a Constitution of the United States that says that 
those born in a State are citizens and also those that are naturalized 
are citizens. The Constitution does not say anything else.
  So it is by law in 1917 that established that those born in Puerto 
Rico shall be citizens of the United States, so we are citizens by a 
statute. And that statute cannot be repealed to deny those that are 
citizens the right of citizenship. But that statute can be repealed to 
say and amended to say that those that are born from the year 2,000 on 
will no longer be citizens by reason of birth, and the people of Puerto 
Rico should know that under commonwealth that could happen. We say it 
will probably not happen because it is the policy of the Nation to 
maintain those that are born in Puerto Rico from now on also as 
citizens, but they must know the truth.
  The people of the commonwealth have been voting for lies for many,

[[Page H787]]

many years and they have been misled. The United Nations was misled 
when this country went to the United Nations and said Puerto Rico has 
achieved a full measure of self-government. All of my colleagues know 
that I am here and I cannot vote. I cannot even vote for this bill that 
is so important for the people of Puerto Rico.
  Mr. Chairman, all we are asking is give us an opportunity for self-
determination. Give us an opportunity to vote whether we want to stay 
as we are or we want to be a State or we want to be independent. This 
is self-determination, what we have fought for on foreign soils all 
over the world.

                              {time}  1400

  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my 
time.
  Again, this is our opportunity, as we close this debate to thank 
everybody participating in the debate for their decorum and their 
honesty and their strong beliefs. I believe that this is the correct 
way to go. I believe it is the right thing to do. This is justice.
  I will strongly oppose the Solomon amendment. I will support the 
bipartisan amendment of Burton-Young-Miller, and I suggest respectfully 
that this is the right thing for Congress today. And as we stop this 
great century and begin a new century, the right thing to do for the 
Americans of Puerto Rico and the great United States of America.
  Mr. LAZIO of New York. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Puerto 
Rico Political Status Act. The bill would grant the four million U.S. 
citizens living in Puerto Rico the right to determine their own future.
  This year marks the one hundredth anniversary of Puerto Rico's 
accession into the United States at the end of the Spanish-American 
War. Over that time, Puerto Rico has made major contributions to this 
nation, including the service of more than 200,000 of its young men and 
women in the armed forces of the United States. More than 8,000 have 
given their lives in defense of our nation's freedom. Given the many 
contributions residents of Puerto Rico have made to the United States, 
I support this initiative for Puerto Rico's self-determination.
  The self-determination process of H.R. 856 ensures that the people of 
Puerto Rico and the people of the United States, through their 
representatives in Congress, will each have a voice in the three stages 
of resolving Puerto Rico's political status. As you know, the bill 
allows residents of Puerto Rico to determine the political status of 
their island by a democratic referendum process. Under the bill, voters 
choose either to retain the current commonwealth structure for local 
self government as a territory, separate sovereignty, or statehood.
  This bill does not mandate that Puerto Rico become a state. The bill 
would leave the decision to the local residents to exercise their 
collective voice and determine the future of Puerto Rico. However, 
should residents favor statehood, the bill outlines a transition plan 
that includes incentives and opportunities for residents to learn 
English.
  Mr. Chairman, the United States is known the world over as the 
promoter and keeper of political freedom. We must allow the United 
States citizens living in Puerto Rico to determine their political 
future as well.
  Mr. BUNNING. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to H.R. 856, the 
United States-Puerto Rico Political Status Act.
  Back during my baseball days, I actually lived in Puerto Rico for two 
years. And I think I have some idea about life on the island. It has a 
long, rich history, and a vibrant culture. Living there was a wonderful 
experience.
  But, I think that it's this history and culture that dictate that 
Puerto Rico should be independent from the United States. No matter how 
hard the proponents of statehood, or those who support continuing 
commonwealth status, argue their case, I don't think they can reconcile 
the fact that Puerto Rico has strong traditions that profoundly 
separates it from America.
  It is a separation that cannot be bridged.
  I recognize that on the surface there are similarities between 
America and Puerto Rico. Politically and economically some links have 
been forged during Puerto Rico's years as an American Commonwealth.
  But these connections are only skin deep. Beyond that the customs and 
culture of Puerto Rico are predominantly their own, or much more 
closely identified with other Latin or Hispanic cultures.
  The vast majority of its residents speak Spanish, not English. And in 
the most recent referenda, held just five years ago, the residents were 
profoundly divided over their island's future. None of the options--
independence, statehood, or commonwealth status--received even a 
majority vote, much less a ringing endorsement.
  If an overwhelming majority of residents wanted to join the United 
States that would be one thing. But the indecision among Puerto Ricans 
simply reflects the fact that the distance between the U.S. and Puerto 
Rico is much greater than the 950 miles of ocean that separate San Juan 
from Miami.
  Mr. Chairman, I think Puerto Rico should be independent. I don't 
think it should be a state, and I don't think it should be a 
commonwealth. And I think that no matter what we do here today, there 
is no way we can overcome the fact that America and Puerto Rico are 
separated by profound differences.
  The bill before us today claims to present us with a choice for 
helping Puerto Ricans determine their future. But, it is a false choice 
because no matter how long we debate this matter in Congress, and no 
matter how many referenda are held in Puerto Rico, their is only one 
inevitable outcome--independence.
  Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the Young-
Miller substitute for H.R. 856, the United States-Puerto Rico Political 
Status Act.
  The political status of Puerto Rico has been a topic of discussion of 
the Committee on Resources, and its predecessor Committees, for 
decades. My interest in Puerto Rico began in the 1970's when I was a 
member of the staff of Congressman Phil Burton of California. I learned 
then of the political divisions within Puerto Rico, and those political 
divisions are still in existence.
  From my perspective, all three political parties in Puerto Rico make 
persuasive arguments in support of their respective positions, and I 
believe all three are viable political options. Additionally, I believe 
a political status of free association is a possibility for Puerto Rico 
to consider at some point in the future, but given the present 
political makeup of the commonwealth, I do not believe it should be 
included on the ballot at this time.
  Before I make my specific comments on H.R. 856, I want to note for 
the record that I think it is critically important that throughout this 
process, as an institution, Congress must present itself as fair and as 
evenhanded as possible. When I speak of self-determination for Puerto 
Rico, in my mind, that means the people of Puerto Rico choose their own 
course, and in making that choice all options should be available for 
the people of Puerto Rico to consider.
  Even though Congress has plenary authority over Puerto Rico, I 
believe it would be a serious mistake for the Congress to impose its 
will upon the people of Puerto Rico without fair and equitable 
consultation with the Puerto Rican leaders and the people. I place such 
high concern on this issue because it is my sense that if Congress is 
not scrupulously evenhanded in this regard, three things can happen. 
First, the U.S. citizens in Puerto Rico lose their trust in the process 
and in Congress as an institution. Second, if events do not go as 
smoothly as Congress might hope, it will be the Congress that will be 
blamed for the problems, and rightfully so. Third, we all know 
political status is an emotional issue in Puerto Rico. The Commonwealth 
has a long history of fair and impartial elections with voting 
percentages which are the envy of every state of the United States. If 
the political status selection process were perceived as unfair, I fear 
the consequences of even the perception of partiality, and again, I 
believe Congress would have to take its share of the blame and 
responsibility.
  Mr. Chairman, as I see it, the underlying problem, if it is a problem 
at all, is that over 90% of the people of Puerto Rico are almost evenly 
split on which political course they should follow. As a result of 
this, no one group can obtain a majority of votes. Until that changes, 
any affirmative action Congress takes will not be in accordance with 
the wishes of the majority in Puerto Rico. Given those facts, I believe 
it is neither wise, nor good policy, to tilt the scales, just to 
acquire a majority.

  I do have a few concerns with this legislation I want to note. I have 
said repeatedly that I do not like the idea of one political group 
defining another political group's definition of itself. To a certain 
extent, we have that problem in this bill--the bill contains a 
definition of Commonwealth status, but it was not drafted and is not 
supported by the political party which supports that status. It is 
difficult to ask a political organization to vote for or support a 
status its members do not support, and that is a serious concern I have 
with this bill. The situation is complicated by the apparent reluctance 
of the Popular Democratic Party to provide a definition of 
``Commonwealth'' which could be included in the bill.
  Because of the opposition of the one of the major political parties 
to a key definition in the bill, it was not an easy decision for me to 
support this bill. I support the definitions contained in the Young-
Miller substitute, but want to note that I do not consider the 
definition of Commonwealth as describing a static relationship

[[Page H788]]

as some have stated. Rather, I believe it describes the current dynamic 
relationship between the people of Puerto Rico and the people of the 
United States, which can and should be changed over time.
  Secondly, while some may not consider Puerto Rico's current 
relationship with the United States to be a permanent one, it does not 
make sense to force a change on the people of Puerto Rico which they do 
not want. It would be a serious mistake to encourage the people into a 
``permanent'' political status that will not best serve their long-term 
interests.
  Third, Mr. Speaker, is the issue of the use of the English and 
Spanish languages in Puerto Rico. Coming from an insular area in which 
Samoan and English are spoken I see nothing to gain and much to lose by 
forcing the citizens of Puerto Rico to give up part of their Spanish 
heritage by prohibiting them from speaking to each other in Spanish.
  On the other hand, we will not be well served as a nation if the vast 
majority of the citizens of one of our states do not speak English, and 
speak it well. The example of Quebec, Canada has been often discussed 
these last few weeks, but that is not the only example. I would also 
point to the problems in the Balkans and in many countries in sub-
Saharan Africa. This is a very difficult issue which I believe is 
appropriately addressed in the Burton-Miller-Young amendment, and I 
support that amendment.
  Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 856, legislation 
which would provide a framework by which the people of Puerto Rico may 
determine their political status.
  Various speakers during today's debate will discuss a number of 
aspects of this legislation and the sensitive issues it raises.
  However, as the ranking Democratic Member on the Subcommittee on 
Surface Transportation, I will limit my remarks to how Puerto Rico is 
currently being treated under the federal highway and transit programs, 
and what the process of self-determination could mean to the island.
  Today, the people of Puerto Rico are the beneficiaries of federal 
highway dollars even though they do not pay any federal motor fuel 
taxes into the Highway Trust Fund.
  On the surface, that may appear to be a good deal of Puerto Rico and 
a bad deal for the rest of the country.
  Yet, our contribution to the highway infrastructure of the island is 
relatively small. Indeed, over the six-year life of ISTEA, starting 
with 1992 and ending with 1997, Puerto Rico received $492 million in 
federal highway dollars.
  It is interesting to note that with a population of about 3.8 million 
people, Puerto Rico received considerably less than Hawaii, a State 
with similar characteristics in terms of the factors used to apportion 
federal highway dollars to the States.
  With a much smaller population of 1.2 million, Hawaii received a 
little more than $1.2 billion in federal highway dollars during ISTEA 
compared to the $492 million sent to Puerto Rico.
  On the other hand, if we simply look to population, Connecticut with 
about 3.3 million people received $2.2 billion over ISTEA compared to 
Puerto Rico's $492 million.
  As such, while Puerto Rico, which pays no federal motor fuel taxes, 
receives federal highway dollars, the amount is nowhere near it would 
receive if it was a State and its residents contributed into the 
Highway Trust Fund.
  In fact, under existing formulas, if Puerto Rico was a State it would 
receive back in federal highway dollars far more than what it 
contributes in motor fuel taxes as is the case with Hawaii, Connecticut 
and many other States.
  Is there a pressing need to make transportation improvements in 
Puerto Rico, yes, certainly.
  Anyone who has driven the streets of Santruce, of Rios Piedras, of 
Bayamon or anywhere else in San Juan knows of the massive congestion 
which plagues that city.
  This is not to say that the government is not making efforts to make 
improvements.
  For example, Tren Urbano is one of if not the best new transit start 
anywhere in the United States. Yet, the federal share currently is only 
30% of that project while other, less deserving transit projects, have 
federal share of at least 50% with some up to 80%.
  Why is this? I think in part it is due to the resourcefulness of the 
governor and his administration. But I also think it is in part because 
they feel there may be limits to the extent of federal transit dollars 
they can seek under Commonwealth status.
  In conclusion, I would observe that the people of Puerto Rico have 
shed their blood in defense of the United States. For over 100 years 
they have been a junior partner in the development of the greatest 
Democracy in the world that is this country. The relationship has been 
mutually beneficial.
  However, I believe it is time, once again, for the people of Puerto 
Rico to make a determination as to their political status.
  Do they want a full seat at the table that is these United States, to 
be a full and equal partner, or do they want to continue to sit at that 
table on a small stool as a commonwealth, or do they want to go their 
own way as a separate nation.
  That is what this legislation is about.
  I urge a yes vote on H.R. 856.
  The CHAIRMAN. All time for general debate has expired.
  Pursuant to the rule, the amendment in the nature of a substitute 
printed in the Congressional Record and numbered 1 is considered as an 
original bill for the purpose of amendment and is considered as having 
been read.
  The text of the amendment in the nature of a substitute is as 
follows:
  Amendment in the nature of a substitute:
       Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the 
     following:

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.

       (a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``United 
     States-Puerto Rico Political Status Act''.
       (b) Table of Contents.--The table of contents for this Act 
     is as follows:

Sec. 1. Short title, table of contents.
Sec. 2. Findings.
Sec. 3. Policy.
Sec. 4. Process for Puerto Rican full self-government, including the 
              initial decision stage, transition stage, and 
              implementation stage.
Sec. 5. Requirements relating to referenda, including inconclusive 
              referendum and applicable laws.
Sec. 6. Congressional procedures for consideration of legislation.
Sec. 7. Availability of funds for the referenda.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

       The Congress finds the following:
       (1) Puerto Rico was ceded to the United States and came 
     under this Nation's sovereignty pursuant to the Treaty of 
     Paris ending the Spanish-American War in 1898. Article IX of 
     the Treaty of Paris recognized the authority of Congress to 
     provide for the political status of the inhabitants of the 
     territory.
       (2) Consistent with establishment of United States 
     nationality for inhabitants of Puerto Rico under the Treaty 
     of Paris, Congress has exercised its powers under the 
     Territorial Clause of the Constitution (article IV, section 
     3, clause 2) to provide by several statutes beginning in 
     1917, for the United States citizenship status of persons 
     born in Puerto Rico.
       (3) Consistent with the Territorial Clause and rulings of 
     the United States Supreme Court, partial application of the 
     United States Constitution has been established in the 
     unincorporated territories of the United States including 
     Puerto Rico.
       (4) In 1950, Congress prescribed a procedure for 
     instituting internal self-government for Puerto Rico pursuant 
     to statutory authorization for a local constitution. A local 
     constitution was approved by the people of Puerto Rico, 
     approved by Congress, subject to conforming amendment by 
     Puerto Rico, and thereupon given effect in 1952 after 
     acceptance of congressional conditions by the Puerto Rico 
     Constitutional Convention and an appropriate proclamation by 
     the Governor. The approved constitution established the 
     structure for constitutional government in respect of 
     internal affairs without altering Puerto Rico's fundamental 
     political, social, and economic relationship with the United 
     States and without restricting the authority of Congress 
     under the Territorial Clause to determine the application of 
     Federal law to Puerto Rico, resulting in the present 
     ``Commonwealth'' structure for local self-government. The 
     Commonwealth remains an unincorporated territory and does not 
     have the status of ``free association'' with the United 
     States as that status is defined under United States law or 
     international practice.
       (5) In 1953, the United States transmitted to the 
     Secretary-General of the United Nations for circulation to 
     its Members a formal notification that the United States no 
     longer would transmit information regarding Puerto Rico to 
     the United Nations pursuant to Article 73(e) of its Charter. 
     The formal United States notification document informed the 
     United Nations that the cessation of information on Puerto 
     Rico was based on the ``new constitutional arrangements'' in 
     the territory, and the United States expressly defined the 
     scope of the ``full measure'' of local self-government in 
     Puerto Rico as extending to matters of ``internal government 
     and administration, subject only to compliance with 
     applicable provisions of the Federal Constitution, the Puerto 
     Rico Federal Relations Act and the acts of Congress 
     authorizing and approving the Constitution, as may be 
     interpreted by judicial decision.''. Thereafter, the General 
     Assembly of the United Nations, based upon consent of the 
     inhabitants of the territory and the United States 
     explanation of the new status as approved by Congress, 
     adopted Resolution 748 (VIII) by a vote of 22 to 18 with 19 
     abstentions, thereby accepting the United States 
     determination to cease reporting to the United Nations on the 
     status of Puerto Rico.
       (6) In 1960, the United Nations General Assembly approved 
     Resolution 1541 (XV), clarifying that under United Nations 
     standards

[[Page H789]]

     regarding the political status options available to the 
     people of territories yet to complete the process for 
     achieving full self-government, the three established forms 
     of full self-government are national independence, free 
     association based on separate sovereignty, or full 
     integration with another nation on the basis of equality.
       (7) The ruling of the United States Supreme Court in the 
     1980 case Harris v. Rosario (446 U.S. 651) confirmed that 
     Congress continues to exercise authority over Puerto Rico 
     pursuant to the Territorial Clause found at Article IV, 
     section 3, clause 2 of the United States Constitution; and in 
     the 1982 case of Rodriguez v. Popular Democratic Party (457 
     U.S. 1), the Court confirmed that the Congress delegated 
     powers of administration to the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico 
     sufficient for it to function ``like a State'' and as ``an 
     autonomous political entity'' in respect of internal affairs 
     and administration, ``sovereign over matters not ruled by the 
     Constitution'' of the United States. These rulings constitute 
     judicial interpretation of Puerto Rico's status which is in 
     accordance with the clear intent of Congress that 
     establishment of local constitutional government in 1952 did 
     not alter Puerto Rico's fundamental status.
       (8) In a joint letter dated January 17, 1989, cosigned by 
     the Governor of Puerto Rico in his capacity as president of 
     one of Puerto Rico's principal political parties and the 
     presidents of the two other principal political parties of 
     Puerto Rico, the United States was formally advised that ``. 
     . . the People of Puerto Rico wish to be consulted as to 
     their preference with regards to their ultimate political 
     status'', and the joint letter stated ``. . . that since 
     Puerto Rico came under the sovereignty of the United States 
     of America through the Treaty of Paris in 1898, the People of 
     Puerto Rico have not been formally consulted by the United 
     States of America as to their choice of their ultimate 
     political status''.
       (9) In the 1989 State of the Union Message, President 
     George Bush urged the Congress to take the necessary steps to 
     authorize a federally recognized process allowing the people 
     of Puerto Rico, for the first time since the Treaty of Paris 
     entered into force, to freely express their wishes regarding 
     their future political status in a congressionally recognized 
     referendum, a step in the process of self-determination which 
     the Congress has yet to authorize.
       (10) On November 14, 1993, the Government of Puerto Rico 
     conducted a plebiscite initiated under local law on Puerto 
     Rico's political status. In that vote none of the three 
     status propositions received a majority of the votes cast. 
     The results of that vote were: 48.6 percent for a 
     commonwealth option, 46.3 percent statehood, and 4.4 percent 
     independence.
       (11) In a letter dated December 2, 1994, President William 
     Jefferson Clinton informed leaders in Congress that an 
     Executive Branch Interagency Working Group on Puerto Rico had 
     been organized to coordinate the review, development, and 
     implementation of executive branch policy concerning issues 
     affecting Puerto Rico, including the November 1993 
     plebiscite.
       (12) Under the Territorial Clause of the Constitution, 
     Congress has the authority and responsibility to determine 
     Federal policy and clarify status issues in order to resolve 
     the issue of Puerto Rico's final status.
       (13) On January 23, 1997, the Puerto Rico Legislature 
     enacted Concurrent Resolution 2, which requested the 105th 
     Congress ``. . . to respond to the democratic aspirations of 
     the American citizens of Puerto Rico'' by approving 
     legislation authorizing ``. . . a plebiscite sponsored by the 
     Federal Government, to be held no later than 1998''.
       (14) Nearly 4,000,000 United States citizens live in the 
     islands of Puerto Rico, which have been under United States 
     sovereignty and within the United States customs territory 
     for almost 100 years, making Puerto Rico the oldest, largest, 
     and most populous United States island territory at the 
     southeastern-most boundary of our Nation, located astride the 
     strategic shipping lanes of the Atlantic Ocean and Caribbean 
     Sea.
       (15) Full self-government is attainable only through 
     establishment of a political status which is based on either 
     separate sovereignty and nationality or full and equal United 
     States nationality and citizenship through membership in the 
     Union.

     SEC. 3. POLICY.

       (a) Congressional Commitment.--In recognition of the 
     significant level of local self-government which has been 
     attained by Puerto Rico, and the responsibility of the 
     Federal Government to enable the people of the territory to 
     freely express their wishes regarding political status and 
     achieve full self-government, this Act is adopted with a 
     commitment to encourage the development and implementation of 
     procedures through which the permanent political status of 
     the people of Puerto Rico can be determined.
       (b) Language.--English is the common language of mutual 
     understanding in the United States, and in all of the States 
     duly and freely admitted to the Union. The Congress 
     recognizes that at the present time, Spanish and English are 
     the joint official languages of Puerto Rico, and have been 
     for nearly 100 years; that English is the official language 
     of Federal courts in Puerto Rico; that the ability to speak 
     English is a requirement for Federal jury services; yet 
     Spanish rather than English is currently the predominant 
     language used by the majority of the people of Puerto Rico; 
     and that Congress has the authority to expand existing 
     English language requirements in the Commonwealth of Puerto 
     Rico. In the event that the referenda held under this Act 
     result in approval of sovereignty leading to Statehood, it is 
     anticipated that upon accession to Statehood, English 
     language requirements of the Federal Government shall apply 
     in Puerto Rico to the same extent as Federal law requires 
     throughout the United States. Congress also recognizes the 
     significant advantage that proficiency in Spanish as well as 
     English has bestowed on the people of Puerto Rico, and 
     further that this will serve the best interests of both 
     Puerto Rico and the rest of the United States in our mutual 
     dealings in the Caribbean, Latin America, and throughout the 
     Spanish-speaking world.

     SEC. 4. PROCESS FOR PUERTO RICAN FULL SELF-GOVERNMENT, 
                   INCLUDING THE INITIAL DECISION STAGE, 
                   TRANSITION STAGE, AND IMPLEMENTATION STAGE.

       (a) Initial Decision Stage.--A referendum on Puerto Rico's 
     political status is authorized to be held not later than 
     December 31, 1998. The referendum shall be held pursuant to 
     this Act and in accordance with the applicable provisions of 
     Puerto Rico's electoral law and other relevant statutes 
     consistent with this Act. Approval of a status option must be 
     by a majority of the valid votes cast. The referendum shall 
     be on the approval of 1 of the 3 options presented on the 
     ballot as follows:
       ``Instructions: Mark the status option you choose as each 
     is defined below. Ballot with more than 1 option marked will 
     not be counted.
       ``A. Commonwealth.--If you agree, mark here ______
       ``Puerto Rico should retain Commonwealth, in which--
       ``(1) Puerto Rico is joined in a relationship with and 
     under the national sovereignty of the United States. It is 
     the policy of the Congress that this relationship should only 
     be dissolved by mutual consent.
       ``(2) Under this political relationship, Puerto Rico like a 
     State is an autonomous political entity, sovereign over 
     matters not ruled by the Constitution of the United States. 
     In the exercise of this sovereignty, the laws of the 
     Commonwealth shall govern in Puerto Rico to the extent that 
     they are consistent with the Constitution, treaties, and laws 
     of the United States. Congress retains its constitutional 
     authority to enact laws it deems necessary relating to Puerto 
     Rico.
       ``(3) Persons born in Puerto Rico have United States 
     citizenship by statute as secured by the Constitution. It is 
     the policy of the United States that citizenship will 
     continue to be granted to persons born in Puerto Rico. The 
     rights, privileges, and immunities provided for by the United 
     States Constitution apply in Puerto Rico, except where 
     limited by the Constitution to citizens residing in a State.
       ``(4) Puerto Rico will continue to participate in Federal 
     programs and may be enabled to participate equally with the 
     States in the programs where it is not now participating 
     equally contingent on the payment of contributions, which may 
     include payment of taxes, as provided by Federal law.
       ``B. Separate Sovereignty.--If you agree, mark here ______
       ``The people of Puerto Rico should become fully self-
     governing through separate sovereignty in the form of 
     independence or free association, in which--
       ``(1) Puerto Rico is a sovereign Republic which has full 
     authority and responsibility over its territory and 
     population under a constitution which is the supreme law, 
     providing for a republican form of government and the 
     protection of human rights;
       ``(2) the Republic of Puerto Rico is a member of the 
     community of nations vested with full powers and 
     responsibilities for its own fiscal and monetary policy, 
     immigration, trade, and the conduct in its own name and right 
     of relations with other nations and international 
     organizations, including the rights and responsibilities that 
     devolve upon a sovereign nation under the general principles 
     of international law;
       ``(3) the residents of Puerto Rico owe allegiance to and 
     have the nationality and citizenship of the Republic of 
     Puerto Rico;
       ``(4) The Constitution and laws of the United States no 
     longer apply in Puerto Rico, and United States sovereignty in 
     Puerto Rico is ended; thereupon birth in Puerto Rico or 
     relationship to persons with statutory United States 
     citizenship by birth in the former territory shall cease to 
     be a basis for United States nationality or citizenship, 
     except that persons who had such United States citizenship 
     have a statutory right to retain United States nationality 
     and citizenship for life, by entitlement or election as 
     provided by the United States Congress, based on continued 
     allegiance to the United States: Provided, That such persons 
     will not have this statutory United States nationality and 
     citizenship status upon having or maintaining allegiance, 
     nationality, and citizenship rights in any sovereign nation, 
     including the Republic of Puerto Rico, other than the United 
     States;
       ``(5) The previously vested rights of individuals in Puerto 
     Rico to benefits based upon past services rendered or 
     contributions made to the United States shall be honored by 
     the United States as provided by Federal law;
       ``(6) Puerto Rico and the United States seek to develop 
     friendly and cooperative relations in matters of mutual 
     interest as agreed in treaties approved pursuant to their

[[Page H790]]

     respective constitutional processes, and laws including 
     economic and programmatic assistance at levels and for a 
     reasonable period as provided on a government-to-government 
     basis, trade between customs territories, transit of citizens 
     in accordance with immigration laws, and status of United 
     States military forces; and
       ``(7) a free association relationship may be established 
     based on separate sovereign republic status as defined above, 
     but with such delegations of government functions and other 
     cooperative arrangements as may be agreed to by both parties 
     under a bilateral pact terminable at will by either the 
     United States or Puerto Rico.
       ``C. Statehood.--If you agree, mark here ______
       ``Puerto Rico should become fully self governing through 
     Statehood, in which--
       ``(1) the people of Puerto Rico are fully self-governing 
     with their rights secured under the United States 
     Constitution, which shall be fully applicable in Puerto Rico 
     and which, with the laws and treaties of the United States, 
     is the supreme law and has the same force and effect as in 
     the other States of the Union;
       ``(2) the State of Puerto Rico becomes a part of the 
     permanent union of the United States of America, subject to 
     the United States Constitution, with powers not prohibited by 
     the Constitution to the States, reserved to the State of 
     Puerto Rico in its sovereignty or to the people;
       ``(3) United States citizenship of those born in Puerto 
     Rico is recognized, protected and secured in the same way it 
     is for all United States citizens born in the other States;
       ``(4) rights, freedoms, and benefits as well as duties and 
     responsibilities of citizenship, including payment of Federal 
     taxes, apply in the same manner as in the several States;
       ``(5) Puerto Rico is represented by two members in the 
     United States Senate and is represented in the House of 
     Representatives proportionate to the population;
       ``(6) United States citizens in Puerto Rico are 
     enfranchised to vote in elections for the President and Vice 
     President of the United States; and
       ``(7) English is the official language of business and 
     communication in Federal courts and Federal agencies as made 
     applicable by Federal law to every other State, and Puerto 
     Rico is enabled to expand and build upon existing law 
     establishing English as an official language of the State 
     government, courts, and agencies.''.
       (b) Transition Stage.--
       (1) Plan.--(A) Within 180 days of the receipt of the 
     results of the referendum from the Government of Puerto Rico 
     certifying approval of a ballot choice of full self-
     government in a referendum held pursuant to subsection (a), 
     the President shall develop and submit to Congress 
     legislation for a transition plan of not more than 10 years 
     which leads to full self-government for Puerto Rico 
     consistent with the terms of this Act and the results of the 
     referendum and in consultation with officials of the three 
     branches of the Government of Puerto Rico, the principal 
     political parties of Puerto Rico, and other interested 
     persons as may be appropriate.
       (B) Additionally, in the event of a vote in favor of 
     separate sovereignty, the Legislature of Puerto Rico, if 
     deemed appropriate, may provide by law for the calling of a 
     constituent convention to formulate, in accordance with 
     procedures prescribed by law, Puerto Rico's proposals and 
     recommendations to implement the referendum results. If a 
     convention is called for this purpose, any proposals and 
     recommendations formally adopted by such convention within 
     time limits of this Act shall be transmitted to Congress by 
     the President with the transition plan required by this 
     section, along with the views of the President regarding the 
     compatibility of such proposals and recommendations with the 
     United States Constitution and this Act, and identifying 
     which, if any, of such proposals and recommendations have 
     been addressed in the President's proposed transition plan.
       (C) Additionally, in the event of a vote in favor of United 
     States sovereignty leading to Statehood, the President shall 
     include in the transition plan provided for in this Act--
       (i) proposals and incentives to increase the opportunities 
     of the people of Puerto Rico to learn to speak, read, write, 
     and understand English fully, including but not limited to, 
     the teaching of English in public schools, fellowships, and 
     scholarships. The transition plan should promote the usage of 
     English by the United States citizens of Puerto Rico, in 
     order to best allow for--
       (I) the enhancement of the century old practice of English 
     as an official language of Puerto Rico, consistent with the 
     preservation of our Nation's unity in diversity and the 
     prevention of divisions along linguistic lines;
       (II) the use of language skills necessary to contribute 
     most effectively to the Nation in all aspects, including but 
     not limited to Hemispheric trade;
       (III) the promotion of efficiency to all people in the 
     conduct of the Federal and State government's official 
     business; and
       (IV) the ability of all citizens to take full advantage of 
     the economical, educational, and occupational opportunities 
     through full integration with the United States; and
       (ii) the effective date of incorporation, thereby 
     permitting the greatest degree of flexibility for the phase-
     in of Federal programs and the development of the economy 
     through fiscal incentives, alternative tax arrangements, and 
     other measures.
       (D) In the event of a vote in favor of Commonwealth, the 
     Government of Puerto Rico may call a Special Convention to 
     develop proposals for submission to the President and the 
     Congress for changes in Federal policy on matters of economic 
     and social concern to the people of Puerto Rico. The 
     President and the Congress, as appropriate, shall 
     expeditiously consider any such proposals. The Commonwealth 
     would assume any expenses related to increased 
     responsibilities resulting from such proposals.
       (2) Congressional consideration.--The plan shall be 
     considered by the Congress in accordance with section 6.
       (3) Puerto rican approval.--
       (A) Not later than 180 days after enactment of an Act 
     pursuant to paragraph (1) providing for the transition to 
     full self-government for Puerto Rico as approved in the 
     initial decision referendum held under subsection (a), a 
     referendum shall be held under the applicable provisions of 
     Puerto Rico's electoral law on the question of approval of 
     the transition plan.
       (B) Approval must be by a majority of the valid votes cast. 
     The results of the referendum shall be certified to the 
     President of the United States.
       (c) Implementation Stage.--
       (1) Presidential recommendation.--Not less than two years 
     prior to the end of the period of the transition provided for 
     in the transition plan approved under subsection (b), the 
     President shall submit to Congress a joint resolution with a 
     recommendation for the date of termination of the transition 
     and the date of implementation of full self-government for 
     Puerto Rico within the transition period consistent with the 
     ballot choice approved under subsection (a).
       (2) Congressional consideration.--The joint resolution 
     shall be considered by the Congress in accordance with 
     section 6.
       (3) Puerto rican approval.--
       (A) Within 180 days after enactment of the terms of 
     implementation for full self-government for Puerto Rico, a 
     referendum shall be held under the applicable provisions of 
     Puerto Rico's electoral laws on the question of the approval 
     of the terms of implementation for full self-government for 
     Puerto Rico.
       (B) Approval must be by a majority of the valid votes cast. 
     The results of the referendum shall be certified to the 
     President of the United States.

     SEC. 5. REQUIREMENTS RELATING TO REFERENDA, INCLUDING 
                   INCONCLUSIVE REFERENDUM AND APPLICABLE LAWS.

       (a) Applicable Laws.--
       (1) Referenda under puerto rican laws.--The referenda held 
     under this Act shall be conducted in accordance with the 
     applicable laws of Puerto Rico, including laws of Puerto Rico 
     under which voter eligibility is determined and which require 
     United States citizenship and establish other statutory 
     requirements for voter eligibility of residents and 
     nonresidents.
       (2) Federal laws.--The Federal laws applicable to the 
     election of the Resident Commissioner of Puerto Rico shall, 
     as appropriate and consistent with this Act, also apply to 
     the referenda. Any reference in such Federal laws to 
     elections shall be considered, as appropriate, to be a 
     reference to the referenda, unless it would frustrate the 
     purposes of this Act.
       (b) Certification of Referenda Results.--The results of 
     each referendum held under this Act shall be certified to the 
     President of the United States and the Senate and House of 
     Representatives of the United States by the Government of 
     Puerto Rico.
       (c) Consultation and Recommendations for Inconclusive 
     Referendum.--
       (1) In general.--If a referendum provided in section 4(b) 
     or (c) of this Act does not result in approval of a fully 
     self-governing status, the President, in consultation with 
     officials of the three branches of the Government of Puerto 
     Rico, the principal political parties of Puerto Rico, and 
     other interested persons as may be appropriate, shall make 
     recommendations to the Congress within 180 days of receipt of 
     the results of the referendum regarding completion of the 
     self-determination process for Puerto Rico under the 
     authority of Congress.
       (2) Additional referenda.--To ensure that the Congress is 
     able on a continuing basis to exercise its Territorial Clause 
     powers with due regard for the wishes of the people of Puerto 
     Rico respecting resolution of Puerto Rico's permanent future 
     political status, in the event that a referendum conducted 
     under section 4(a) does not result in a majority vote for 
     separate sovereignty or statehood, there is authorized to be 
     further referenda in accordance with this Act, but not less 
     than once every 10 years.

     SEC. 6. CONGRESSIONAL PROCEDURES FOR CONSIDERATION OF 
                   LEGISLATION.

       (a) In General.--The majority leader of the House of 
     Representatives (or his designee) and the majority leader of 
     the Senate (or his designee) shall each introduce legislation 
     (by request) providing for the transition plan under section 
     4(b) and the implementation recommendation under section 4(c) 
     not later than 5 legislative days after the date of receipt 
     by Congress of the submission by the President under that 
     section, as the case may be.
       (b) Referral.--The legislation shall be referred on the 
     date of introduction to the appropriate committee or 
     committees in accordance with rules of the respective Houses.

[[Page H791]]

     The legislation shall be reported not later than the 120th 
     calendar day after the date of its introduction. If any such 
     committee fails to report the bill within that period, that 
     committee shall be automatically discharged from 
     consideration of the legislation, and the legislation shall 
     be placed on the appropriate calendar.
       (c) Consideration.--
       (1) After the 14th legislative day after the date on which 
     the last committee of the House of Representatives or the 
     Senate, as the case may be, has reported or been discharged 
     from further consideration of such legislation, it is in 
     order after the legislation has been on the calendar for 14 
     legislative days for any Member of that House in favor of the 
     legislation to move to proceed to the consideration of the 
     legislation (after consultation with the presiding officer of 
     that House as to scheduling) to move to proceed to its 
     consideration at any time after the third legislative day on 
     which the Member announces to the respective House concerned 
     the Member's intention to do so. All points of order against 
     the motion to proceed and against consideration of that 
     motion are waived. The motion is highly privileged in the 
     House of Representatives and is privileged in the Senate and 
     is not debatable. The motion is not subject to amendment, or 
     to a motion to postpone, or to a motion to proceed to the 
     consideration of other business. A motion to reconsider the 
     vote by which the motion is agreed to or disagreed to shall 
     not be in order. If a motion to proceed to the consideration 
     of the legislation is agreed to, the respective House shall 
     immediately proceed to consideration of the legislation 
     without intervening motion (exception one motion to adjourn), 
     order, or other business.
       (2)(A) In the House of Representatives, during 
     consideration of the legislation in the Committee of the 
     Whole, the first reading of the legislation shall be 
     dispensed with. General debate shall be confined to the 
     legislation, and shall not exceed 4 hours equally divided and 
     controlled by a proponent and an opponent of the legislation. 
     After general debate, the legislation shall be considered as 
     read for amendment under the five-minute rule. Consideration 
     of the legislation for amendment shall not exceed 4 hours 
     excluding time for recorded votes and quorum calls. At the 
     conclusion of the bill for amendment, the Committee shall 
     rise and report the bill to the House with such amendments as 
     may have been adopted. The previous question shall be 
     considered as ordered on the legislation and amendments 
     thereto to final passage without intervening motion, except 
     one motion to recommit with or without instructions. A motion 
     to reconsider the vote on passage of the legislation shall 
     not be in order.
       (B) In the Senate, debate on the legislation, and all 
     amendments thereto and debatable motions and appeals in 
     connection therewith, shall be limited to not more than 25 
     hours. The time shall be equally divided between, and 
     controlled by, the majority leader and the minority leader or 
     their designees. No amendment that is not germane to the 
     provisions of such legislation shall be received. A motion to 
     further limit debate is not debatable.
       (3) Appeals from the decisions of the Chair relating to the 
     application of the rules of the Senate or the House of 
     Representatives, as the case may be, to the procedure 
     relating to the legislation described in subsection (a) shall 
     be decided without debate.
       (d) Consideration by Other House.--(1) If, before the 
     passage by one House of the legislation described in 
     subsection (a) that was introduced in that House, that House 
     receives from the other House the legislation described in 
     subsection (a)--
       (A) the legislation of the other House shall not be 
     referred to a committee and may not be considered in the 
     House that receives it otherwise than on final passage under 
     subparagraph (B)(ii) or (iii); and
       (B)(i) the procedure in the House that receives such 
     legislation with respect to such legislation that was 
     introduced in that House shall be the same as if no 
     legislation had been received from the other House; but
       (ii) in the case of legislation received from the other 
     House that is identical to the legislation as engrossed by 
     the receiving House, the vote on final passage shall be on 
     the legislation of the other House; or
       (iii) after passage of the legislation, the legislation of 
     the other House shall be considered as amended with the text 
     of the legislation just passed and shall be considered as 
     passed, and that House shall be considered to have insisted 
     on its amendment and requested a conference with the other 
     House.
       (2) Upon disposition of the legislation described in 
     subsection (a) that is received by one House from the other 
     House, it shall no longer be in order to consider such 
     legislation that was introduced in the receiving House.
       (e) Upon receiving from the other House a message in which 
     that House insists upon its amendment to the legislation and 
     requests a conference with the House of Representatives or 
     the Senate, as the case may be, on the disagreeing votes 
     thereon, the House receiving the request shall be considered 
     to have disagreed to the amendment of the other House and 
     agreed to the conference requested by that House.
       (f) Definition.--For the purposes of this section, the term 
     ``legislative day'' means a day on which the House of 
     Representatives or the Senate, as appropriate, is in session.
       (g) Exercise of Rulemaking Power.--The provisions of this 
     section are enacted by the Congress--
       (1) as an exercise of the rulemaking power of the Senate 
     and the House of Representatives and, as such, shall be 
     considered as part of the rules of each House and shall 
     supersede other rules only to the extent that they are 
     inconsistent therewith; and
       (2) with full recognition of the constitutional right of 
     either House to change the rules (so far as they relate to 
     the procedures of that House) at any time, in the same 
     manner, and to the same extent as in the case of any other 
     rule of that House.

     SEC. 7. AVAILABILITY OF FUNDS FOR THE REFERENDA.

       (a) In General.--
       (1) Availability of amounts derived from tax on foreign 
     rum.--During the period beginning October 1, 1997, and ending 
     on the date the President determines that all referenda 
     required by this Act have been held, from the amounts covered 
     into the treasury of Puerto Rico under section 7652(e)(1) of 
     the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, the Secretary of the 
     Treasury--
       (A) upon request and in the amounts identified from time to 
     time by the President, shall make the amounts so identified 
     available to the treasury of Puerto Rico for the purposes 
     specified in subsection (b); and
       (B) shall transfer all remaining amounts to the treasury of 
     Puerto Rico, as under current law.
       (2) Report of referenda expenditures.--Within 180 days 
     after each referendum required by this Act, and after the end 
     of the period specified in paragraph (1), the President, in 
     consultation with the Government of Puerto Rico, shall submit 
     a report to the United States Senate and United States House 
     of Representatives on the amounts made available under 
     paragraph (1)(A) and all other amounts expended by the State 
     Elections Commission of Puerto Rico for referenda pursuant to 
     this Act.
       (b) Grants for Conducting Referenda and Voter Education.--
     From amounts made available under subsection (a)(1), the 
     Government of Puerto Rico shall make grants to the State 
     Elections Commission of Puerto Rico for referenda held 
     pursuant to the terms of this Act, as follows:
       (1) 50 percent shall be available only for costs of 
     conducting the referenda.
       (2) 50 percent shall be available only for voter education 
     funds for the central ruling body of the political party, 
     parties, or other qualifying entities advocating a particular 
     ballot choice. The amount allocated for advocating a ballot 
     choice under this paragraph shall be apportioned equally 
     among the parties advocating that choice.
       (c) Additional Resources.--In addition to amounts made 
     available by this Act, the Puerto Rico Legislature may 
     allocate additional resources for administrative and voter 
     education costs to each party so long as the distribution of 
     funds is consistent with the apportionment requirements of 
     subsection (b).
  The CHAIRMAN. Before consideration of any other amendment, it shall 
be in order to consider Amendment number 3 printed in the Record, which 
shall be preceded by an additional period of general debate confined to 
the subject of that amendment. That debate shall not exceed 1 hour, 
equally divided and controlled by the gentleman from New York (Mr. 
Solomon) and a Member opposed.
  Consideration of Amendment number 2 printed in the Record shall be 
preceded by an additional period of general debate confined to the 
subject of that amendment. That debate shall not exceed 30 minutes, 
equally divided and controlled by the gentleman from New York (Mr. 
Serrano) and a Member opposed. Amendments specified in section 2(a) and 
2(b) of House Resolution 376 shall be considered read and shall not be 
subject to a demand for division of the question. Consideration of each 
of those amendments and any amendments thereto shall not exceed 1 hour.
  During consideration of the bill for amendment, the Chair may accord 
priority in recognition to a Member offering an amendment that he has 
printed in the designated place in the Congressional Record. Those 
amendments will be considered read.
  The Chairman of the Committee of the Whole may postpone a request for 
any recorded voted on any amendment and may reduce to a minimum of 5 
minutes the time for voting on any postponed question that immediately 
follows another vote, provided that the time for voting on the first 
question shall be a minimum of 15 minutes.
  It is now in order to debate the subject matter of the amendment 
offered by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Solomon).
  The gentleman from New York (Mr. Solomon) and a Member opposed, each 
will control 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New York (Mr. Solomon).

[[Page H792]]

  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, I and the gentleman from 
California jointly would like to control the remaining 30 minutes in 
opposition to be equally divided.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Chairman, reserving the right to object.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from California (Mr. Miller) would have 
priority recognition. He could get unanimous consent to give half of 
his time to the gentleman from Indiana.
  Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to do 
that.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
California?
  Mr. SOLOMON. Reserving the right to object, Mr. Chairman, to whomever 
is making the unanimous consent request here, I would not object when 
the time comes, but there will be, as I understand, an amendment 
offered by the gentleman from Indiana, an amendment, a substitute to my 
amendment. If we are going to give unanimous consent to manage the time 
jointly, I would like to ask unanimous consent that I be able to claim 
the time in opposition to the gentleman's substitute to my amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair has not determined at this point how that 
amendment is going to be considered. That amendment may be debated 
under the 5-minute rule within the time limit.
  Mr. SOLOMON. The problem is, we would like to have Members in 
opposition and for the amendment and not go into the 5-minute rule.


                        Parliamentary Inquiries

  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state it.
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to ask of the 
Chair how the time on my amendment, when it comes in order, will be 
divided and how it should be divided?
  The CHAIRMAN. As of now, it will be considered under the 5-minute 
rule.
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. I have a parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Chairman.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state it.
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, we are discussing the amendment of 
the gentleman from New York under 1 hour of the rule. The time should 
be divided equally between the gentleman from New York (Mr. Solomon) 30 
minutes and the gentleman from California (Mr. Miller) 30 minutes, 
yielding 15 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana; is that correct?
  The CHAIRMAN. That could happen. Once the amendment is pending, we 
may then proceed under the 5-minute rule.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Reserving the right to object, Mr. Chairman, that would 
take unanimous consent, and that is why I am reserving the right to 
object, because when the Burton amendment is offered, I would ask 
agreement that we be able to not proceed under the 5-minute rule, but 
to divide the time equally 15 minutes for the substitute and 15 minutes 
opposed. We could have done this in the rule, but we did not do it 
because we wanted to get the unanimous consent on the floor.
  Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SOLOMON. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, my understanding is there may 
be additional amendments. So the person who offers a perfecting 
amendment or whatever to the gentleman's amendment to the substitute 
would get time, I assume, to explain their amendment or something.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Chairman, continuing my reservation of objection, I 
yield to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Gutierrez) for some input on 
this subject.
  Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Chairman, I believe I have the only other 
amendment. I have a perfecting amendment. Obviously the Burton 
substitute would go first, but I have a perfecting amendment. So if we 
could reach an agreement so that my perfecting amendment would get 10 
minutes of time, I would not ask for an extraordinary amount of time, 
so that I could have the perfecting amendment and reserve at least 10 
minutes of time outside of the gentleman's hour that he already has. 
Then we could all have a unanimous consent, and I think we might be 
able to figure this out.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Continuing my reservation of objection, might I inquire 
of the Chair whom would be recognized first to offer an amendment 
either in the form of a substitute or a perfecting amendment to my 
amendment?
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair would not wish to anticipate recognition at 
this time. The Chair would grant recognition to the Member that would 
rise first and seek recognition and if both rise, grant priority of 
recognition to the appropriate Member.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Would it not be done by seniority, Mr. Chairman?
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair would obviously take into account seniority 
and committee membership.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my reservation of objection. We 
will cross that bridge when we come to it.


                        Parliamentary Inquiries

  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state it.
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. A perfecting amendment, Mr. Chairman, precedes 
the determination of an amendment. A substitute comes after the 
amendment or at the end of the amendment process. Am I not correct?
  The CHAIRMAN. The two amendments may be pending at the same time.
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. I thank the Chair.
  Mr. GUTIERREZ. Reserving the right to object, Mr. Chairman, I would 
like to sit down and let the Members figure out the rest of it. My only 
concern is that because of the gentleman's ranking and seniority here 
that I be allowed, if the gentleman just says, ``Congressman, I will 
make sure you get your 10 minutes,'' and the gentleman will allow me, 
and I will limit my perfecting amendment to 10 minutes, and then we can 
proceed with the rest of this. The gentleman's word is very valuable to 
me, and I will just take that. Then I can sit down and let these 
gentlemen figure out the rest of it.
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, as I understand it, we are going 
to be under the 5-minute rule which would govern the time distribution; 
is that correct?
  The CHAIRMAN. As of now, that is correct.
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, should we ask unanimous consent 
that each one of the amendments, since there is only two, be given 15 
minutes for each amendment for debate, equally divided among proponents 
and opponents? I will make a unanimous consent request to that effect.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman may make that request by unanimous 
consent.
  Mr. MILLER of California. Reserving the right to object, currently 
under the rule there will be 1 hour on the amendments to Solomon; is 
that correct?
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. MILLER of California. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Under the rule there would be 1 hour of general debate 
on the Solomon amendment before it is called up. After the 1 hour has 
expired, then I would call up the amendment and then it would be 
subject to amendment by the two gentlemen.
  Mr. MILLER of California. With 1 hour of total time to all 
amendments?
  Mr. SOLOMON. That is correct.


                         Parliamentary Inquiry

  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state it.
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. May I make a suggestion to all my good friends. 
Why do we not begin the debate, general debate, and then let us work 
out the timeframe of the amendments that will be offered.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from New York (Mr. Solomon) will be 
recognized for 30 minutes, and a Member opposed will be recognized for 
30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New York (Mr. Solomon).
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  From the very beginning our Nation has recognized that the prosperity 
of the people of America depended on their continuing firmly united, 
and the wishes and the prayers and the efforts

[[Page H793]]

of our best and wisest citizens have been constantly directed to that 
object. These are the words of the wisdom of The Federalist papers of 
John Jay, our country's first Chief Justice of the Supreme Court.
  Justice Jay went on to say, I have often taken notice that providence 
has been pleased to give this one connected country to one united 
people, a people descended from the same ancestors, speaking the same 
language, attached to the same principles of government, very similar 
in their manners and their customs, and who, by their joint councils 
and arms and efforts, fighting side by side throughout a long and 
bloody war, have nobly established their general liberty and their 
independence.
  That is the history of our country.
  Based on this premise, for the past two centuries we have forged a 
Nation out of our different peoples by emphasizing our common beliefs, 
our common ideals and, perhaps most importantly of all, our common 
language.
  Our English language has permitted this country to live up to our 
national motto, E Pluribus Unum, which means out of many, one.
  Mr. Chairman, it is in this spirit that I offer the English language 
empowerment amendment to the U.S.-Puerto Rico Political Status Act. In 
short, this amendment is based on two very simple principles. It is 
based on unity, and it is based on opportunity. My devotion to unity 
and the English language is premised on the belief that our strength in 
unity can best be preserved through the prevention of divisions along 
linguistic or cultural lines. Such cultural divisions have been 
encountered by Canada with Quebec and could be with the U.S. and Puerto 
Rico today.
  Now, what do I mean by this division of linguistic lines? These 
divisions are not between people, but they are between opportunities. 
Americans who do not know English are segregated. They are segregated 
from those who do, separated from everything the United States and its 
precious Constitution stands for.
  A reaffirmation of English as the official language is absolutely 
necessary to demonstrate that the Federal Government's goal is to 
desegregate all Americans. This is because America is composed of 
people who have for centuries pulled themselves up by their bootstraps 
with courage and a vision to pursue the opportunity that America has to 
offer. Consequently my amendment is intended to ensure that no American 
citizen, no matter what their cultural background, no matter whether 
they live in Puerto Rico or Iowa, has to be trapped in a linguistic 
box, kept away from those tools of opportunity.
  This is the land of opportunity and the land of language, the land of 
opportunity and English. There should be no ambiguity about this fact. 
The usage and understanding of English is the key to economic and 
educational opportunity in this country of ours. Therefore, we as the 
Federal Government must do everything we can to promote and to enhance 
the ability of all Americans no matter what their heritage to read, to 
speak and understand this language of opportunity.
  Based on this visionary premise during the 104th Congress, the House 
of Representatives voted, and the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Cunningham) will speak to that in a minute, voted 259 to 169 in favor 
of the bill which declared English the official language of the United 
States. However, the provisions of this bill before us today undermine 
the principles of that empowerment act, and they deny opportunities to 
the children and the people of Puerto Rico, make no mistake about it. 
Furthermore, this bill does not address how the omission of Puerto Rico 
as an official Spanish State would affect English as the official 
language of the United States Government. Nor does it protect the 
rights of English-speaking Americans in Puerto Rico or the rights of 
the children of Puerto Rico to learn English.
  These are crucial, important questions to answer because according to 
the 1990 U.S. census, and this is so important, less than 24 percent of 
the U.S. citizens in Puerto Rico speak English fluently, while 98 
percent do actually speak Spanish. All children in the public schools 
are taught only in Spanish from kindergarten through the high school, 
while English is taught as a second language.

                              {time}  1415

  To correct these weaknesses of the underlying bill, my amendment 
basically does two things, and this is exactly what it does:
  First, it replaces the language in this bill, the nebulous language 
policy which states that ``English is the common language of mutual 
understanding in the United States.'' It replaces it with the clearer 
and simpler statement that ``English is the official language of the 
Federal Government,'' applicable to the entire Nation, as done in the 
Empowerment Act in the last Congress which overwhelmingly passed this 
House with strong Republican and Democratic support.
  Secondly, it addresses Congress' fundamental responsibility to ensure 
that any State meet certain standards and provide certain fundamental 
rights and protections. In 1845 and again in 1911 our United States 
Supreme Court held that Congress may require a new State to meet 
certain standards before it would be admitted. As a result, my 
amendment tailors the statehood ballot to reflect this national 
official English policy. It states that the Congress expects that a 
future State of Puerto Rico would promote English as the official 
language of the State government, of its courts and agencies, and that 
English would be the language of instruction in public schools but 
would not bar the teaching of Spanish in those same public schools. 
These provisions will guarantee current and future generations of 
Puerto Rico unfettered access to the tools with which to successfully 
assimilate into this Union of ours, should they choose to become a 
State at a later date.
  Today can be a historic day, my colleagues, a day in which Congress 
not only debates the future political status of 3.8 million U.S. 
citizens, but also a day which will focus and strengthen those things 
which unite us as a Nation and which expand the horizons of opportunity 
for all our citizens.
  This is an amendment of opportunity, my colleagues. It is a vision of 
unity and compassionate measures. It deserves all of America's support, 
from the young dairy farmer in Argyle, New York, to the logging family 
in Olympia, Washington, to the schoolteacher in San Juan, Puerto Rico. 
I urge my colleagues to support my amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Edwards).
  Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, what America needs is English plus, not 
English only. What America needs is to teach English, not preach it. 
What America needs is to respect diversity, not divisiveness. The last 
time I visited the Statue of Liberty, that eloquent lady did not say 
``Spanish-speaking people not accepted here.''
  The blood spilled and lives lost by thousands of Spanish-speaking 
American veterans has not been limited to English only, and it is wrong 
to deny those veterans the very rights for which they fought. Whether 
intended or not, this debate on English only is divisive and insults 
the culture of millions of Hispanic Americans, Asian Americans, Korean 
Americans and others.
  Mr. Chairman, the brightest days of America's history have come when 
we were inclusive, when we added women and racial and religious 
minorities to the rights enumerated in our Declaration of Independence 
and Constitution. The darkest days of America's history have come when 
we excluded our citizens from full participation in our democracy; for 
example, when black veterans were allowed to die for the very freedoms 
they were denied right here at home. I hope this will be a bright day 
for all of America's citizens, not a dark day that will turn us 
backwards into a quagmire of divisiveness.
  The 3 percent of American citizens that do not speak English, many of 
them seniors living with their children in their homes, hardly pose a 
threat to the greatest democracy in the history of the world. If 
Hispanics and other Americans, such as Korean Americans in my district, 
are willing to work hard and pay taxes and serve us in uniform, then 
surely we should show them the brightest, the best of America today.
  Vote ``no'' on the Solomon amendment.

[[Page H794]]

  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
Louisiana (Mr. Livingston), one of the Members of this body that has 
been harassed by Members in his own party and Members on both sides of 
the aisle but is one of the real stand-up Members in this House.
  Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I thank my friend for yielding me this 
time. The other gentleman from Louisiana was disappointed the gentleman 
was not speaking about him. He thought and I thought the gentleman from 
New York was speaking about him.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of the amendment by the 
gentleman from New York, the Solomon amendment to H.R. 856, the United 
States-Puerto Rico Political Status Act. Regardless of how we feel 
about the ultimate bill, the fact is that this bill's current provision 
on English is weak and inadequate and needs to be strengthened. H.R. 
856 says that English will be the common language of mutual 
understanding in the United States. That means really nothing. Common 
language is not an official language.
  That facts are that less than half of all the citizens of Puerto Rico 
can speak English. Less than half can speak English. And according to 
The New York Times, fully 90 percent of the island's 650,000 public 
school students lack basic English skills by the time they graduate. If 
Puerto Rico becomes a State, this situation will be intolerable. A 
youngster growing up in Puerto Rico will speak Spanish, will not speak 
English. And, in my opinion, a youngster growing up in the United 
States needs to speak the common language.
  If my wife and I take a child to Spain and raise the child in Spain, 
we will raise the child speaking Spanish so that he can communicate, or 
she can communicate in the language of the Nation. We will not expect 
Spain to teach our kid English if we are going to live in their 
country. Likewise, we ought to expect people growing up in this Nation 
to speak English so that they can communicate for their own good and 
become productive citizens.
  Our common language is the tie that binds us all. The motto of this 
Nation, ``E Pluribus Unum,'' ``out of many, one,'' should remind us 
that we are a Nation of different peoples and cultures but we are 
united. The ability to communicate in a common tongue is the key to 
success that unites us in our democracy.
  We see in Canada that different languages can seriously impair the 
unity of a nation, and that nation is about to come apart at the seams 
because they speak a different language.
  The Solomon amendment is only common sense. By establishing English 
as the official language of the Federal Government, the Solomon 
amendment will make it perfectly clear that English will be the 
language of the Federal Government across the Nation. Not just in 
Puerto Rico, across the Nation.
  Under Solomon, Puerto Ricans may freely speak Spanish at home or 
anywhere they please, but the State of Puerto Rico will promote English 
as the official language of the State government, of the courts, of the 
agencies, and in the schools teaching in English will be mandated in 
public schools. This will make citizens of the island full and equal 
partners in America in a fashion our Founding Fathers envisioned and it 
will make them productive citizens of the United States of America.
  I urge the adoption of the Solomon amendment and the defeat of all 
the perfecting and the substituting amendments which will delete it and 
attempt to nullify the provisions of the Solomon amendment. English is 
the American language.
  Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Puerto Rico (Mr. Romero-Barcelo).
  Mr. ROMERO-BARCELO. Mr. Chairman, right now, in Puerto Rico, more 
people are watching this C-SPAN on a per-capita basis than in any State 
of the Nation. That belies the statements that have been made here that 
the people of Puerto Rico do not understand English.
  More than about 50 percent of the people know and understand English. 
Twenty-five percent are proficient in English. But how many children 
are proficient in English when they graduate from high school in the 50 
States of the Nation? There is a very low proficiency in English from 
graduates in the 50 States. But all of those people in Puerto Rico, if 
they cannot understand, they have somebody in their family or a friend 
that is translating what is going on here, and they know what is going 
on.
  When they say that in order to vote that we have to be proficient in 
English, my God, why was that not decided when we were granted 
citizenship? A person who asks for naturalization, he takes a test in 
English. Now, 95 percent of the people of Puerto Rico can pass that 
test without any problem; that is a citizenship test.
  So the test that we give people who ask for citizenship has less 
requirements than what we are trying to require in this amendment from 
the people of Puerto Rico who have been citizens since 1917, for 81 
years, who fought together, who worked together to make this Nation 
what it is today. They fought in the foreign soils defending the right 
to self-determination.
  They say, oh, this bill tells the people of Puerto Rico the wrong 
things. It does not allow the people of Puerto Rico to understand that 
they must speak English. We know we must speak English. Everybody in 
Puerto Rico knows that. We know that English is the language of the 
world. What is anyone here afraid of?
  We should be in the country, instead of trying to impose English, 
promoting the learning of English by providing opportunities to learn 
English, providing more opportunities for people who understand the 
language and to speak it and to write it. That is what this should be 
all about, not about trying to impose. This is not a dictatorship. This 
is a democracy. Let us not belie what we are.
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is the gentleman from Indiana using the time of the 
gentleman from New York?
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, I have 15 minutes, and the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Miller) has 15 minutes in opposition. 
That is what was decided.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair's understanding is the gentleman from Indiana 
was going to make that unanimous consent request.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Chairman, we have no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. But as of now, we are under the 60 minutes divided for 
the underlying subject.
  Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Indiana 
(Mr. Burton) has 15 minutes of our 30 minutes because the gentleman 
from New York (Mr. Solomon) withdrew his objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair had made an announcement that the hour would 
be divided 30 minutes and 30 minutes under the rule. The Chair would 
now entertain a unanimous consent request to further divide the time.
  Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that 
15 minutes of the time allocated to me under the rule be allocated to 
the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton) at this time.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
California?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. 
Burton.)
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I am one of the 165 cosponsors of H.R. 123, which was a 
bill to declare English as the official language of the Government of 
the United States. I strongly believe that that is a good piece of 
legislation.
  However, after having said that, I do not believe that that 
particular piece of legislation belongs in this bill. This bill is a 
bill that is designed to give the people of Puerto Rico the right to 
let the Congress of the United States know whether they want to be an 
independent nation, whether they want to remain a Commonwealth, or 
whether they want to become a State.
  It does not mean that they will become a State, because any decision 
that they make in this referendum will

[[Page H795]]

have to come back to the Congress of the United States for final 
determination. And the process is going to take about 10 years if the 
process is followed according to the legislation that we have before 
us.
  So the fact of the matter is this bill is designed to find out what 
the people of Puerto Rico really want.
  Why are we doing this, because there was a plebiscite in Puerto Rico 
just a few years ago? A few years ago, there was a plebiscite; and each 
of the parties, the Commonwealth party, the statehood party, and the 
independent party were able to define for themselves what Commonwealth 
meant, what statehood meant, and what independence meant. Because of 
that, the people of Puerto Rico, when they voted, were voting based 
upon the determination that was being made by the party who wanted 
their vote.
  What we decided to do was, we decided to find out from leading legal 
authorities what statehood meant, what Commonwealth meant, and what 
independence meant so that the people of Puerto Rico, when they voted 
on the plebiscite, would be voting on the facts and not on what some 
party said.
  We have contacted the legislative counsel of the Congress of the 
United States for their input. We have contacted the Congressional 
Research Service for their input. We have contacted the Department of 
Justice of the United States for their input, and other constitutional 
experts.
  What we have determined in this bill is what is constitutionally 
defined as statehood, independence, and Commonwealth status.

                              {time}  1430

  And so the people of Puerto Rico, when they vote on this plebiscite, 
will be voting on what the facts are and not what some party says in 
Puerto Rico who has a reason to define their party in a certain way. 
The Commonwealth Party, in the definition that was on the plebiscite a 
few years ago, was not defined correctly. What we are doing is 
clarifying that in the language that is in this bill, that will go on 
the ballot if we pass this legislation.
  Like I said earlier, I am for the English legislation that was before 
this body some years ago. I was a cosponsor of that. I do not believe 
the Solomon amendment as written has any place in this legislation. 
Because there is some confusion about this, this is becoming an 
English-only bill, which it should not be.
  I have a perfecting amendment or a substitute amendment which will, 
effective immediately, allow for English proficiency in Puerto Rico by 
the age of 10. I think that the people of Puerto Rico, when they read 
the substitute that I have, will be very happy with that because it 
encourages learning English in all the schools and all the institutions 
down there by the age of 10. We think that that will happen.
  Let me just add one more point. That is, the people of Puerto Rico 
already are citizens of the United States of America. We are not 
talking about some country out there in the middle of nowhere. Those 
people have citizenship already. For us to deny them the ability to 
decide whether they want to be a commonwealth or if they want to become 
independent or a State I think is just dead wrong.
  Let us not muddy up the waters by adding the Solomon language to 
this, which is a pervasive issue. He is talking about English for the 
entire United States of America. We are talking about a plebiscite bill 
for Puerto Rico. Let us decide the Puerto Rico issue with the amendment 
that I am going to add which will encourage English as the language 
down there, proficiency by the age of 10. And then later on if we want 
to, let us go back to the English-only bill that we had before this 
body some time ago and debate that as a separate issue, but not on the 
Puerto Rico bill.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the 
gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Vento).
  (Mr. VENTO asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the Solomon 
amendment. It is a clear example of a solution to a problem that does 
not exist. It may seem to some that this requirement is a laudable goal 
but the fact is that the proponents of this bill, the delegations and 
so forth that support it, are against this amendment. It is an 
unnecessary, ineffective and divisive amendment.
  It is unnecessary because English and Spanish have been the official 
languages of Puerto Rico since 1902. To put that in perspective, Strom 
Thurmond was born way back in 1902. That is a long time ago. 
Furthermore, this bill already has a provision highlighting the 
importance of English as a common language. It states, and I quote, 
``English is the common language of mutual understanding in the United 
States, and that this policy shall apply in all of the States. That is 
all that is needed to accomplish the stated goal of the Solomon 
amendment's proponents.''
  Furthermore, of course, our Nation is a melting pot. My grandparents 
were of German and Italian ancestry. I am proud of my parents and the 
wonderful heritage we share. But I am and we are all Americans, and as 
such I believe the strength of our Nation is derived not from laws that 
mandate our American patriotism and demand our fidelity but from core 
values and common beliefs that define and guide our rights and 
responsibilities. Whatever language we speak, write or think in, our 
freedom and liberties are not bound by but rather transcend the limits 
and the boundaries of such language.
  The Solomon amendment strikes at the core value of such American 
belief and practice. It says that we must do to Puerto Rico that which 
we did not do to the Scandinavian and German Midwest territories to 
achieve statehood, to superimpose a language requirement and condition 
statehood consideration upon what is in essence the denial of that 
heritage, culture and history. Vote no on this Solomon amendment.
  This Solomon amendment is big government, and big brother, at its 
worst.
  This Solomon amendment would require the English language to be the 
official language of all government functions in the United States. It 
is possible that, if the current version of this legislation passes, 
the people of Puerto Rico will vote to join the Union as the 51st state 
and that the Congress would respond by enacting legislation which would 
grant Puerto Rican statehood. What this amendment requires, then, is 
that English will be the official language of Puerto Rico. English 
would be the official language in all of the affairs of state 
government, including teaching in public schools. Supporters of this 
amendment say its passage will empower the citizens of Puerto Rico. 
Their goal is the ``long term assimilation of Puerto Ricans into 
American society.''
  Now that may seem to many upon its face to be a pretty laudable goal. 
The problem is that the main supporter of this legislation, Mr. Romero-
Barcelo, is deeply opposed to such a provision. The Congressional 
Hispanic Caucus opposes it as well. They say, and I agree, that this 
amendment is unnecessary, ineffective and divisive.
  It's unnecessary because English and Spanish have been the official 
languages of Puerto Rico since 1902. To put that into perspective, 
Strom Thurmond was born way back in 1902. Furthermore, H.R. 856 already 
has a provision highlighting the importance of English as a common 
language. H.R. 856 states, and I quote, ``English is the common 
language of mutual understanding in the United States, and that this 
policy shall apply in all of the states.'' This is all that is needed 
to accomplish the stated goal of the Amendment proponents.
  The Solomon amendment iteration of this matter is ineffective because 
far from empowering people, it would make government in Puerto Rico 
work far less efficiently. Around half of all people in Puerto Rico 
over the age of five are bilingual. That means the other half don't 
speak English or Spanish. Passing this amendment means that this close 
to 50% of people will not be able to vote because they won't understand 
the English-only ballots. They'll have some trouble in courts of law, 
because they won't be able to understand the proceedings. They'll have 
one heck of a time trying to file Federal taxes--which is, as we all 
know, pretty complicated even if you know the English language. And 
they may not even be able to speak with 911 operators in emergencies. 
That doesn't sound like empowerment to me, Mr. Chairman. That sounds 
like a bad idea.
  Now the one thing you hear people who support this amendment say 
again and again is that H.R. 856 will create an American Quebec. Quite 
the contrary, it would be the Solomon amendment that creates a 
situation similar to that which has ripped Canada apart in recent 
years. The lesson from Canada should

[[Page H796]]

be that you should never, ever legislate a language requirement. Far 
from creating an atmosphere that would ease assimilation, this 
amendment would create an atmosphere of division, suspicion and 
mistrust.
  Finally, as we approach the 21st Century, multilingualism is 
something we need to encourage. As the reach of the global economy 
increases, the ability to speak more than one language will be an 
important and marketable skill. If this bill passes, and citizens of 
Puerto Rico choose to join the Union as the 51st state, their 
impressive ability to use English and Spanish will be something we 
could all be proud of and respect, not denigrate.
  America is a melting pot. My grandparents were German and Italian, 
and I am proud of my parents and the wonderful heritage we all share. 
But I am and we are all Americans, and as such I believe that the 
strength of our nation is derived not from laws that mandate our 
American patriotism and demand our fidelity, but from core values and 
common beliefs that define our rights and responsibilities. Whatever 
language we speak, write or think in, our freedom and liberty are not 
bound by but rather transcend the limits, the boundaries of such 
language. The Solomon amendment strikes at the core value of such 
American belief. It says that we must do to Puerto Rico that which we 
didn't do to the Scandinavian and German Midwest territories to achieve 
statehood: superimpose a language requirement and condition statehood 
consideration upon what is in essence the denial of a heritage, culture 
and history. This amendment results in a price we should not place on 
statehood. Join me in opposing the Solomon amendment!
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Cunningham), the sponsor of the official English bill 
that passed this House overwhelmingly with bipartisan support 2 years 
ago.
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, one thing I think the members of Puerto 
Rico will see, I think this is one of the most healthy debates that I 
have seen on this floor in 7 years. It is issue-oriented. I have got 
conservatives for and against, I have got liberals for and against, and 
each with individual ideas. I commend both sides of this.
  I did not have time to speak on the floor. I would like to speak to 
the amendment but I would also like to speak to the bill.
  Teddy Roosevelt, Rough Rider, San Juan Hill, and yes, many, many 
members from Puerto Rico have shed their blood to support democracy and 
fight communism and socialism around the world just like many Americans 
have. I think you know how most of us feel about that.
  I would also say that the people, now nearly 4 million Puerto Ricans, 
have voted on several occasions on these issues. I know for me, and I 
will say this and I will give you my support, it is not required by 
Congress that they vote on what their determination wants to be. If you 
have at least two-thirds instead of 50 plus one on a very important 
issue like this, this gentleman will support it, but not on a 50 plus 
one vote.
  I think if we look, the Puerto Rican people themselves are divided on 
this particular issue. Quebec has been mentioned. I am not going to let 
the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton) give me any more golf bags 
after this, but I would say that if he wants to encourage them to learn 
English, if we ask the people of Quebec and encourage them to learn 
English instead of French, look at the problems they have had, it would 
not happen. I think it takes stronger.
  Mr. Chairman, I was disappointed in the minority leader at his 
representation of the English provision in this. Let me tell my 
colleagues why. First of all, there were 259 votes. I went from the 
very extreme portion of a bill as chairman of the committee and down to 
the lower portions and moderated the bill to where even States had the 
right, after this body had said English is the common language of our 
government, that each individual State had a right to change that. It 
gave them that option. There was no mandatory thing there. I thought 
that that was very fair. I think that is why we got such bipartisan 
support for it. I think the misrepresentation was not well proposed in 
the bill.
  I think another big issue, it fails to follow the precedents of other 
U.S. territories that joined the Union, Hawaii, Alaska, with the great 
percentages. They really want it. It should be something very special 
to the great majority of a country. Puerto Rico, as the gentleman said, 
they feel they are a country. It should be the great expectation of a 
great majority of that group before they become an American citizen. I 
do not want another Quebec here. I do not want in Puerto Rico that kind 
of division and that divisiveness. I think that that is a legitimate 
issue.
  They said it is a poison pill. The former Governor of Arkansas had a 
bill similar to this, Governor Clinton, 23 States in our Union. That is 
not extreme, as the minority leader said. I just think if we are going 
to speak, I think we need to speak not disingenuously but purport what 
the bill says. It is English as a common language, not English only.
  When I was in the Philippines, the Philippines was going to have 
Tagalog as its official language. I recommended to President Ramos that 
that was a disservice because it has no root in math or science. I 
speak a little Tagalog. They would do themselves a disservice 
internationally.
  I went to Vietnam. They are carrying computers, they are learning 
English and they are studying business because they understand. That is 
all we are asking for Puerto Rico, that they do that. Instead of 
speaking Spanish first in their classrooms and English second, it 
should be turned around, if they want a bite of the American dream. I 
think that is very, very important.
  I would ask my colleagues, think carefully about this. If we can have 
a vote from Puerto Rico, where the majority of them say we want to be 
an American citizen, I think only a very small percentage of the group 
that are opposed to this would say no. But we do not have that. I ask 
my colleagues to take a look at that.
  I would say, Mr. Chairman, as I mentioned, the bill by both sides of 
the aisle has been represented well with the issues. I thank my 
colleagues for that. But this is more serious than most bills we have 
coming up here. I think that is the reason we have given it so much 
time. Give yourself the time, look at the issues on both sides of it, 
and I think you will not support the bill and you will not support the 
substitute but you will support the Solomon amendment.
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute.
  First of all let me point out to my colleague from California, the 
people of Puerto Rico are citizens of the United States. They already 
are citizens. He says if they want a bite of the American dream. They 
already are Americans. The only problem is they are Americans without 
representation. They do not have any Congressmen. They do not have any 
Senators. They do not have any representation in this body. Yet they 
are American citizens. They are like orphans out in a storm walking 
around saying, ``Where are my parents?'' It does not make any sense.
  This plebiscite is an advisory plebiscite, I will say to my colleague 
from California. This is an advisory plebiscite. What is he afraid of? 
All we are asking for is an opinion from the people of Puerto Rico on 
what they want. If they come back and only 51 percent say that they 
want statehood or they want commonwealth, we decide in this body 
whether or not we want to proceed any further. I think if it was that 
close, we probably would not. But let us say they come back and that 70 
percent want statehood and only 10 percent or 20 percent want 
commonwealth. At that point I think that we as a body ought to make 
that determination.
  But make no mistake about it, these are American citizens without 
representation in the Congress of the United States, and that is wrong.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Hawaii (Mr. 
Abercrombie).
  Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Chairman, I am speaking on the time of the 
gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton). I am speaking from the majority 
side of the aisle because I am speaking on his time. I am looking at 
the gentleman from California (Mr. Miller) right now who is smiling at 
me, and trying to get over the hush that came over the crowd as someone 
moves to this side. I am looking for the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. 
Young), my very able chairman.
  I point that out because this is a nonpartisan issue and is being 
cast, I am very sorry to say, in somewhat partisan terms, not 
necessarily by party but partisan terms, as if there is a right side 
and a wrong side. As the gentleman from Puerto Rico (Mr. Romero-

[[Page H797]]

Barcelo) has indicated, as the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton) has 
indicated, as the gentleman from California (Mr. Miller) has indicated, 
and the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young), what we are trying to do 
here today is to aid and assist, as Members of the House of 
Representatives, the self-determination of fellow citizens.
  The gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton) has been adamant on this. I 
do not think we are going to find a more partisan person in the House 
with respect to the question of English and its being used as common 
language throughout the United States. But that issue will be debated 
in another venue, at another time.
  What we are talking about here is something that I ask Members, as a 
representative from the last State to come into the Union. We have only 
been a State for 38 years. We have been a State for less years than 
many people in this body have been alive and serving in public office.

                              {time}  1445

  So it is very, very particularly poignant in some respects to me 
today to stand here as someone who was not born in Hawaii and has the 
privilege to serve in Hawaii.
  I was born in the east of the United States, in Buffalo, New York, in 
the area represented by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Paxon) today. 
It never occurred to me that one day I would have the privilege and 
honor of standing in the well of this House to serve the people not 
only of Hawaii, but of the United States of America.
  That will happen in Puerto Rico. We cannot determine ahead of time 
what is going to happen there. The conventional wisdom, as some will 
recall, when Hawaii and Alaska came into the Union, was that Hawaii 
would be a Republican State, and, indeed, we elected a Republican 
Governor in our very first State election, and that Alaska would be a 
democratic State.
  As you know, that has worked differently. We have had Republican 
office holders here, we have had Democratic office holders here. This 
is not a partisan issue.
  Mr. Chairman, I appeal to my Republican friends, please, take into 
account that our fellow citizens are merely asking for the opportunity 
to determine their future. Join Democrats and Republicans all together 
and vote for the bill and against this particular amendment.
  Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer).
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the Solomon amendment 
and in strong support of the substitute language.
  Mr. Chairman, English is fast becoming the language of the world. It 
is not we English speakers who need to fear the integrity of our 
language; it is, indeed, others who have concerns.
  We, as I said earlier in this debate, who support so strongly the 
principles of the Helsinki Act, have advocated in country after country 
after country that they give to people within their country respect of 
their cultural and their national identities. Of course, language is a 
critical component of that.
  The Soviet Union, my friends will recall, tried to have everybody 
speak Russian on the concept that if everybody spoke Russian, there 
would be a sense of unity within the Soviet Union. But that unity was 
at the point of a sword. It will not get you what you want.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge support of the substitute, and opposition to the 
Solomon amendment.
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Arizona (Mr. Hayworth) for the purpose of entering into a colloquy with 
me.
  Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Chairman, I do rise for the purpose of entering 
into a colloquy with the gentleman from California (Mr. Cunningham), 
who will be speaking for the sponsor of the amendment, the gentleman 
from New York (Mr. Solomon).
  First let me compliment my friend from New York for introducing this 
important amendment. This amendment will save precious taxpayer 
dollars, while reaffirming that English should be the official language 
of the government. A common language of government is essential to our 
health as a Nation.
  Let me turn to the gentleman from California (Mr. Cunningham). It is 
my understanding it was the intention of the gentleman from New York 
(Mr. Solomon), the author of this amendment, to include the entire text 
of H.R. 123, the Bill Emerson English Language Empowerment Act of 1997, 
as this amendment. Is that correct?
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HAYWORTH. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, it was the intention of the gentleman 
from New York (Mr. Solomon) to include the text of H.R. 123 in this 
amendment.
  Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, as the gentleman 
knows, I worked with the authors of H.R. 123 to include certain 
sections of the bill that recognize the unique status of Native 
Americans under our Constitution and various treaties. Section 167 of 
H.R. 123 explicitly states, ``Nothing in this chapter shall be 
construed to limit the preservation or use of Native Alaskans or Native 
American languages as defined in the Native American Languages Act.'' 
Section 169 of the bill further states that the measure does not apply 
to ``the teaching of these languages.'' These provisions were added at 
my behest to protect the unique obligations we have to Native 
Americans.
  Again, asking the gentleman from California, was it the intention of 
the gentleman from New York (Mr. Solomon) to protect the various 
obligations of our native people?
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield further, it 
was the full intention to protect Native American languages, as these 
sovereign tribes have a unique relationship with the Federal 
Government. Unfortunately, the Parliamentarian ruled that adding these 
sections would not be germane to the bill we are debating. I look 
forward to working with the gentleman in seeing that the Native 
American languages are protected as the bill works its way through the 
legislative process.
  Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Farr).
  Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Chairman, I was sitting in my office 
listening to this debate, and really the question is what does the 
105th Congress have to fear? It really sounds like two things.
  First of all, we are fearful of Puerto Rico having an election, which 
is essentially a public opinion election. Since when did Congress fear 
elections?
  The other thing we have is we are fearing people that speak other 
languages. Why? One hundred four sessions that went before us did not 
fear that. In fact, our forefathers who admitted Louisiana, New Mexico, 
Oklahoma and Hawaii, allowed those states to come in and protected the 
rights of those people to speak French, Spanish, Native American and 
Hawaiian, Aloha, a language that everybody uses in business.
  What about our forefathers who rebuilt this room we are all sitting 
in, in 1949 and 1950. If you look around, there are 23 lawgivers that 
we respect. These are the people who historically gave us the under-law 
for American law. These were the lawmakers, lawgivers, as we call them. 
There are 23 of them. Only three of them spoke English, and one of 
those, Thomas Jefferson, also spoke French.
  Mr. Chairman, what are we afraid of? Defeat this amendment and pass 
the bill.
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, I yield two minutes to the gentleman 
from South Carolina (Mr. Graham).
  Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.
  Mr. Chairman, I know this is an emotional issue to many folks. The 
commonwealth status of Puerto Rico has been a long-standing status and 
it confers upon its people certain rights of citizenship.
  This body is about to take it to a new level. I do not believe the 
American people are any closer to understanding this issue than when we 
started. It is taking everybody in the country by surprise.
  It is a big deal to me. I think we are rushing into it. But if we are 
going to

[[Page H798]]

do it, we need to recognize certain things.
  Three out of four people in Puerto Rico are not fluent in the English 
language, and we are setting in motion the possibility of Puerto Rico 
becoming a State in a couple or three years.
  The legislative affairs of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico are 
conducted in Spanish. The Federal Court system requires that jurors 
speak English to sit as jurors, but the State court system, or the 
equivalent thereof, is conducted in Spanish, so if anybody finds 
themselves in Puerto Rico as a State, chances are you are going to be 
tried in a language you do not understand.
  What the gentleman from New York (Mr. Solomon) is trying to do is 
bring unanimity to the 50 or 51 states, saying the common language that 
unites us is English, and it would apply to all states, not just the 
Commonwealth of Puerto Rico.
  If we are going to go down this road, we certainly need this piece of 
legislation. But I believe it is ill-advised to do this without the 
goodwill of the American people behind us and without exactly 
understanding where the people of Puerto Rico are.
  I do not understand why we are doing it, but if we are going to do 
it, the English component of the Solomon amendment is essential to 
integrating Puerto Rico into the United States in a viable way. When 3 
out of 4 people cannot speak English, that is a road map for disaster, 
if you are going to be a part of the United States.
  Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Kennedy).
  Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong 
opposition to this English only amendment. The gentleman from New York 
says that we need this amendment to empower the citizens of Puerto Rico 
to be full and equal partners in this Union.
  What will empower the people of Puerto Rico to be full participants 
in this Union is if we get about voting this bill through and allowing 
them the right to finally have self-determination on the island, so 
that they can have all the rights and privileges of their American 
citizenship status which they are currently denied because they are 
under Commonwealth status, which, if I need to remind Members, means 
they are under the territorial clause of the United States.
  Ironically, we could pass English only requirements for the people of 
Puerto Rico under the current territorial status, because that is our 
power. If they become a State, which I hope they will, they will retain 
the 10th Amendment power to decide what their own language will be.
  So it is interesting. If they become a State, they will be able to 
decide for themselves; if they remain a Commonwealth, it is up to us to 
decide what their language is going to be.
  Vote against the Solomon amendment, and vote for the passage of the 
bill.
  Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1\1/2\ 
minutes.
  Mr. Chairman, earlier in the debate the gentleman from California 
(Mr. Cunningham) got up and spoke about his legislation dealing with 
English as an official language. The point was made that all states 
would be treated the same, and the states had a right to change some 
requirements under the 10th Amendment, should they decide to do so.
  The problem with the Solomon amendment is that in fact in this 
legislation it treats Puerto Rico differently than any other State in 
the Union, because it goes on and declares that English is the official 
language of the United States. But it then goes on to say the people of 
Puerto Rico can only communicate with the Federal Government in English 
and that the Federal Government can only communicate with the people of 
Puerto Rico in English.
  This means if you are a DEA agent, you can only speak English if you 
are engaged in an activity. If you are the FBI, you can only speak 
English if you are engaged in an activity. If you are engaged in a 
search and rescue and the people do not speak English, you can only 
speak to them in English.
  I do not think that is what we want to do. There is a legitimate 
debate to be had under the Cunningham legislation. We had it two years 
ago. I suspect we will have it again before this year is out. That 
would apply to all of the states equally and the states would retain 
their rights.
  But the Solomon amendment goes far beyond those requirements and 
singles out Puerto Rico for special burdensome treatment. People can 
only write to their member of Congress, should they choose statehood 
and have Members in the Congress of the United States, they could only 
write to them in English. It would be against the law to write to them 
in Spanish or in another language. It would be against the law to 
petition the President of the United States or the Congress in any 
other language. That is not true anywhere else in this country.
  We ought to make sure that if we deal with this issue, that we treat 
all of the states on an equal footing. This says if Puerto Rico becomes 
a state, it would be singled out for much more burdensome treatment 
than the general debate on English as an official language.
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, I yield two minutes to my good 
friend, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Serrano).
  Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, let me first say that I rise in strong 
opposition to the Solomon amendment and in favor, strong support, of 
the substitute language.
  Let me say that the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton) is very 
courageous in taking this stance. He supports English only, but he 
knows it does not belong in this bill. That is what this issue is all 
about.
  Why not be fair? Why single Puerto Rico out? If it decides to become 
a State and if we allow it to become a State, it shall be governed by 
the law of the land. Everyone knows that. But why single it out now? 
Why try to make a statement that is unfair and a statement that is not 
necessary?
  The issue on the whole is one that is not necessary. Everyone knows 
that everyone learns to speak English both in Puerto Rico and here. As 
an Hispanic American, a Latino and Puerto Rican, I can tell you, we do 
not go around spending time figuring out how not to learn English. Do I 
not sound like a person who tries every day to improve on the language? 
I am going to get it right one of these days.
  This is a bad amendment, and it should not be here.
  Let me close with this: When Latinos or Hispanics sit around the 
dinner table and the issue of language comes up, it is never a plot 
against the English language.

                              {time}  1500

  It is usually a lament about the fact that the children and the 
grandchildren no longer speak Spanish. So with that recognition, what 
is the fear? Let us go forward. Let us allow this bill to take place. 
Let us make this vote possible.
  Let us not muddy the waters any more. Let the people of Puerto Rico, 
the Puerto Rican people, have a vote on this issue. Let us not single 
them out for anything that you do not single other States out for.
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Bilbray).
  Mr. BILBRAY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Solomon 
amendment. I would like to clarify an issue. The minority leader, the 
gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Gephardt) stated that we have never placed 
any language condition on any territory that was considering statehood.
  I want to clarify that that is false, that in fact in 1811 Congress 
specifically required that Louisiana adopt English as the official 
language of their proceedings, of all government writings, and all 
government functions. They not only required Louisiana in 1811 to do 
it, they required Oklahoma and New Mexico to specifically have to teach 
in English as a primary language. In fact, Arizona was required to 
guarantee that its executive and legislative officials would conduct 
business in the English language.
  So let us not talk about singling out anyone. The fact is this has a 
historical record that says that when the issue of language has become 
a question, English is the common language of these United States; that 
has been clarified by Congress again and again, and has been placed as 
a requirement on any territory wishing to gain statehood that they 
must, too, adopt English as their official common language.

[[Page H799]]

  Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the fact that the gentleman from Illinois 
and the gentlewoman from New York proposed a substitute to the 
substitute, which really shows where some people may be coming from on 
this issue. That is, their substitute to the substitute says let us 
make Spanish the official language of Puerto Rico.
  I think what we are saying is let us be up front about it. We should 
clarify to the people of Puerto Rico that part of the transition from 
territory to State is going to be transition from Spanish to English. 
That is de facto. Let us do it up front, be truthful to the people of 
Puerto Rico, let us not promise them State and local government we 
cannot deliver.
  The fact is the assimilation of any territory into the greater Union 
is going to happen not just politically but culturally, socially, and 
linguistically.
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Guam (Mr. Underwood).
  Mr. UNDERWOOD. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time 
to me.
  Mr. Chairman, I stand in support of the substitute and in opposition 
to the Solomon amendment. We are making a language issue out of a self-
determination issue.
  People understand that the use of English in Puerto Rico is something 
that is essential to understand here. But there is no one that I know 
of that does not want to learn English to fully function in American 
society. There are very few people in Puerto Rico that I know of who do 
not want to learn English. In fact, in Puerto Rico there is a clear 
educational policy which fosters English, and indeed, English can be 
used for official purposes. If Puerto Ricans choose statehood under 
this framework, those policies would be strengthened. I think this is 
understood and acceptable.
  But what is not acceptable is to allow Puerto Ricans the right to 
self-determination and in the same process to decide in advance of 
their choice that they not be treated the same way as other States.
  The Solomon amendment tries to use the language issue to deliver a 
blow to the possibility of Puerto Rican statehood by putting a 
restriction on their possible admission, which other States have not 
had in their history. The Burton substitute is a responsible, coherent, 
moderate statement about the realities of American life, the necessity 
of English, but also recognizes that the tolerance of differences is a 
cornerstone of American democracy, that education is better than 
coercion, that knowing more is better than knowing less, that addition 
is better than subtraction, that knowing more languages is not un-
American.
  Thank you, all of you.
  Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Green).
  Mr. GREEN. I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time, Mr. 
Chairman.
  I also join with my colleague, the gentleman from New York (Mr. 
Serrano) who says he is working every day to speak English, and so am 
I, to improve on our use of the language. But I will never speak 
English like they do in New York or Boston or even other parts of our 
country.
  I oppose the Solomon amendment and support the substitute amendment. 
To make English our official language limits our Nation. English is our 
official language. It is our common language. We always have used 
English. It did not take a law in this Congress to do that. It has not 
taken 200 years to do it. We do it because we want to.
  To file a document in court in the United States, or a public record, 
it has to be in English or an English translation. Our citizenship 
ceremonies are in English, even though we did have one aberration of a 
Federal judge doing it in Arizona. But it has to be in English, by 
statute.
  Furthermore, English only is unwarranted because two of our States, 
New Mexico and Hawaii, have two official languages. In Hawaii it is 
English and Hawaiian, and in New Mexico it is English and Spanish. I 
hope the Puerto Rican voters would choose statehood and integrate 
English into their language.
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the 
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Lewis).
  Mr. LEWIS of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank my friend and 
colleague for yielding time to me.
  Mr. Chairman, this is a bad amendment. We do not need it. English is 
the predominant and common language of this Nation. English is used in 
government and courts throughout Puerto Rico. We must encourage 
everyone to speak English, but we must not discriminate against those 
who speak other languages.
  Puerto Ricans are citizens of the United States. We must not deny the 
people of Puerto Rico their heritage. They contribute to the diversity 
and richness of our country. This amendment will make government more 
difficult. It will make communication more difficult.
  Mr. Chairman, we should encourage everyone to learn English, but we 
should not deny Spanish-speaking Americans their tradition. English is 
the primary language of our Nation. In almost every corner of the world 
English is the language of international affairs, of international 
politics and business. We do not need this amendment. This amendment 
tells our citizens, deny your heritage, forget your roots. That is the 
wrong message for a great Nation, for a great people, a proud people to 
send.
  Let us embrace diversity and learn from each other. This is how we 
have grown and prospered as a great Nation and a great people. I urge 
all of my colleagues, Democrats and Republicans, to vote no on the 
Solomon amendment.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Virginia, Mr. Bob Goodlatte, a distinguished member of the Committee on 
the Judiciary.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman for yielding time 
to me, and for his leadership on this issue.
  Mr. Chairman, it has been said that the Solomon amendment is not 
constitutional. Nothing could be further from the truth. Let me read 
right from the language of the amendment. It says, ``English is the 
official language of all business and communication of the Federal 
Government of the United States, and all communications with the 
Federal Government will be in English unless generally applicable 
Federal law provides otherwise.''
  Puerto Rico as a State promotes English as the official language of 
the State government, courts, and agencies. English is the language of 
instruction in public schools. This is not a mandate, this is similar 
to what we have required of Louisiana, Oklahoma, and other States in 
the past, and it is simply not correct that this is inappropriate.
  In the last Congress, this body overwhelmingly passed similar 
language to apply to the entire country, and should do so with regard 
to Puerto Rico today. English is the language used by our government. 
It is the language of commerce, and it is the common language of the 
overwhelming majority of the American people.
  Language differences are the number one barrier to full assimilation, 
and Puerto Rico is certainly no exception. According to the 1990 U.S. 
census, less than 24 percent of Puerto Ricans speak English fluently, 
and a 1997 survey found that 76 percent of Puerto Ricans think it 
unacceptable to have English as their official language. It is no 
coincidence, therefore, that a recent poll concluded that only 16 
percent of Puerto Ricans consider themselves to be Americans.
  Before the people of the United States accept Puerto Rico into their 
Union, they expect the people of Puerto Rico to want to be a part of 
it. Make no mistake, H.R. 856 will create an American Quebec. If Puerto 
Rico gains statehood under this bill, it is likely to declare Spanish 
as the official language, which could then force the U.S. Government to 
make Spanish the quasi-official language to accommodate the needs of 
Puerto Ricans.
  Not only would this significantly undermine the long-term 
assimilation of Puerto Ricans into American society, but it would also 
increase the pressure for the rest of the United States to become 
officially bilingual.
  Language is the common bond that holds our Nation together. A common 
language allows the children of Virginia to communicate with and learn 
from the children of California. Without this amendment, the same will 
not be true for the children of Puerto Rico. Without this amendment, 
children will

[[Page H800]]

never have the opportunity to participate fully and equally with their 
fellow citizens.
  Mr. Chairman, pro-statehood forces have stated on many occasions that 
their language and culture are not negotiable. Congress is not asking 
anyone to negotiate away their culture, but the Constitution grants 
Congress the power to determine the rules for statehood, and that 
Constitution was established to create a more perfect Union, not a more 
divided Nation.
  We must make clear that Puerto Rico must be prepared to be an equal 
partner. Support the Solomon amendment and oppose the Burton 
substitute.
  If Congress passes H.R. 856 without this amendment, we will embroil 
ourselves in a divisive debate that will last for years to come. When 
we welcome a new state into our great union, we should do so by 
building bridges that unite us, not roads that divide us. Puerto Rico 
statehood without English as the official language is a bad idea that 
is sure to create tension between the states, enormous administrative 
nightmares, and huge costs to the American people. Our states are 
united, and they should remain so. The American people do not want, and 
cannot afford, another Quebec.
  I urge my colleagues to vote yes on the Solomon amendment.
  Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the 
gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Velazquez.)
  (Ms. VELAZQUEZ asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
her remarks.)
  Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the 
Solomon amendment. This amendment would outlaw elected officials from 
communicating with their constituents in Spanish. It will hamper the 
efforts of Federal agencies to collect taxes, inform citizens of their 
rights, and ensure due process, and it will endanger lives by making 
illegal anything but English to be used, even by police department and 
paramedics responding to life-threatening situations.
  This amendment is guaranteed to make government inefficient and 
ineffective and jeopardize the civil rights of some of society's most 
vulnerable members.
  I represent one of the highest non-English-speaking populations in 
the country. Under the Solomon amendment, I will be barred from 
communicating with the people of the Twelfth District of New York in a 
second language. This will keep me from doing what they elected me to 
do. This amendment is divisive and unnecessary. It does not belong on 
this legislation.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Bob Barr), a distinguished member of the 
Committee on the Judiciary.
  (Mr. BARR of Georgia asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend his remarks.)
  Mr. BARR of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Solomon 
amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Solomon English Language 
Empowerment Amendment. The English language portion of 856 is 
meaningless. The Solomon amendment will clarify this vague language by 
designating English as the official language of the United States; 
requiring that English be the sole official language of all federal 
communication in Puerto Rico and; making English the official language 
of state government courts and agencies; making English the language of 
instruction in public schools.
  Americans speak English. Many Americans speak more than one language. 
In fact, many of my colleagues on both sides of the isle are bilingual. 
But everyone in this chamber understands the importance of speaking 
English. In fact, I believe that every member in this House who would 
be called upon to counsel a foreign speaking immigrant, would tell them 
that the most important thing that this immigrant could do to begin to 
assimilate and become successful in America is to learn English.
  If Puerto Rico became a state, the citizens of Puerto Rico would send 
to us Representatives and Senators. Now Puerto Ricans might be given a 
choice between candidate A who doesn't speak English and candidate B 
who is bilingual. Hopefully, they would elect the bilingual candidate. 
The business of this body and the business of America is conducted in 
English.
  Currently, in America, you can go from state to state and understand 
the laws, the government, the courts, from New Hampshire to Hawaii. 
This notion would fundamentally change if Puerto Rico were to be 
admitted without the Solomon Amendment. Puerto Rico conducts its 
official business in Spanish. This is even after 100 years of influence 
by the United States. Puerto Ricans are essentially saying that we do 
not recognize America. We do not want to assimilate. We want to be 
Puerto Rico, and we want to be Spanish.
  Mr. Chairman, 63% of Puerto Ricans can't recite the Pledge of 
Allegiance. Sixty Six percent do not know the words to the Star 
Spangled Banner. This makes sense when you learn that only 16% of 
Puerto Ricans consider themselves to be American. By themselves, these 
polling numbers don't trouble me. I don't want to force anyone to be 
American who doesn't want to. However, just as Puerto Ricans have every 
right to maintain their Spanish heritage and their Spanish language, so 
too does America have every right to maintain its English language 
tradition. This is a fundamental building block of our nation, and the 
basic fiber that binds this great country together.
  Mr. Chairman, English has been and hopefully always will be the 
common link between the melting pot of cultures in our nation. We have 
many different cultures in our nation, from the woods of Maine to the 
shores of the Pacific north west, from 10,000 lakes of Minnesota to 
Georgia's Golden Isles. The cultures, the religions, the traditions 
vary as greatly as the miles. Yet, the English language binds these 
people together in a proud tradition that we have come to know, as 
being American.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Riggs), chairman of the Committee on Education and the 
Workforce that has jurisdiction over the English language issues, and a 
very valuable Member of this body.
  Mr. RIGGS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the distinguished chairman of the 
Committee on Rules and sponsor of this amendment for yielding time to 
me.
  Mr. Chairman, let me say first of all, I support the right of Puerto 
Rico residents, American citizens, to have self-determination, to 
choose statehood over the current status as a Commonwealth. But I 
believe as a condition of statehood those voting in any kind of 
referendum or plebiscites should acknowledge and accept English as the 
official common and commercial language of our country.
  I have a little bit different perspective on this issue, as the 
chairman of the Subcommittee on Early Childhood, Youth and Families. My 
concern is twofold: too often bilingual education fails our young 
people, and the alarming dropout rate of Hispanic students in America.
  Too many of our young people are not getting the education and the 
job training that they need to live successful and productive adult 
lives, to take advantage, if you will, of all these high-tech jobs that 
our economy continues to create every day. For them, the have-nots of 
tomorrow, it is a personal tragedy. For our country it is a very 
serious, it is a very real challenge, because we need a skilled work 
force to remain competitive.
  I mentioned the bilingual education. The statistics are appalling. 
One-third of all Hispanic students nationwide, according to the U.S. 
Department of Education's own report, drop out, and that figure is 
closer to 50 percent in my home State of California. In fact, if 
Members really want to boil the debate down, last year only 6.7 percent 
of limited English proficient students in California public schools 
have learned enough English to move into mainstream classes.
  We have the largest school district in the State, the Los Angeles 
School District, suing the Governor because the Governor wants to 
administer tests in reading, writing, and math to all students in the 
second through 11th grades, but only in English.

                              {time}  1515

  Bilingual education is too often a failure. It does not promote a 
transition to English fluency, but it traps youngsters in a dependency 
on non-English languages and special help. ``Bilingual'' has become a 
misnomer. English as a second language should not mean second-class 
citizenship.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge Members to support the Solomon amendment, and 
let us reform bilingual education.
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Gekas).
  Mr. GEKAS. Mr. Chairman, when I served in the Armed Forces, I was 
stationed for a while in Puerto Rico. I was

[[Page H801]]

eager to learn Spanish so that I could communicate with the people of 
Puerto Rico. So I walked into a restaurant, after studying my Spanish 
to an n'th degree, and I said proudly, after I saw a picture of a hot 
dog on the back of the counter, ``Hagame el favor de darme un perro 
caliente.'' And so the youngster looks at me, turns around to the cook 
and says, ``One hot dog with everything.''
  The point is that he knew English. That he knew that I knew English. 
He was helping me with my Spanish, but I learned that first lesson 
there, that most of the people either speak English in Puerto Rico or 
want to speak English in Puerto Rico.
  Our fellow citizens in Puerto Rico in time will be 100 percent able 
to speak English. By that time, they will blend in perfectly to our 
English language customs for the entire country.
  Mr. Chairman, I support the substitute.
  Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Weygand).
  (Mr. WEYGAND asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. WEYGAND. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in opposition to this 
amendment. I remember talking with my grandparents about their parents 
who came to this country from Ireland and Germany. And many of my 
colleagues' ancestors came from Portugal or France or from other places 
where they really learned what it was that was great about this 
country.
  We never required them to come into this country and learn English 
before they got here. What they came for was the great thing that they 
saw in this country: the opportunity for them and their children to 
have a better world. They learned English because they wanted to learn 
English, not because the Congress told them they had to.
  Our children today are all over the world on computers. Businesses 
are all over the world. Do my colleagues know what the common language 
is? English. The Congress did not have to tell them that it should be 
English. They learned it. They made it that way.
  Yet this Congress sees fit here today to try to impose something they 
have never imposed upon any other State, making sure that English is 
the official language. It is unnecessary. It is an imposition that 
should not be condoned. We should vote down this amendment.
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Deutsch), my good friend.
  Mr. DEUTSCH. Mr. Chairman, I think it is important to point out that 
this is a bipartisan issue in terms of people rejecting the Solomon 
amendment and supporting the substitute.
  Mr. Chairman, I wish the gentleman from California (Mr. Riggs) was 
still here just in terms of responding to his comments. If the 
amendment was just what the gentleman said he wanted, it probably would 
not be so bad. It would be at least a relevant debate. But this 
amendment is not limited to Puerto Rico. This amendment really has no 
place in this debate.
  This amendment is an issue which should have been debated on its own, 
not on this bill. The Solomon amendment's purpose is to kill the bill. 
That is its purpose.
  We can debate the issue of Puerto Rico's ability to determine its 
future outside of that. The substitute allows us to do that. When we 
want to, we can talk better requirements for statehood, requirements 
for issues on Puerto Rico outside of the requirements for the entire 
country. That is what the debate needs to be about.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to vote 
strongly in favor of the substitute and against the Solomon amendment, 
and to give the people of Puerto Rico the opportunity to decide their 
own future.
  Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Gutierrez).
  Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the 
Solomon amendment. I think we have heard here time and time again that 
when called to duty, drafted, called to serve, there is no litmus test, 
there is no test of language for people. Indeed, the 65th Infantry 
served with distinction and honor and valor in the Korean conflict, and 
almost everybody spoke one language as the troops were ordered into 
battle, and that language was Spanish.
  We should not raise this as an issue here today. The language of the 
people of Puerto Rico is Spanish. We should respect that.
  Just as I have said before, it would be detrimental, it would be 
detrimental to attach to statehood an English language requirement, 
because then people who would want to become a State would say, well, I 
cannot accept it that way. It is wrong.
  We understand what the language of our people is. Look in Puerto Rico 
today. From kindergarten through 12th grade of high school, English is 
taught, but people have preserved their Spanish language. Let us 
respect them.
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have 
remaining?
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton) has one-quarter 
of 1 minute remaining.
  Mr. BURTON on Indiana. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Virginia (Mr. Goode), an outstanding Member of this body on the other 
side of the aisle.
  Mr. GOODE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Solomon amendment 
because I fear a Quebec-type situation in this country. Now is the time 
to establish English as the official language. If we do that in this 
bill and if we follow suit in 123, we will not have problems cropping 
up like in Canada and across the world.
  Mr. Chairman, I can tell my colleagues that if we have that up front, 
everybody knowing it, it is better. My great-grandmother was German and 
she never learned to speak English. She was at a disadvantage her whole 
time in this country, and I think we need to start with English first.
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. GOODE. I yield to the gentleman from Indiana.
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, I would just like to know what 
language the gentleman from Virginia speaks. He sounds like he is from 
down South some place.
  Mr. GOODE. Mr. Chairman, it is ``Southern'' English.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Chairman, how much time does the gentleman from 
Indiana have remaining?
  The CHAIRMAN. One-quarter of one minute.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 15 seconds to the gentleman from 
Indiana (Mr. Burton) out of the goodness of my heart.
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the very 
distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher).
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Solomon 
amendment. This bill is aimed at admitting a State to the Union that is 
overwhelmingly populated by Spanish-speaking people who have a proud 
culture and are proud of their language and view themselves as a 
separate nation.
  The people of Puerto Rico have no intention of giving up their 
language or their culture or their Olympic teams or their Miss Universe 
contestants, and there is no reason they should have to give these 
things up if they do not want to become part of a State, residents of a 
State of the Union.
  However, if they expect to be residents of a State of the Union and 
to be Americans first, they must speak the common language and English 
is the common language; and to become part of our culture, not to 
maintain their separate culture, to root for our Olympics team and have 
our Miss Universe contestant as their contestant.
  Mr. Chairman, I support the Solomon English language amendment to 
this bill because it takes the appropriate steps to put Puerto Ricans 
on notice that statehood means becoming part of our Nation and no 
longer being part of a separate culture and a separate nation, 
especially as reflected by a separate language.
  We should make sure that no one is fooled into thinking that the 
United States is becoming a bilingual society, a bilingual Nation 
trying to accommodate itself to this nation within a nation. And that 
nation within a nation, there are people there who believe in

[[Page H802]]

independence. In the past we remember when there were independence 
people who violently wanted independence for Puerto Rico.
  The fact is they have a proud culture and a proud nation. They are 
not part of the United States unless they are willing to become part of 
the United States.
  Mr. Chairman, H.R. 856 is wrong for the people of Puerto Rico and it 
is wrong for the people of the United States. ``E pluribus unum.'' We 
are one people and that is fine. Let us be one people. But if a people 
expect to be part of the United States, they should be part of the 
United States.
  Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from Puerto Rico (Mr. Romero-Barcelo) to close our side on 
this debate.
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the 
gentleman from Puerto Rico (Mr. Romero-Barcelo), the balance of my 
time, so that the gentleman will have 1\1/2\ minutes to close.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Puerto Rico is recognized for 1\1/2\ 
minutes.
  Mr. ROMERO-BARCELO. Mr. Chairman, if the English-first or English-
only amendment were really meant to be for improvement of the bill, at 
least we could understand it. But the English-first supporters have 
distributed a paper here where it says even if this bill passes, this 
amendment passes, that Members should vote against H.R. 856. In other 
words, they are against the bill and this amendment is being used 
merely as a way to put a poison pill on the bill.
  In Puerto Rico, as I have said over and over again, we are not 
rejecting English. We are embracing English. We were the first 
jurisdiction to approve English as an official language in 1902, but we 
also want Spanish as an official language. Both languages. We want to 
be bilingual. What is wrong with that?
  This morning, earlier today, we had the gentleman from Illinois 
saying that in Puerto Rico the movies were dubbed. The majority of the 
movies shown in Puerto Rico are not dubbed. They are in English and the 
movie houses are full.
  At the Blockbusters, the majority of the films that are rented out 
are not subtitled and neither are the movies subtitled. And in Puerto 
Rico the people who are watching these proceedings now on C-SPAN 
understand what is going on.
  As the gentleman said a little while ago, when he asked for the 
``perro caliente,'' that is one of the problems that people who go to 
Puerto Rico to learn to speak Spanish have. The Puerto Ricans speak 
English.
  Mr. Chairman, they say Puerto Ricans do not feel that they are a part 
of a Nation. We have to take a look at that. Why is that? There are 50 
stars, not 51 stars. We still have not been admitted into the family. 
Once we are admitted into the family, not 50 percent, 60 percent, but 
100 percent of the people of Puerto Rico will feel that they are part 
of the Nation.


                         Parliamentary Inquiry

  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state it.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Chairman, is there no further time outstanding other 
than mine?
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman may close debate.
  Mr. SOLOMON. And the Chairman is recognizing me for that purpose?
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is correct.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge Members to listen to this in their offices. If 
the Solomon amendment is defeated, or if the Solomon amendment is 
watered down and this bill becomes law and Puerto Rico becomes a State, 
any citizen of the State of Puerto Rico can bring an action against the 
United States of America Government or against any one of the other 50 
States and demand bilingual equal treatment under the Equal Footing 
Doctrine. Members better think about that when they cast their votes in 
half an hour from now.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to section 2(a) of House Resolution 376, it is 
now in order to consider Amendment No. 3 printed in the Congressional 
Record.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the hour of 
debate on the Solomon amendment, the Gutierrez amendment thereto, if 
offered, and the Burton substitute, if offered, be divided and 
controlled as follows: 30 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. 
Solomon), 6 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Gutierrez), 12 
minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton), and 12 minutes to 
the gentleman from California (Mr. Miller), subject to equitable 
reductions, if necessary, to remain within the 1 hour of consideration 
permitted under this rule. I think this is an agreed-to unanimous 
consent request.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
New York?
  There was no objection.


                 Amendment No. 3 Offered by Mr. Solomon

  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 3 offered by Mr. Solomon:
       At the end of section 2, add the following paragraph:
       (16) In 1996, the United States House of Representatives 
     overwhelmingly declared that ``the official language of the 
     Federal Government is English''. According to the 1990 United 
     States Census, less than 24 percent of the citizens of Puerto 
     Rico speak English fluently. The enhancement of English as 
     the official language of Puerto Rico is consistent not only 
     with this statement of policy, but also with the preservation 
     of our Nation's unity in diversity and the prevention of 
     divisions along linguistic lines. Proficiency in the English 
     language is necessary for all citizens to enjoy the full 
     rights and benefits of their citizenship as guaranteed by the 
     Constitution and to contribute most effectively to the Nation 
     in all aspects. Conducting the business of Federal and State 
     governments in English is the best way to promote efficiency 
     and fairness to every citizen. Only proficiency in English 
     can provide all Americans the enjoyment of the rights and 
     benefits of full participation in the American economy and 
     union.
       Strike subsection (b) of section 3 and insert the following 
     new subsection:
       (b) Official Language.--The official language of the 
     Federal Government is English. The legislature of Puerto Rico 
     has established a bilingual policy by making both Spanish and 
     English official languages of Puerto Rico, but has continued 
     to operate its government solely in Spanish, as the majority 
     of the people in Puerto Rico are not proficient in English. 
     In the event that the referenda held under this Act results 
     in approval of a request to Congress that Puerto Rico be 
     admitted to the Union as a State and the Congress approves 
     such statehood, English will be the sole official language of 
     all Federal Government activities in Puerto Rico and, unless 
     otherwise provided by generally applicable Federal law, all 
     communications with the Federal Government by the Government 
     or people of Puerto Rico will be in English. This Act, the 
     procedures authorized by this Act, and the possible accession 
     of Puerto Rico to statehood do not create or alter any rights 
     of a person to government services in languages other than 
     English.
       In section 4(a), strike paragraph (7) of subparagraph C of 
     the referendum language and insert the following new 
     paragraph:
       ``(7) English is the official language of all business and 
     communication of the Federal Government of the United States 
     and all communications with the Federal Government will be in 
     English unless generally applicable Federal law provides 
     otherwise. Puerto Rico, as a State, promotes English as the 
     official language of the State government, courts, and 
     agencies. English is the language of instruction in public 
     schools.''.
       Strike subparagraph (C) of section 4(b)(1) and insert the 
     following new subparagraph:
       (C) Additionally, in the event of a vote in favor of United 
     States sovereignty leading to statehood, the President shall 
     include in the transition plan provided for in this Act that 
     the Federal and State governments implement programs and 
     incentives to promote the acquisition and usage of English by 
     the citizens of Puerto Rico, including but not limited to, 
     teaching in English in public schools, the availability of 
     fellowships and scholarships to increase the opportunities of 
     the people of Puerto Rico to learn to speak, read, write, and 
     understand English, and the provision of educational 
     instruction in English to persons not in schools.


  Amendment Offered by Mr. Gutierrez to the Amendment Offered by Mr. 
                                Solomon

  Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment to the amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Gutierrez to the amendment offered 
     by Mr. Solomon:
       In the amendment proposed to section 4(a) of the bill, in 
     lieu of the text proposed to be inserted as paragraph (7) of 
     subparagraph C of the referendum language, insert the 
     following:

[[Page H803]]

       ``(7) Spanish is an official language of Puerto Rico and 
     its only vernacular language and as such is the official 
     language of business and communication--
       ``(A) in the State government, courts, schools, and 
     agencies; and
       ``(B) in Federal courts and agencies when such courts and 
     agencies are acting in or with regard to Puerto Rico.''.

                              {time}  1530

  Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes and 30 seconds.
  Mr. Chairman, this bill is supposed to be about self-determination. 
Self-determination should be informed. The Statehood Party in Puerto 
Rico has promised statehood. This means that under statehood, Puerto 
Rico gets to keep its culture and its language, and I agree with the 
gentleman from Puerto Rico (Mr. Romero-Barcelo) that that is the kind 
of statehood that we should have.
  As a matter of fact, and I quote from a book, Statehood is for the 
Poor, published in 1978 by the current Resident Commissioner, the 
gentleman from Puerto Rico (Mr. Romero-Barcelo): Our culture and our 
language are not negotiable.
  That is published in Statehood is for the Poor by the Resident 
Commissioner. And I believe that the people of Puerto Rico have come to 
understand and to accept that that is the way that statehood would be 
proposed and that their culture and their language would be something 
that is protected.
  Puerto Rico has spoken Spanish for over 500 years. When I get to 
Puerto Rico and see my parents, we speak in Spanish. When I go to a 
courtroom in Puerto Rico, it is in Spanish. When I register a deed, it 
is in Spanish. When a police officer pulls somebody over for going a 
little too quickly, the citation is in Spanish, and the subsequent 
sentencing, I assure my colleagues, is in Spanish, and you better have 
a lawyer that can speak Spanish.
  When you to go school and you graduate, your diploma is printed in 
Spanish. Every record, including your birth certificate, is in Spanish. 
Spanish is the language of the people.
  Are we talking about civil rights? Let us not talk about imposing 
another language. Go to Puerto Rico today. Go to the Veterans 
Administration or Social Security Administration office in Puerto Rico 
today, and everyone will speak to you in Spanish, unlike Chicago or New 
York or Oklahoma, because Spanish is the language there. And since 
statehood has been proposed in Puerto Rico, the culture and the 
language are nonnegotiable. I think we should guarantee that to the 
gentleman from Puerto Rico (Mr. Romero-Barcelo), the Resident 
Commissioner.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. ROMERO-BARCELO. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to oppose 
the amendment offered by the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Gutierrez).
  Mr. GUTIERREZ. I object, Mr. Chairman.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time has been allocated pursuant to the unanimous-
consent request that was agreed to earlier.
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Puerto Rico (Mr. Romero-Barcelo).
  Mr. ROMERO-BARCELO. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this 
amendment submitted by the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Gutierrez) 
because this amendment is intended to be a poison pill against those 
that are for the bill. It is supposed to be intended as a poison pill, 
because in Puerto Rico the law is that both English and Spanish are 
official languages, and you can have documents in English, and the 
agencies in Puerto Rico are by law obligated to give those documents in 
English if a citizen requests for those documents in English. You can 
register property and deeds drafted in the English language.
  So what has been said here is not true. We want to maintain that 
right of all citizens to have their documents and their business with 
government transacted in either Spanish or English. Those that do not 
understand will be provided with a translation. We will provide people 
to translate their business for them. This would be an imposition upon 
Puerto Rico and will be against the laws of Puerto Rico.
  The gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Gutierrez), who lives in Chicago and 
would like to have independence, now he is acting like a colonial power 
imposing laws in Congress that would repeal the laws that we have, that 
would amend the laws without the people of Puerto Rico voting for it, 
without the legislature participating. We oppose this amendment very 
strongly.
  Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman 
from New York (Ms. Velazquez).
  Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this 
amendment. Mr. Chairman, this amendment will make Spanish the official 
language of Puerto Rico. It will protect what already exists. If 
supporters of this bill are voting for self-determination for the 
Puerto Ricans, they will support allowing them to speak their own 
language. They will support allowing them to do business and operate 
their courts as they have for almost 500 years.
  Mr. Chairman, I have sat on this floor and listened to the arguments 
of my colleagues on the other side of this issue. I have heard many 
distinguished Members of this body argue, some passionately, some 
angrily, that by supporting this bill they are protecting the people of 
Puerto Rico. They say that we must allow self-determination for Puerto 
Rico because they respect our culture, our history and our right to 
control our destiny.
  I have argued that this bill does not provide self-determination, but 
I will accept that the supporters of this bill think they are promoting 
the wishes of the people of Puerto Rico. Well, if that is the case, 
they will have to make their argument in Spanish because the majority 
of the people of Puerto Rico do not speak English. And why should they? 
The fact is that our culture, our history, our essence is rooted in the 
Spanish language. More than that, it is the language of the legal 
system, the Commonwealth Government and all non-Federal official 
business. If the supporters of this bill really respect the people of 
Puerto Rico, they will support this amendment which makes Spanish the 
official language of Puerto Rico.
  Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  I will close by making the following arguments. I think they have not 
been refuted here today. In a book written in 1978, Statehood is for 
the Poor, written and authored by the Resident Commissioner of Puerto 
Rico, the gentleman from Puerto Rico (Mr. Romero-Barcelo), he stated 
clearly and unequivocally that language and culture are nonnegotiable.
  Now, when the campaign goes to Puerto Rico, I want to make sure that 
if that is what they are saying to the people of Puerto Rico, that that 
is what this Congress is guaranteeing them. Let us not let them be 
under any illusions about what is going to be. Since that is exactly 
what has been proposed by the Statehood Party and repeated so many 
times, I want those statehooders who have applauded, who have cheered, 
who have cherished statehood and want to preserve their language and 
culture, to have exactly what they have demanded and asked and rallied 
for. So, therefore, in the name of self-determination, I ask that this 
amendment be adopted so that we respect the wishes of the Statehood 
Party. We should do no less.
  Mr. Chairman, I ask for a recorded vote on this perfecting amendment 
and make a point of order that a quorum is not present.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the unanimous-consent request, debate will 
take place on all three of the amendments that are being discussed, and 
then they would be held.


                         Parliamentary Inquiry

  Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state it.
  Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Chairman, we will be able to ask for a vote on 
this perfecting amendment later on. I have not relinquished my right.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. GUTIERREZ. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Chairman, I would be glad to assist the gentleman in 
seeing to it that he gets his vote at the appropriate time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair will put the question at the appropriate 
time.
  Mr. GUTIERREZ. I thank the Chair.

[[Page H804]]

  Amendment Offered by Mr. Burton of Indiana as a Substitute for the 
                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Solomon

  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment as a 
substitute for the amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Burton of Indiana as a substitute 
     for the amendment offered by Mr. Solomon:
       In section 3, amend subsection (b) to read as follows:
       (b) Official English Language.--In the event that a 
     referendum held under this Act results in approval of 
     sovereignty leading to Statehood, upon accession to 
     Statehood, the official language requirements of the Federal 
     Government would apply to Puerto Rico in the same manner and 
     to the same extent as throughout the United States.
       Add at the end of section 3 the following new subsection:
       (c) English Language Empowerment.--It is in the best 
     interest of the Nation for Puerto Rico to promote the 
     teaching of English as the language of opportunity and 
     empowerment in the United States in order to enable students 
     in public schools to achieve English language proficiency by 
     the age of 10.
       In section 4(a), in the referendum language for Statehood, 
     amend paragraph (7) to read as follows:
       ``(7) Official English language requirements of the Federal 
     Government apply in Puerto Rico to the same extent as Federal 
     law requires throughout the United States.''.
       In subparagraph (C) of section 4(B)(1), strike ``(C) 
     Additionally,'' and all that follows through ``(ii) the 
     effective date'' and insert the following:
       (C) Additionally, in the event of a vote in favor of 
     continued United States sovereignty leading to Statehood, the 
     transition plan required by this subsection shall--
       (i) include proposals and incentives to increase the 
     opportunities of the people of Puerto Rico to expand their 
     English proficiency in order to promote and facilitate 
     communication with residents of all other States of the 
     United States and with the Federal Government, including 
     teaching in English in public schools, awarding fellowships 
     and scholarships, and providing grants to organizations 
     located in various communities that have, as a purpose, the 
     promotion of English language skills;
       (ii) promote the use of English by the United States 
     citizens in Puerto Rico in order to ensure--
       (I) efficiency in the conduct and coordination of the 
     official business activities of the Federal and State 
     Governments;
       (II) that the citizens possess the language skill necessary 
     to contribute to and participate in all aspects of the 
     Nation; and
       (III) the ability of all citizens of Puerto Rico to take 
     full advantage of the opportunities and responsibilities 
     accorded to all citizens, including education, economic 
     activities, occupational opportunities, and civic affairs; 
     and
       (iii) include the effective date

  Mr. BURTON of Indiana (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask 
unanimous consent that the amendment be considered as read and printed 
in the Record.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Indiana?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today to offer a reasonable substitute to the 
Solomon English only amendment. Although I agree that we need to debate 
and pass an English only bill or a constitutional amendment making 
English the official language of our government, holding U.S. citizens 
hostage in Puerto Rico, not allowing self-determination to take place 
is against my strongly held beliefs in democracy.
  English has been made an issue to kill this Puerto Rico plebiscite 
bill. H.R. 856 is a process bill to advance the democratic cause, to 
advance the Founding Fathers' idea that freedom and democracy demand 
self-determination.
  That is what this debate is really about. Nevertheless, English has 
been brought into the debate, forcing me and others to offer an 
alternative. Supporters of H.R. 123, the Bill Emerson English Language 
Empowerment Act, share Mr. Solomon's English language policy goals but 
should not support this amendment to H.R. 856. I supported strongly Mr. 
Emerson's bill when it was on the floor.
  The Solomon amendment is not faithful to H.R. 123. Instead the 
Solomon amendment does two things the House has never endorsed. Number 
one, the Solomon amendment requires ballot language on the statehood 
option which confuses voters to believe that Congress has imposed 
English as the exclusive official language of Puerto Rico's potential 
State government, which is not the case. And two, it also confuses the 
voters that English is the exclusive language of instruction in Puerto 
Rico's public schools, which is not the case.
  The Solomon amendment does not empower the 3.8 million U.S. citizens 
of Puerto Rico by promoting English under the current commonwealth 
territory status. Instead, the Solomon amendment would promote 
continuation of an enclave of disenfranchised Spanish-speaking U.S. 
citizens, a recipe for creating a Quebec-style separatism under the 
American flag, which none of us wants.
  We can avoid this by passing the Burton-Miller-McCollum-Young 
substitute. Our amendment would be effective immediately, immediately. 
English proficiency by age 10 is the Federal policy standard for school 
students in American's largest and most populous territory if my 
amendment passes. Our amendment eliminates ambiguity and constitutional 
flaws in the Solomon amendment with clear and constitutionally sound 
provisions applying to Puerto Rico, if it becomes a State, the same 
national English policy applicable to all other States.
  The irony of the Solomon amendment is that it would isolate Puerto 
Rico from the purpose the amendment wants to establish when it wants to 
establish English as the official language of the United States. The 
Solomon amendment would apply English to all of the 50 States, but 
would carve out a territory, Puerto Rico, under the U.S. flag without 
the benefit of English as the official language until and only if 
Puerto Rico became a State after 10 years. However, under my 
substitute, there would be an immediate effect by a new national policy 
to promote the teaching of English to enable students in public schools 
to achieve English language proficiency by the age of 10 right now. In 
other words, 50 States would be required to have English as the 
official language, but not Puerto Rico, until they became a State. So 
you fortified the position that that is going to be a Spanish-speaking 
State for at least 10 years.
  My amendment would make sure that English would be a proficiency, 
there would be proficiency in English by age 10 in Puerto Rico 
immediately, not waiting 10 years.
  The last couple of evenings I was able to watch Braveheart on 
television. This heroic story of the freedom fighters of Scotland led 
by William Wallace over their British rulers resonates even to this 
day.

                             {time}   1545

  Like Scotland, Puerto Rico desires a chance at true freedom. However, 
rather than take the debate to the battlefield, they ask us simply for 
the opportunity to take the debate to the ballot box.
  Yes, they have local self-government, but under their current status 
Puerto Ricans are, in effect, ruled by the U.S. Congress but without 
any representation in Congress. Puerto Ricans have no vote in the 
Congress but yet can be called into battle in a war on behalf of the 
United States at a moment's notice.
  Yes, freedom and democracy are at the heart of this debate over H.R. 
856. Do we believe in a free people exercising their right to self-
determination or do we not? That is the real question we are debating 
today.
  We should, in my opinion, do the right thing and give Puerto Rico the 
opportunity to let Congress clearly know if they want to be a State, a 
Commonwealth or an independent country. And once we find out, and my 
colleagues need to know this, the final determination on the status of 
Puerto Rico rests with this body.
  The plebiscite we are talking about is advisory only. We are just 
asking that the people of Puerto Rico be able to let us know in the 
Congress, in a clearly defined way, what they want. Once we know that, 
then the Congress makes the final determination.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume, 
and I would tell this body that back in 1983 I was sitting in front of 
my locker in the gym when a young man from Indianapolis, Indiana came 
by and sat next to me in the gym and we began to talk, and we have been 
talking since 1938.
  And I said to myself, ``There is another Jerry Solomon coming along

[[Page H805]]

here. He sounds to me like a true traditional doctrinaire conservative 
and, therefore, when I retire in a few years, I would feel safe that he 
was here.'' My beliefs have been shattered. I cannot believe he is 
offering this gutting amendment to the Solomon amendment, the true 
conservative position in this body, and that is why I rise so much 
against his amendment.
  This amendment enshrines, my colleagues, the language right of the 
Puerto Ricans in statute in a way that will spark years of litigation 
in States across this country. Remember this, because sure as I am 
standing here, it is going to happen.
  Any Puerto Rican anywhere in the U.S. could challenge Federal and 
individual State laws and declarations of English as the official 
language. No State would be able to protect its official English law 
until all States pass English as the official language, and that will 
not happen if they are being sued, Mr. Chairman. The amount of lawsuits 
that will come about will be unbelievable if the Solomon amendment is 
gutted by this amendment.
  This amendment deletes my amendment's finding and declaration of 
English as the official language. It deletes the protections for 
English-speaking citizens. It deletes protections for States which have 
declared English their official language until all States have done so.
  The Burton amendment adds a new English proficiency standard that 
conflicts with the Equal Educational Opportunity Act and other language 
provisions in current law. And the liberals on the other side of the 
aisle should think about that.
  The Burton amendment misleads voters as to what Congress will require 
as a minimum standard for the admission of a State. Do we want to 
mislead the Puerto Rican people? If there is really a 10-year period 
before admission, why should the people of Puerto Rico know that they 
are voting on something which Congress will not accept?
  And finally, my colleagues, the Miller-Burton amendment limits the 
President's ability to deal with the language issue and to protect 
English, which was recognized in the official English bill that passed 
this House overwhelmingly 2 years ago with bipartisan support.
  If my colleagues understand the issue, they will come over here and 
vote down the Burton-Miller amendment and support the Solomon 
amendment, and then Puerto Rico will have a chance when the 
overwhelming majority of those people understand that English will be 
the official language and will not divide this country.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the 
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi).
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time and commend the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton), the gentleman 
from Alaska (Mr. Young) and the gentleman from California (Mr. Miller) 
for the bipartisan substitute they are offering to the Solomon 
amendment. I rise in support of the underlying legislation to grant 
self-determination to the people of Puerto Rico and in opposition to 
the Solomon amendment, and in support of this amendment.
  English and Spanish are already the official languages of the 
Government of Puerto Rico and have been since 1902. English is taught 
in public schools from kindergarten through high school. And it is my 
understanding that 95 percent of Puerto Ricans who achieve education 
beyond high school are fluent in both languages.
  I want to be clear to my colleagues and read directly from the Burton 
amendment: In the event that a referendum under this act results in 
approval of sovereignty leading to statehood, upon accession to 
statehood the official language requirements of the Federal Government 
would apply to Puerto Rico in the same manner and to the same extent as 
throughout the United States.
  Let us support this amendment, which treats Puerto Rico the same as 
every other State, if Puerto Rico chooses to become a State. The Burton 
substitute also recognizes that it is in the best interest of the 
United States and Puerto Rico to promote the teaching of English and 
sets the goal of enabling students to achieve proficiency by the age of 
10.
  Mr. Chairman, my friend, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Solomon), 
whom I hold in the highest regard, is acting in a very unSolomon like 
mode with this amendment today. It is not wise and it is not fair. I 
urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment.
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young), the chairman of the Committee on 
Resources and my great friend and colleague.
  (Mr. YOUNG of Alaska asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend his remarks.)
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the 
substitute to the Solomon amendment.
  For those that are listening to this great debate, in order to help 
the public know about what Congress has been doing about Puerto Rico 
for the past 4 years, all hearings, testimony, reports, amendments and 
the bill can be found on the Committee on Resources' home page at 
www.house.gov/resources/.
  I have just read an editorial in the Washington Times that said there 
were no hearings on this legislation. We have spent 4 years having 
hearings and input from everybody participating in this legislation. To 
have a leading newspaper be that irresponsible is no call for true 
journalism in this great Nation of ours. Talk about propaganda. It is 
wrong when a leading newspaper can, in fact, promote something that is 
incorrect to the general public.
  So remember, www.house.gov/resources/ to hear the history of how this 
came to the floor today.
  Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Bonior).
  Mr. BONIOR. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  When my grandfather first set foot in this country, he was a young 
man from Ukraine, and he did not speak a word of English. Not a single 
word. He came here for a better future. Like millions of immigrants 
before him and millions who have come after him, my grandfather set out 
to work. He got a job, he raised a family, and he learned the language. 
There was no law telling him that he had to learn English. There was no 
need for a law. He learned English because it was practical; because he 
wanted to.
  My grandfather's story is not unique. In this country, a country 
built by immigrants from around the world, 95 percent of the people 
speak English. That is right, 95 percent, according to the latest 
census.
  So I ask my colleagues, what is the purpose, what is the purpose of 
this English-only amendment and what benefits will it bring? Well, the 
answer is none. This amendment will only interfere with business, it 
will impede the efficient function of government, it will deny people 
their constitutional rights, and it could conceivably and possibly even 
endanger their lives.
  What purpose is served if a public health worker, perhaps a doctor 
who is trying to stop the spread of a deadly disease, is only allowed 
to speak with people who know English? None. But that is what this 
amendment could lead to.
  In fact, this English-only amendment could effectively prevent 
thousands of citizens, American citizens, from voting by denying them 
their rights under the Voting Rights Act. That is going too far.
  This country is successful because millions of people, people from 
hundreds of countries, have chosen to throw in their lot together to 
build a common future. Our democracy thrives because it is built on a 
foundation of freedom.
  Passing a law telling people what language they have to speak is akin 
to telling them what words they must say.
  So in closing, Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to vote for this 
substitute, the Miller-Young substitute, and against the Solomon 
amendment.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I might 
consume.
  Just to set the record straight, most people around here can read 
bills. If they read the bill, they will know that the Solomon English 
language empowerment amendment only affects those things that the 
government does that are binding and enforceable. It does not affect 
things such as the information gathering operations of the

[[Page H806]]

government such as the census forms and welfare forms. It does not do 
that. It does not affect public health issues or politicians 
campaigning in their district. It does not do that.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. 
Barr), one of the constitutional lawyers in this body. He is an 
outstanding member of the Committee on the Judiciary.
  Mr. BARR of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from New 
York (Mr. Solomon) for yielding me this time.
  Although I have not had the honor and pleasure of talking since 1983 
with the gentleman from Indiana, I do know him as a man of great 
courage and honor and have enjoyed serving with him on his Committee on 
Government Reform and Oversight.
  I know him to be a gentleman who is constantly waging battles against 
government mismanagement, against government waste, against government 
bureaucrats. I know him as a gentleman who inevitably and constantly is 
speaking the truth bluntly and does not suffer government bureaucrats 
and fools at all.
  I must, therefore, express some surprise at the amendment that the 
gentleman from Indiana is offering and would respectfully urge my 
colleagues to vote against it.
  There are such things as wolves in sheep's clothing. This is a sheep 
in sheep's clothing. If one looks behind the facade of the rhetoric 
here, flowery and lengthy as it is, one finds absolutely nothing, zero, 
zip, nada.
  Not only is there nothing in this amendment in terms of requiring the 
English language in any way, shape, or form in Puerto Rico if it is 
admitted to statehood, but it actually, I believe, by its terms, would 
set us back. One has to read simply from page 2.
  Additionally, in the event of a vote in favor of continued United 
States sovereignty leading to statehood, the transition plan required 
by this subsection shall include proposals and incentives to increase 
the opportunities of the people of Puerto Rico to expand their English 
proficiency in order to promote and facilitate communication with 
residents of all other States of the United States and the Federal 
Government, including teaching in English in public schools, awarding 
fellowships and scholarships, and providing grants to organizations 
located in various communities that have as a purpose the promotion of 
English language skills.
  This will set up more bureaucrats. Who is going to monitor this? 
Where is the money going to come from for these proposals and 
incentives to increase the opportunities? We are going to be paying for 
it.
  Mr. Chairman, this is a bad amendment. What we ought to do is have an 
up or down vote on the Solomon amendment. I believe it is a good, 
solid, and worthy, and constitutionally sound amendment that is not 
violative of any provisions in our Constitution, including the 10th 
amendment.
  This amendment to the Solomon amendment offered by the gentleman from 
Indiana sounds good. It sounds nice. It sounds like there is substance 
there. But in reality, it is not there.
  There is nothing here other than language that will get us involved 
in a morass of additional grants and money programs and bureaucrats 
trying to determine whether or not these monies are being spent to 
truly incentivize, as they say now days, to promote and facilitate 
communication, et cetera.
  I urge our colleagues to look behind the fancy rhetoric here, to an 
empty amendment, to vote it down, and vote in favor of the Solomon 
amendment.
  Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Rodriguez).
  (Mr. RODRIGUEZ asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this bipartisan 
substitute which brings some common sense and fairness to the debate.
  No one doubts the importance of English for all Americans. It is our 
common language. I tell my students and my constituents back home that 
to succeed in this global economy, in this modern world, we must learn 
English, and not only learn, but master in English. English is the key 
for opportunity. This amendment allows this opportunity to provide that 
instruction and that training in English.

                              {time}  1600

  It would treat Puerto Rico in a just manner, as it would treat all 
the other existing States. I would like to remind all the Members in 
this House that the territories prior to being accepted, such as 
Hawaii, we also allowed them the opportunity to be able to keep their 
native language. When we dealt with the Territory of Oklahoma, we also 
recognized the Native Americans in that area. When we looked at New 
Mexico, we also took into consideration the Spanish in that particular 
community.
  The Solomon amendment would prevent millions of Americans and would 
discriminate against a lot of individuals in Texas and others and in 
Puerto Rico itself. This is not fair. It is not right. I would ask that 
Members vote for this particular amendment. Mr. Chairman, in the age of 
increasing global competition, we should be nurturing some of our 
Nation's most valued treasures, our culture, our language and our 
skills, not curtailing them.
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume. I would just like to say to my colleague from New York and 
my colleague from Georgia, my very good friends, if they will look on 
page 2 of my amendment, the second paragraph, it says, in section 4(a) 
in the referendum language for statehood, amend paragraph 7 to read as 
follows: ``Official English language requirements of the Federal 
Government apply in Puerto Rico to the same extent as Federal law 
requires throughout the United States.'' The law will be the same for 
Puerto Rico, the same English language law for Puerto Rico as it is for 
the rest of the United States.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. 
I would just point out to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton), so 
does my amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Savannah, 
Georgia (Mr. Kingston).
  Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from New York for 
yielding me this time.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Burton, Miller and company 
amendment. I think it is just a fig leaf designed to put us all in 
court and take away a lot of power from States. If Members are for 
English first as a language, as an issue, then they need to oppose it 
and they need to support Solomon.
  It is not unusual for us to demand such things and try to amend bills 
and so forth to do what we want to. There is nothing unusual about it. 
Oklahoma and New Mexico were both required to have State constitutions 
providing that public school education be conducted in English. Arizona 
was required to guarantee that its executive and legislative officials 
could write, speak and understand English.
  That is all the Solomon language is trying to do. Culturally it is 
trying to go a little bit beyond the language question. I think one of 
the things that has inspired the Solomon language is the situation with 
Quebec, north of our border. In 1995 Quebec had a vote and came very 
close to receiving a majority for independence. It was a vote of 49.4 
percent, 10 percent higher than it had been 15 years earlier. It is 
very possible that in the future, Quebec will secede from Canada.
  Is there any correlation between Puerto Rico and Quebec? Let us look 
at it. What do they have in common? Both had their own languages and 
cultures long before becoming part of English-speaking majority 
nations, should that happen. Both had populations in which the 
overwhelming majority speak a language different from that of the 
majority of the rest of the Nation, and both have political movements 
that focus on independence as the key to maintaining a separate culture 
and linguistic identity. Both have economic elites that speak English 
while the more economically disadvantaged citizens do not.
  It is quite possible that if we look at the number, 82 percent of the 
people of Quebec are French speakers, 98 percent of the people of 
Puerto Rico are Spanish speakers. The strong cultural identity which we 
are all aware of in this

[[Page H807]]

House, and the strong cultural identity that we want the good American 
citizens of Puerto Rico to maintain, is at risk here.
  This is a statehood vote. This is not just let us see how you feel 
about it. This is starting the car and pulling it out in the driveway. 
You do not do that unless you are going to take a trip, Mr. Chairman. 
This is a statehood vote. It will radically change the culture in 
Puerto Rico and lead to a lot of division in the United States over it.
  Mr. ROMERO-BARCELO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman 
from Massachusetts (Mr. Kennedy).
  Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, simply put, we ought not 
hold the issue of Puerto Rico's political status hostage to the 
question of making English the official language of all government 
functions across the United States. Mr. Chairman, if that happened a 
lot of us here in the Congress would be barred from speaking on the 
House floor. I have been accused of a lot of things in my career in 
politics, but speaking English has not always been one of them. I once 
remember hearing a colloquy between Jamie Whitten and Kika de la Garza 
on this House floor, and I could not understand a thing anybody said.
  In fact, I heard the remarks of the gentleman from New York (Mr. 
Solomon) as he introduced his amendment and if I was not mistaken, he 
employed a foreign phrase from the language of a dead empire. Along 
with the gentleman from New York (Mr. Solomon), I believe deeply in the 
principle of ``e pluribus unum,'' out of many, one. But I think the 
gentleman from New York ought to be allowed to enunciate the principle 
in the original language. Whether it is Hawaiian or Cajun French, 
Polish or even Gallic, there are millions of Americans who speak 
languages other than English and there is no reason to reduce their 
first tongues to second-class linguistic citizenship.
  Mr. ROMERO-BARCELO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman 
from the Virgin Islands (Ms. Christian-Green).
  Ms. CHRISTIAN-GREEN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the 
Solomon amendment and in support of the Burton-Young-Miller-McCollum 
substitute. The Solomon amendment is patently unfair to the people of 
Puerto Rico and does not belong in this process of self-determination.
  Mr. Chairman, the people of Puerto Rico have been loyal American 
citizens for more than 100 years. It is high time that they be given 
the opportunity to make a choice once and for all on what their 
political relationship will be. To allow the Solomon amendment to pass 
would pollute the current bill and its intent, causing possibly the 
entire process to be derailed.
  We need to remain focused and clear. H.R. 856 is not supposed to be a 
statehood bill. There are actually 4 options. The people of Puerto Rico 
can choose any one. But if their choice is to become the 51st State of 
the Union, we should vote that choice on its merits.
  We are a country noted for its rich cultural diversity. Let us not 
dishonor that history. Reject the Solomon amendment.
  I urge my colleagues to support the Burton-Miller-Young-McCollum 
substitute and the right of the people of Puerto Rico to self-
determination. I commend my colleagues for bringing this substitute to 
the floor.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. 
We can bring this to a head at any point now. I think it has been a 
very good debate. Certainly Members have stated their feelings.
  I want to ask Members this question one more time: Will Congress have 
to begin conducting House and Senate floor proceedings in both Spanish 
and English? Will the Congressional Record, Federal Register and 
Uniform Commercial Code need to be printed in Spanish and English? The 
answer is it may be. Will a State of Puerto Rico be able to force other 
States to conduct their official business in a language other than 
English? The answer is very likely.
  It will result in many lawsuits all across this country. I suppose if 
you are a lawyer or if you have got children who are entering the law 
profession, perhaps you ought to vote for this bill because you are 
certainly going to generate a lot of work for them.
  Mr. Chairman, I could go on and on and on. But I am going to say one 
more time that if this amendment, the Solomon amendment, is defeated, 
or if it is watered down, anyone in this country can bring an action 
anywhere in the United States and could challenge Federal and 
individual State laws and declarations of English as the official 
language. No State would be able to protect its official English 
language.
  Again, these are very, very important matters. I am going to just 
reiterate one more time the procedures that are going to take place. I 
have already said what would happen if the Solomon amendment is 
defeated or watered down. But if this bill becomes law without the 
Solomon amendment, within the next 9 months, before the end of 1998, we 
are ordering, demanding, requiring the island of Puerto Rico to conduct 
a plebiscite, and we are ordering, demanding and requiring them to do 
this until they finally vote for statehood. Mr. Chairman, that is 
absolutely wrong.
  If we pass this bill and if the President signs it within over the 
next several weeks, that plebiscite will be held because it will be 
mandated by this Congress on the Puerto Rican people. Within 180 days 
after that, which takes us towards midyear of 1999, the President must 
give us his transition plan. Then written into this law in section 6 is 
a requirement that this Congress will have to vote on that within 120 
days.
  That, Mr. Chairman, is the turning point. It is the turning point 
when we no longer can deny Puerto Rico statehood, no matter what the 
percentage of approval is by the Puerto Rican people. Mr. Chairman, 
that is wrong. If we do not have the kind of overwhelming support that 
we had in Hawaii and that we had in Alaska, we are going to end up in a 
situation almost identical to what we have in Quebec, Canada today, and 
we cannot allow that to happen.
  The one major issue that has held this country together for all these 
200 years as a melting pot of all ethnic backgrounds throughout the 
entire world, it does not matter whether it is the Pacific, it does not 
matter whether it is Europe, wherever it is, it is the common language 
of English that has kept us together. That keeps our esprit de corps, 
it keeps our patriotism alive, because we all speak that one language. 
That is what is at stake on the voting on this amendment in a few 
minutes.
  Mr. BARR of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SOLOMON. I yield to the gentleman from Georgia.
  Mr. BARR of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I would like to point out and 
reiterate to the membership in voting on the Burton amendment the 
language previously cited by its author, that ``the official English 
language requirements of the Federal Government apply in Puerto Rico to 
the same extent as Federal law requires throughout the United States,'' 
does nothing but simply lock in the status quo. English is already 
required for Federal purposes in Puerto Rico. Yet notwithstanding that, 
the overwhelming majority of Puerto Ricans do not understand English, 
do not speak English. This language in the Burton amendment, which its 
author cites as a strengthening amendment, simply maintains the status 
quo. It goes no further and cannot go further by its terms.
  I thank the gentleman from New York for yielding.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1\1/2\ minutes.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Indiana (Mr. Burton).
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, let me just say that I think the 
amendment, my substitute, the gentleman from California's substitute, 
solves the English language issue if you want to have it attached to 
this bill. But this bill is not about the English language, nor should 
it be. It is about whether or not the people of Puerto Rico have a 
right to let the Congress of the United States know if they want to be 
a State, a commonwealth or independent.

                              {time}  1615

  This English issue is a red herring that has been put into the bill 
to try to drive a stake through the heart of the bill to kill it. That 
is what they want to do. They want to kill the bill. It

[[Page H808]]

should not even be here in here. We should be debating the English only 
issue in a separate piece of legislation as we have in the past.
  This is a plebiscite bill to find out from the people of Puerto Rico 
what status they want. Do they want to be a State, do they want to be a 
commonwealth, or independent? If they want to be a State, for instance, 
it has to come back to the Congress and a process of about 8 or 10 
years is going to take place before they become a State. So the 
Congress is going to make the final determination anyhow. This is a red 
herring.
  The other thing I want to say is that I have great respect for my 
colleagues, but I think that every one of my colleagues who are 
opposing this bill, I hope every one of my colleagues who are sitting 
in their offices will focus on the main issue at hand today, and that 
is do people who are American citizens, and that is the people of 
Puerto Rico, do the people who are American citizens have the right to 
say, we want representation if we are going to be paying the price in 
wars and taxes and everything else for this country. Do they have that 
right? They should. They are American citizens.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman is standing up and saying, 
``Jerry Solomon brought this English debate into this bill.'' Here is 
the bill. It is not my bill. This is the committee bill. On page 10, 
line 1, section B, language, ``English shall be the common language of 
mutual understanding in the United States.'' It goes on for pages. I 
did not introduce this into the bill, you folks did.
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I would say 
to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Solomon), the reason we did was 
because we knew the gentleman as the chairman of the Committee on Rules 
was going to put this amendment into the process. That is why we did 
it, and the gentleman knows it.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I might 
consume.
  With the Parliamentarians sitting up there I went to the 
Parliamentarians and said, I do not want to go beyond the germaneness 
of this bill. I will not do it. I will not use the power of our 
Committee on Rules to do that. I could have done it, Mr. Chairman, as 
the gentleman knows. Instead, we wrote an amendment germane to the 
bill. So I think the gentleman misspoke.
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield, I 
do not think I owe the gentleman an apology. First of all, the bill 
only authorizes that language, authorizes the English provisions in 
that bill. It does not mandate them, if the gentleman reads that.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, nor does my amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, the coauthor, the sponsor of this amendment, the 
gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton) has quite properly stated what this 
amendment is about. This amendment is about should at the end of this 
process the people of Puerto Rico decide to choose statehood as an 
option and a condition under which they want to live, the language in 
the Burton substitute says they will be treated the same as any other 
State. They will be treated the same as the citizens of Nebraska or 
California or New York or Florida or Louisiana or anywhere else.
  If this Congress should decide that English is the official language 
of this country and wants to add a lot of requirements about that at 
some future date, if Puerto Rico is a State, Puerto Rico will live 
under those requirements the same as the citizens of any other State.
  If Puerto Rico petitions to become a State, and we agree to that, and 
they vote for that and we vote for that, they are petitioning to become 
a State on coequal terms of every other citizen of every other State. 
The Solomon amendment goes beyond that. It goes beyond that to require, 
require, that the communications be only in English and people can only 
communicate with the Federal Government in English, far beyond what is 
required today in any law that we have.
  So what we said was not knowing yet what the people of Puerto Rico 
will determine, let us just level the playing field, so, again, this 
debate cannot be used, because in the politics of the campaign, 
statehood versus commonwealth versus independence, people want to argue 
you are going to lose your right to speak Spanish, you are going to be 
forced to speak only English, you are not going to have citizenship. 
This campaign gets way out of control. So we tried to put language here 
which is very simple. You will be treated, should you vote for 
statehood, the same as any other citizen in any other State, period, 
with respect to the requirements of the English language of the Federal 
Government.
  That is fair, and I think it is proper, when people are going to 
engage in a historical vote about their status from that point forward.
  That is what this committee owed them, that is what this Congress 
owes them, and the Burton amendment allows that to happen. It simply 
levels out the playing field with respect to English. They will know 
that they will not be discriminated against because they speak Spanish; 
they will not be burdened because they do not have full compliance with 
English. They will simply be treated the same as all other American 
citizens.
  Many people have risen on this floor today to testify as to the 
contributions the Puerto Rican people, the citizens of this country, 
have made to the growth of this country in every aspect of our history. 
All we are saying to those people is, you will be treated the same as 
everyone else who has made that contribution. And when you make the 
decision to choose statehood or commonwealth, you will know that the 
playing field is level here.
  That is what the Burton amendment accomplishes. That is not what the 
Solomon amendment does. The Solomon amendment puts a series of 
conditions beyond that level playing field, that in the text of his 
amendment apply only to Puerto Rico and only to those communications 
between the citizens of Puerto Rico and the government. That we should 
reject.
  If later we want to do that, and Mr. Cunningham indicated that maybe 
the English as an official language bill will come back, if that 
prevails and passes and is signed into law, that will be the law of the 
land with respect to the people in Puerto Rico and the people in 
California. But we should not be trying to guide that determination 
here, because this is about a plebiscite, and this is about what people 
can expect to happen and not happen should they choose one of the three 
alternatives outlined in the legislation.
  This committee worked very hard. Mr. Young held a whole series of 
hearings in Puerto Rico and here to try and determine the fairest way 
to present these three options. We ought not now try to put our thumb 
on one side of the scale one way or the other with respect to the 
outcome of that vote.
  The people of Puerto Rico ought to be able to make their choice in 
this plebiscite about their status, and then it will be incumbent upon 
the Congress to either accept or reject that or to condition that. But 
we will then know what the choice of the people of Puerto Rico is.
  Mr. Chairman, I believe the Burton amendment maintains the integrity 
of this process so that we will know when that vote is taken, that we 
have provided free and fair options with respect to the status for the 
people of Puerto Rico to choose.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Green).
  (Mr. GREEN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. GREEN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Indiana for 
yielding me time.
  I would also thank the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton), the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Miller), the gentleman from Florida (Mr. 
McCollum) and the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young) for bringing not 
only the bill, but this amendment here, because this is what is going 
to bring us together, I hope.

[[Page H809]]

  Mr. Chairman, I would say to the gentleman from New York (Mr. 
Solomon), I understand that English language does bring us together, 
but we have more in common than just our language. As a Nation we are 
held together by love of liberty and freedom, no matter what language 
we speak and no matter how we speak English, because we speak English 
in different ways, from Texas to Maine, to Boston to Florida and 
everywhere else. But that is what this amendment talks about.
  Let me read the language for the Members who are maybe watching in 
their offices. ``The official language requirements of the Federal 
Government shall apply to Puerto Rico in the same manner as and the 
same extent as throughout the United States.''
  If the citizens of Puerto Rico make a decision for statehood, they 
will come in on the same level as the citizens of Texas. You can come 
to Texas and speak Spanish, you can come and speak English; but if you 
go into a courtroom, you are going to speak English or have a 
translator.
  They could speak whatever language they want, because that is the 
freedom we enjoy. I have people in Texas who are proud to be German and 
speak German, but when they go to court they have to have an English 
translation.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge support for the Burton amendment.
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time 
to the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Kennedy).
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Rhode Island is recognized for 30 
seconds.
  Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding time to me.
  Mr. Chairman, ultimately this is a political football. The Solomon 
amendment is meant to kill this bill. To think that we are asking the 
Puerto Rican people to be forced to speak English. I would ask the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Solomon), how often did we ask the 200,000 
Puerto Ricans who served in our Nation's military and were putting 
their lives on the line in defense of this liberty how well they spoke 
English? And why is it right for us now to say they have to speak 
English? When they were good enough to die for this country, they were 
good enough to serve for this country, now we are going to impose the 
English language on them, when it was never the case when it happened 
to come to them serving in our Nation's military.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I am going to try to hold myself down a little bit 
after the remarks from my friend, the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. 
Kennedy) over there. It seems like he and I always get into it about 
this time. I will just tell my good friend that I helped teach the 
Puerto Ricans in the military how to speak English, and I am very proud 
of it.
  We are going to close this out, and it has been a good debate, up 
until the last couple of speakers. The Solomon amendment does nothing 
different than what we have done for Oklahoma, for Louisiana, for New 
Mexico and for Arizona. But now it becomes even more important, because 
I will state once again that if the Solomon amendment is defeated, if 
the Burton amendment allows the Solomon amendment to be watered down, 
we are going to jeopardize the future of this democracy of ours, 
because it means that Puerto Rico could possibly be brought in within 
the next 24 months into this Union with only a very, very small 
majority of people wanting citizenship. We should never, never let that 
happen. As we did with Hawaii, as we did with Alaska, we should always 
have overwhelming support, not only of those areas that want to come 
into the United States, but also of the American people.
  The polls show that the American people are opposed to this 
legislation in its present form. It shows that the Puerto Rican people 
in the last plebiscite were opposed to statehood, and we should clear 
these up before this matter ever becomes law. But, just as a safeguard, 
we ought to pass the Solomon amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, let me say in closing that the Solomon amendment has 
the support of U.S. English, it has the support of English First, it 
has support of the English Language Advocates, it has support of the 
Center for Equal Opportunity. All grassroots English groups in this 
country support the Solomon amendment and oppose the watering down of 
the amendment, whether it be by Miller-Burton or by anyone else. So I 
urge support of the Solomon amendment and defeat of the Miller-Burton 
amendment.
  Mr. TOWNS. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to express my vehement 
opposition to H.R. 856, the United States-Puerto Rico Political Status 
Act, and to the English-only language amendment offered by the 
gentleman from New York.
  At the outset, I want to extend my full support to my fellow 
colleagues, Nydia Velazquez (D-NY) and Jose Serrano (D-NY), in their 
efforts to ensure that the people of Puerto Rico have a ``voice'' in 
this process. As Congresswoman Velazquez stated earlier today, ``Why 
don't we let Puerto Rico decide what's best for Puerto Rico.''
  For close to one hundred years, Puerto Rico has been a Commonwealth 
of the United States. Puerto Rican citizens have abided by the laws of 
the United States; they have participated in defending the United 
States in various wars; and even joined the military during peaceful 
times. Both English and Spanish are the official languages of Puerto 
Rico. They clearly are an integral part of our representative 
government. We should take extreme caution and listen to their 
concerns.
  Moreover, we should not, as some of our colleagues are trying to do, 
force them to abide by a stringent English-only language requirement. 
How can we force such an arbitrary requirement on the citizens of 
Puerto Rico when none exists for any of the 50 states? As the bridge to 
Latin America, already over 85% of Puerto Ricans are fluent in both 
English and Spanish. Further, the United States does not have an 
official language law, and we should not start by imposing one on a 
geographic area as diverse as Puerto Rico. For over four hundred years, 
our country has been a ``melting pot'' for people of all racial and 
ethnic backgrounds. In fact, we pride ourselves on this unique aspect 
of our history. We are a nation founded on the principles of freedom 
and equality for all.
  Mr. Chairman, I hope that my colleagues will remember these 
principles and support the right of self-determination for the citizens 
of Puerto Rico.
  Mr. ORTIZ. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to oppose the English-only 
provisions being offered to this bill to define the political status of 
Puerto Rico.
  I have consistently opposed English-only provisions to bills that 
have been before the House and do so again today. While I understand my 
friends who advocate these changes, we simply disagree. As the 
representative of a border district--as a man who has grown up speaking 
two languages every day of my life--I understand the dynamics of this 
proposal.
  People on one side see the English language as the defining and 
unifying element of the United States. Those who believe as I do, that 
the English language is the most important element of economic 
development in our country, also realize that it is the democratic 
institutions and history of the United States that define us as a 
country and a community.
  This policy, while well intentional, will make some untenable 
changes. It will rescind the use of bilingual education, a valuable 
program to children of new immigrants. It will prohibit the use of 
bilingual voting materials and ballots. In a democracy, su voto es su 
voz--your vote is your voice. We would be stifling a deep democratic 
tradition if we kept voting and balloting information out of the hands 
of those who speak a language other than English.
  Probably the most insidious thing an English-only policy would do 
would prohibit the use of dual language public health notices. Now, it 
has been our experience in South Texas that health care knows no single 
language, and it has been our experience that diseases know no border. 
This would be a profoundly bad idea, and it would only hurt everyone, 
not just those who do not speak English.
  I would like to associate myself with the remarks of my friend Chet 
Edwards who said that we need to teach English, not preach it. Spanish 
is the language of commerce in most countries of the Americas. The 
Spanish-speaking countries are the largest potential market for U.S. 
goods--we must not let the opportunity to sell them our products go by. 
Our schools, and this government, must learn the language of world 
commerce--which is primarily English, but is also increasingly Spanish.
  Let us not take a bad idea and make it worse. Please join me in 
opposing the English only provisions of this bill.
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Burton-McCollum-
Young substitute to the Solomon English amendment to H.R. 856.

[[Page H810]]

  Under this amendment, the English language would be immediately 
fostered in Puerto Rico--unlike the Solomon amendment, which applies 
the English language requirements only if the U.S. citizens of Puerto 
Rico choose to become a State. The Burton substitute would allow all 
students to be proficient in the English language by age 10.
  Please join me in supporting the Burton substitute to the Solomon 
English amendment. This bipartisan substitute provides an impartial and 
equitable alternative.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. I rise in opposition to the amendment to HR 
856, offered by Representative Solomon, requiring English to be the 
official language of all government functions across the entire United 
States and support the substitute amendment offered by Representatives 
Burton, Miller, and Young, which would treat Puerto Rico the same as 
every other state; which recognizes the primary role of English in our 
national affairs; and which would not preclude the use of other 
languages in government functions when appropriate.
  As a member of the House Judiciary Committee, it comes as no surprise 
to me that yet again the proponents of the English-only movement are 
attempting to divide this country with English-only legislation.
  While we in this country do not always agree, we share a common set 
of democratic ideals and values--a commitment to freedom, equality, 
tolerance and opportunity. This is what holds us together--not 
language.
  On the same principle, I want to make my position clear that there is 
no place for English-only legislation in this country. English-only is 
nothing more than a political tactic. Why else would we be seeking to 
implement English-only policies when 95 percent of the U.S. population 
already speaks English?
  What the Solomon amendment really does is effectively to 
disenfranchise a large population of citizens for the purely political 
reason that they traditionally vote Democratic rather than Republican.
  Specific to this bill, the real fear of the Republicans is that in 
the event that Puerto Rico joins the Union as a state, the majority of 
the voting population may turn out voting Democratic. Puerto Ricans see 
through this veiled political attempt. So do current registered voters.
  English-only alienates ordinary citizens. Let's face the reality of 
the 21st century--we live in a multicultural and multilingual society, 
and this is America's strength. We are a proud nation of immigrants. 
Many immigrants recently have become citizens, and embrace the 
opportunity which many were deprived in their native country to vote.
  Many immigrants also are learning English faster than ever, as 
indicated by increased enrollment in English classes. By abolishing 
bilingual ballots, the English-only measure seeks to undermine standing 
law--the Voting Rights Act of 1965--and to frustrate the participation 
of U.S. citizens in the political process.
  We need to keep out English-only legislation and retain bilingual 
voting materials not only to allow voters to engage meaningfully in our 
democracy, but also to permit voters to participate on an informed 
basis. They need to know who is running for office and also to 
understand more complex voting issues such as constitutional 
amendments.
  Republicans may misguide the American people with the argument that 
empowering voters with bilingual assistance costs tax dollars. Nothing 
could be farther from the truth. Studies show that the cost of 
bilingual assistance for voting is either nominal or causes no 
additional costs. A GAO report shows that of 295 responding 
jurisdictions, written assistance costs less than 8 percent of election 
expenditures and it estimates that costs 18 states nothing. Oral 
language assistance is even less burdensome.
  As important as voting, ordinary citizens need access to our 
government. We do not want to cripple government with English-only 
mandates, lest the police, 911 operators and Emergency Medical Service 
technicians would be unable to do their jobs in life threatening 
situations involving an individual with little fluency in English.
  Conversely, the government needs to continue to provide services to 
ordinary citizens. Restricting the ability of agencies to dispense 
information to the public in a language other than English would 
undermine important government functions such as collecting taxes, 
informing citizens of their fundamental rights, promoting equal 
educational opportunity and public health and safety, and ensuring due 
process under the law.
  English-only isolates the U.S. from the rest of the world. Similar to 
the evolving society in which we live, our world is also changing. We 
live in a global economy, requiring Americans to be more cognizant of 
the language, the cultural norms and sensitivities and business 
practices of our international trading partners. The time calls for us 
to adapt--which does not mean imposing that our government functions in 
one language--English only.
  The majority of federal documents are already in English. According 
to the General Accounting Office, only 0.06 percent of federal 
documents are printed in non-English languages. Rather than restrict 
the use of non-English languages, we should be expanding our fluency in 
several different languages. Thirty-two million Americans speak a 
second language. They are competitive with the rest of the world.
  I urge my colleagues to vote against the Solomon amendment, and 
resist this latest attempt to divide our country, and weaken its 
position globally and vote in favor of the substitute to the Solomon 
amendment offered by Representatives Burton, Miller, and Young.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Gutierrez), to the amendment offered by 
the gentleman from New York (Mr. Solomon).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.


                         Parliamentary Inquiry

  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state it.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Chairman, I understood that we were going to try to 
reduce the second vote down to 5 minutes. How do we do that? How do we 
propound a recorded vote at this time?
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair has the authority to do it. Pursuant to the 
rules, the Chair will announce the subsequent two votes (if ordered) 
will be 5 minute votes.
  Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Chairman, before we vote, there have been some 
pretty scandalous things occurring.
  The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote is ordered. The gentleman from Illinois 
is out of order.
  Mr. GUTIERREZ. If the Chairman will, please, I do have a very good 
point. This is very serious. We are violating the rules of the House, 
Mr. Chairman. This is being handed out against our rules.
  The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman have a parliamentary inquiry?


                         Parliamentary Inquiry

  Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state it.
  Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Chairman, can this be handed out to Members of the 
House of Representatives as they are walking in here, to ask people to 
vote yes or no on different amendments as they walk in here, without 
having the letterhead of the U.S. Congress and without it being signed 
by some Member of Congress?
  The CHAIRMAN. Handouts handed out to the membership must indicate who 
authorized them.
  Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Chairman, then I bring to the attention of the 
Chair that this is being handed out amongst us without signature, 
without the letterhead, not in accordance with our rules, and I would 
ask that the Chair protect in any way possible the integrity of the 
rules of the House.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair will do everything possible so that the rules 
of the House are adhered to and complied with.
  Pursuant to clause 2(c) of rule XXIII, the Chair may reduce to not 
less than 5 minutes the time for any recorded vote, if ordered, on the 
Burton substitute amendment to the Solomon amendment or on the Solomon 
amendment without intervening business or debate.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 13, 
noes 406, answered ``present'' 1, not voting 10, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 28]

                                AYES--13

     Conyers
     Davis (IL)
     Gutierrez
     Kennedy (MA)
     McKinney
     Meeks (NY)
     Owens
     Pastor
     Payne
     Rush
     Serrano
     Towns
     Velazquez

                               NOES--406

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Andrews
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baesler
     Baker
     Baldacci
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Barrett (WI)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Berman
     Berry
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis

[[Page H811]]


     Bishop
     Blagojevich
     Bliley
     Blumenauer
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canady
     Cannon
     Cardin
     Carson
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins
     Combest
     Condit
     Cook
     Cooksey
     Costello
     Cox
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cubin
     Cummings
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (VA)
     Deal
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     DeLay
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     Engel
     English
     Ensign
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Everett
     Ewing
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fawell
     Fazio
     Filner
     Foley
     Forbes
     Ford
     Fossella
     Fowler
     Fox
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frost
     Furse
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gejdenson
     Gekas
     Gephardt
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Goss
     Graham
     Granger
     Green
     Greenwood
     Gutknecht
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hamilton
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hefner
     Herger
     Hill
     Hilleary
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Hooley
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Istook
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Jenkins
     John
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (WI)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kim
     Kind (WI)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kucinich
     LaFalce
     LaHood
     Lampson
     Lantos
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lazio
     Leach
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     Livingston
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Lucas
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Manton
     Manzullo
     Markey
     Martinez
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDade
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHale
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Menendez
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (CA)
     Miller (FL)
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Morella
     Murtha
     Myrick
     Nadler
     Neal
     Nethercutt
     Neumann
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Oxley
     Packard
     Pallone
     Pappas
     Parker
     Pascrell
     Paul
     Paxon
     Pease
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pickett
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Portman
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Redmond
     Regula
     Reyes
     Riggs
     Riley
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Rogan
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rothman
     Roukema
     Roybal-Allard
     Royce
     Ryun
     Sabo
     Salmon
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Sanford
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaefer, Dan
     Schaffer, Bob
     Scott
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherman
     Shuster
     Sisisky
     Skaggs
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (OR)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith, Adam
     Smith, Linda
     Snowbarger
     Snyder
     Solomon
     Souder
     Spence
     Spratt
     Stabenow
     Stark
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stokes
     Strickland
     Stump
     Stupak
     Sununu
     Talent
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Thurman
     Tiahrt
     Tierney
     Traficant
     Turner
     Upton
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watkins
     Watt (NC)
     Watts (OK)
     Waxman
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Wexler
     Weygand
     White
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wise
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wynn
     Yates
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                        ANSWERED ``PRESENT''--1

       
     Waters
       

                             NOT VOTING--10

     Doolittle
     Gonzalez
     Harman
     Kilpatrick
     Luther
     Poshard
     Schiff
     Schumer
     Shimkus
     Torres

                              {time}  1651

  Messrs. JACKSON of Illinois, BECERRA, SMITH of Texas, SMITH of 
Michigan, MALONEY of Connecticut, BATEMAN, and RANGEL changed their 
vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Ms. McKINNEY and Messrs. OWENS, KENNEDY of Massachusetts, and CONYERS 
changed their vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment to the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton) as a substitute for the amendment 
offered by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Solomon).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the Chair's prior announcement, this will 
be a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 238, 
noes 182, not voting 10, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 29]

                               AYES--238

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baldacci
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barrett (WI)
     Barton
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop
     Blagojevich
     Blumenauer
     Boehlert
     Bonilla
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Burton
     Buyer
     Camp
     Campbell
     Cannon
     Cardin
     Carson
     Castle
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Condit
     Cook
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Cummings
     Danner
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Engel
     English
     Ensign
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fazio
     Filner
     Foley
     Forbes
     Ford
     Fox
     Frank (MA)
     Frost
     Furse
     Gallegly
     Gejdenson
     Gekas
     Gephardt
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gilman
     Gordon
     Granger
     Green
     Greenwood
     Hall (OH)
     Hamilton
     Hansen
     Hastings (FL)
     Hefner
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hooley
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Hulshof
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     John
     Johnson (WI)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kim
     Kind (WI)
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Klug
     Kolbe
     Kucinich
     LaFalce
     Lampson
     Lantos
     Lazio
     Leach
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Manton
     Markey
     Martinez
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHale
     McInnis
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Mica
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (CA)
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Moran (VA)
     Morella
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Neal
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Oxley
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Portman
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Redmond
     Reyes
     Riggs
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Scott
     Serrano
     Shaw
     Sherman
     Skaggs
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith, Adam
     Snyder
     Spratt
     Stabenow
     Stark
     Stokes
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Thompson
     Thornberry
     Thurman
     Tierney
     Turner
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Walsh
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Wexler
     Weygand
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wynn
     Yates
     Young (AK)

                               NOES--182

     Aderholt
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baesler
     Baker
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Bass
     Bateman
     Bereuter
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bliley
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Brady
     Bryant
     Bunning
     Burr
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Canady
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins
     Combest
     Conyers
     Cooksey
     Cox
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Davis (VA)
     Deal
     DeLay
     Dickey
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Emerson
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fawell
     Fossella
     Fowler
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Ganske
     Gillmor
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Goss
     Graham
     Gutierrez
     Gutknecht
     Hall (TX)
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hill
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Horn
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Istook
     Jenkins
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Kasich
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Knollenberg
     LaHood
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lipinski

[[Page H812]]


     Livingston
     LoBiondo
     Lucas
     Manzullo
     McCrery
     McDade
     McHugh
     McIntosh
     Menendez
     Metcalf
     Miller (FL)
     Moran (KS)
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Neumann
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Packard
     Pappas
     Parker
     Paul
     Paxon
     Pease
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pickett
     Pitts
     Porter
     Pryce (OH)
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Riley
     Rogan
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Roukema
     Royce
     Ryun
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Scarborough
     Schaefer, Dan
     Schaffer, Bob
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shays
     Shuster
     Sisisky
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (OR)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith, Linda
     Snowbarger
     Solomon
     Souder
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stump
     Sununu
     Talent
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas
     Thune
     Tiahrt
     Towns
     Traficant
     Upton
     Velazquez
     Wamp
     Watkins
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     White
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wolf
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--10

     Doolittle
     Gonzalez
     Harman
     Kilpatrick
     Luther
     Poshard
     Schiff
     Schumer
     Shimkus
     Torres

                              {time}  1701

  Messrs. BOB SCHAFFER of Colorado, HASTERT, BAESLER, ROGAN, and HALL 
of Texas changed their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Mrs. KELLY and Mr. SMITH of New Jersey changed their vote from ``no'' 
to ``aye.''
  So the amendment offered as a substitute for the amendment was agreed 
to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Solomon), as amended.
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the Chair's prior announcement, this will 
be a 5-minute vote.


                         Parliamentary Inquiry

  Mr. ROMERO-BARCELO (during the vote). Mr. Chairman, I have a 
parliamentary inquiry. I was standing here, and the Chairman did not 
see me.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state it.
  Mr. ROMERO-BARCELO. Mr. Chairman, I have to explain to everyone what 
this second vote is. There is confusion in the hall as to what this 
second vote is.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair has explained to the Members what this vote 
is.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 265, 
noes 153, not voting 12, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 30]

                               AYES--265

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baldacci
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barrett (NE)
     Barrett (WI)
     Barton
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Berry
     Bishop
     Blagojevich
     Boehlert
     Bonilla
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Burton
     Buyer
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canady
     Cannon
     Cardin
     Carson
     Castle
     Christensen
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Condit
     Cook
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Cummings
     Danner
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doyle
     Duncan
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Engel
     English
     Ensign
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Ewing
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fazio
     Filner
     Foley
     Forbes
     Ford
     Fossella
     Fox
     Frank (MA)
     Frost
     Gallegly
     Gejdenson
     Gekas
     Gephardt
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Gordon
     Granger
     Green
     Greenwood
     Hall (OH)
     Hamilton
     Hansen
     Hastings (FL)
     Hefner
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Holden
     Hooley
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Istook
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Jenkins
     John
     Johnson (WI)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kim
     Kind (WI)
     King (NY)
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Klug
     Kolbe
     Kucinich
     LaFalce
     Lampson
     Lantos
     Lazio
     Leach
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Lucas
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Manton
     Markey
     Martinez
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDade
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHale
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Mica
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (CA)
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Morella
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Neal
     Northup
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Oxley
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pease
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Pickering
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Portman
     Price (NC)
     Quinn
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Redmond
     Reyes
     Riggs
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Ryun
     Sabo
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Schaffer, Bob
     Serrano
     Shaw
     Sherman
     Skaggs
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith, Adam
     Snyder
     Spratt
     Stabenow
     Stark
     Stokes
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thornberry
     Thurman
     Tierney
     Turner
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Wexler
     Weygand
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wynn
     Yates
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                               NOES--153

     Aderholt
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baesler
     Baker
     Barr
     Bartlett
     Bass
     Bateman
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bliley
     Blumenauer
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Brady
     Bryant
     Bunning
     Burr
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins
     Combest
     Conyers
     Cooksey
     Cox
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Davis (VA)
     Deal
     DeLay
     Dickey
     Dreier
     Dunn
     Emerson
     Everett
     Fawell
     Fowler
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Ganske
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Goss
     Graham
     Gutierrez
     Gutknecht
     Hall (TX)
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hill
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Horn
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Kasich
     Kingston
     Knollenberg
     LaHood
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     Livingston
     LoBiondo
     Manzullo
     McIntosh
     Menendez
     Metcalf
     Miller (FL)
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Neumann
     Ney
     Norwood
     Packard
     Pappas
     Parker
     Paul
     Paxon
     Petri
     Pickett
     Pitts
     Porter
     Pryce (OH)
     Radanovich
     Regula
     Riley
     Rogan
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Roukema
     Royce
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Scarborough
     Schaefer, Dan
     Scott
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shays
     Shuster
     Sisisky
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (OR)
     Smith, Linda
     Snowbarger
     Solomon
     Souder
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stump
     Sununu
     Talent
     Taylor (NC)
     Thune
     Tiahrt
     Towns
     Traficant
     Upton
     Velazquez
     Watkins
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     White
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wolf

                             NOT VOTING--12

     Berman
     Doolittle
     Furse
     Gonzalez
     Harman
     Kilpatrick
     Luther
     Poshard
     Schiff
     Schumer
     Shimkus
     Torres

                              {time}  1711

  Mr. SALMON, Mr. COOKSEY, and Ms. DUNN changed their vote from ``aye'' 
to ``no.''
  Mr. PASCRELL and Mr. BERRY changed their vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment, as amended, was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Committee will rise informally in order that the 
House may receive a message.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Hastert), assumed the Chair.

                          ____________________