[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 20 (Wednesday, March 4, 1998)]
[House]
[Pages H812-H837]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




             UNITED STATES-PUERTO RICO POLITICAL STATUS ACT

  The Committee resumed its sitting.

                              {time}  1715

  Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, it is my intention to offer amendment 
number 2 that was printed in the Record at this time.

[[Page H813]]

  The CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to debate the subject matter of the 
amendment by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Serrano). The gentleman 
from New York (Mr. Serrano) and a Member opposed each will control 15 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New York (Mr. Serrano).
  Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Chairman, I would like to claim the 15 minutes in 
opposition.


                        Parliamentary Inquiries

  Mr. ROMERO-BARCELO. Mr. Chairman, parliamentary inquiry.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state his parliamentary inquiry.
  Mr. ROMERO-BARCELO. Mr. Chairman, would a member of the committee, 
would he have an opportunity to be the first recognized in opposition, 
too?
  Would a member of the committee that is sponsoring this bill, would I 
not be entitled to be recognized in opposition, too, to control the 
time?
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is correct; the priority of recognition 
would grant to the gentleman from Puerto Rico (Mr. Romero-Barcelo) 
recognition previous to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Gutierrez).
  Mr. ROMERO-BARCELO. I would like to be recognized in opposition, Mr. 
Chairman.
  The CHAIRMAN. So the gentleman is claiming the time in opposition?
  Mr. ROMERO-BARCELO. That is correct.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Chairman, parliamentary inquiry.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state his parliamentary inquiry.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Chairman, no one on this side of the aisle is going 
to have any time on this amendment, and I would like to ask the 
gentleman if he would yield me half of his time in opposition.
  Mr. ROMERO-BARCELO. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to yield 
half of my time to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Solomon) in 
opposition.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Puerto Rico?
  There was no objection.


                         Parliamentary Inquiry

  Mr. GUTIERREZ. Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Chairman.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state his parliamentary inquiry.
  Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Chairman, I want to make sure how this all works. 
I understand that the gentleman from New York has an amendment and I 
also have an amendment to his amendment. When does that happen in terms 
of the procedure here today?
  The CHAIRMAN. The subject matter of the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Serrano) is going to be generally debated 
now for 30 minutes. After that time the gentleman from New York will 
offer his amendment, and then the amendment of the gentleman from 
Illinois (Mr. Gutierrez) may be offered to the amendment of the 
gentleman from New York, if the gentleman from Illinois would have one.
  Mr. GUTIERREZ. And in order for me to offer an amendment to the 
amendment, I would need to get someone who controls time within that 30 
minutes or I would never be able to offer it? And I am sorry, Mr. 
Chairman.
  The CHAIRMAN. No. If the gentleman offers a substitute amendment at 
that time, debate on that substitute amendment would be under the 5-
minute rule.
  Mr. GUTIERREZ. So I would get my own 5 minutes? So it is my 
understanding, and I thank the Chairman for his indulgence, and excuse 
my lack of knowledge of the procedures here.
  I want to make sure, because what I would like to do is make sure 
that the gentleman from New York can have his amendment. I just want to 
make sure that at some point, because of the half hour, I either get to 
introduce this as an amendment or as a substitute and that that will be 
guaranteed by the House that I can do that.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will be able to propose his substitute or 
perfecting amendment if offered within the one hour of permitted 
consideration.
  Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, the amendment that I present today, amendment number 2, 
would provide for American citizens born in Puerto Rico, who reside 
outside the island, to participate in this vote.
  Let me, as I begin, Mr. Chairman, note that this amendment has been 
agreed to by the chairman of the committee and chief sponsor of the 
bill, the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young), and he will speak to this 
issue in a few minutes.
  The gentleman from Alaska supports our amendment because he feels 
that it is a fair amendment that speaks to a legitimate issue. Mr. 
Chairman, those of us born on the island of Puerto Rico, and indeed all 
Puerto Ricans, feel very much a part of the island of Puerto Rico 
regardless of where we are living. Regardless of where we find 
ourselves, we very much feel a part of the island and, therefore, we 
feel very much that any vote taken in Puerto Rico on the political 
status of the island should include us.
  Let me be clear that this bill does not say, nor do I believe, that I 
should be involved in electing the Governor of Puerto Rico or the mayor 
of my hometown of Mayaguez or anything like that. This bill comes about 
because many of us understand the fact that the relationship between 
the U.S. and Puerto Rico created certain situations throughout our 
history which made a lot of us, either through our parents or as 
adults, leave the island. We left the island physically but we never 
did leave the island in many other aspects. In addition, so many of us 
travel back and forth to the island that the union between the two 
places or the two communities has remained one.
  My original amendment, Mr. Chairman, included not only those born on 
the island, but included the children of at least one parent born on 
the island who were born anywhere outside the island. That amendment, 
in all honesty, had about six votes. And since I can count a little 
better than that, I began to deal with that issue. It was based on the 
fact that we removed that part from the amendment that the gentleman 
from Alaska, the author of the bill, agreed to the amendment. This then 
allows thousands of Puerto Ricans who live throughout the 50 States to 
vote in the plebiscite.
  Now, in addition, Mr. Chairman, there is precedence throughout the 
world, in different votes that have been taken, for this kind of 
involvement. This is not a new idea. What I do want my colleagues to 
understand is that if we face this vote, and I know this is going to 
sound funny, thinking in terms of States, the idea of one person living 
in one State voting in another State, we would never agree to this. But 
this is not about voting in another State, this is about the future of 
a territory, of a colony.
  And when that future is decided forever, and statehood is forever, 
and independence is forever, and an associated republic is forever, and 
those three could be the options that come in at the end, then all of 
the children of the territory, all of the children of the colony, 
should be allowed to vote.
  I want to close with this. I want to thank the chairman of this 
committee not only for the bill but for consenting to my amendment, and 
I would implore Members on both sides to take his lead in accepting an 
amendment that has been around 8 years. I may be the only Member of the 
House who had an amendment before there was a bill, and now there is a 
bill to attach the amendment to.
  This is a good amendment, it maximizes the number of people who will 
participate and, in my opinion, makes this plebiscite truly an American 
plebiscite because it includes more than just the people who live on 
the island.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. ROMERO-BARCELO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment very, very 
reluctantly. Very reluctantly because my fellow Member, the gentleman 
from New York (Mr. Serrano), has been a very great supporter of our 
H.R. 856, our bill for U.S.-Puerto Rico political status, and I feel 
very grateful for everything he has done.
  I know the gentleman does this because he believes in it, otherwise 
he would not do it. I know he believes in this very, very dearly. I 
stand up almost regretfully to oppose it, but I must oppose it because 
I am convinced that were this to pass, we are including an element into 
the result of the elections that could really create a serious 
situation.

[[Page H814]]

  If Puerto Ricans were to vote in Puerto Rico, which is as it always 
has been, and we have had two plebiscites and the referendum for the 
approval of the Constitution, and in none of them the Puerto Ricans who 
reside in the mainland have been allowed to vote. The rule that 
residents control, you have to be a U.S. citizen and a resident of 
Puerto Rico has always controlled all elections and all referenda in 
Puerto Rico.
  To change this, the majority that voted here in the mainland who do 
not reside in Puerto Rico and who are not going to receive the 
favorable or negative impact of that vote will then impose their will 
on the people of Puerto Rico.
  I think this is for the people of Puerto Rico who live in Puerto Rico 
to decide and not for those brothers and sisters of ours that have 
moved to the mainland.
  Many times, as the gentleman from New York (Mr. Serrano) says, it was 
against their will. Economic conditions forced them to move. So be it. 
But they have moved. People like the gentleman from New York (Mr. 
Serrano) have their families here. Their children were born here. 
Eventually they might go visit Puerto Rico, but they are going to stay 
here forever, for the rest of their lives. They are not planning to go 
back to Puerto Rico.
  So I repeat again that the results of the vote, whether good or bad, 
will affect directly the people that live in Puerto Rico. It will 
affect emotionally those that live here in the mainland. But just the 
fact that we have an emotional attachment and a feeling emotionally 
about the results is not a sufficient right to vote and create 
something that is of impact to the people of Puerto Rico.
  One example, the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Velazquez) is against 
this bill. And she does not want the Puerto Ricans to vote and have the 
opportunity to vote on this bill. Yet, if she were to vote, she would 
be voting against statehood. She would be depriving the people of 
Puerto Rico the right to vote and the right to representation. But she 
has that right to vote, and she has that right to representation. We do 
not have that.
  Someone that has that right, how can they be voting in an event to 
deprive those citizens that do not have that right and looking for that 
right? I think this is something that would create a confusion. It 
would create unfairness and an injustice to the people of Puerto Rico. 
I must oppose this bill.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman of New 
York (Ms. Velazquez).
  Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Chairman, I want to make a clarification. It is 
important for Puerto Ricans in the mainland to participate, because, in 
fact, Puerto Ricans in the United States, they go back and forth to 
Puerto Rico. But there are many Puerto Ricans here who have suffered 
political persecution in Puerto Rico, and they are in the United States 
because of the political environment in Puerto Rico.
  In fact, when I was a professor at the University of Puerto Rico, I 
was politically persecuted. I decided to leave the island. I should 
have the right. This is not any State election. This is a unique and 
special election on the future and the political destiny of Puerto 
Rico. Of course I should have the right to have a say in that 
determination.
  Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds.
  Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Puerto Rico says we are not 
effected. The fact of life is my 40 years in this country have been 
affected by the relationship between Puerto Rico and the United States.
  Secondly, the gentleman understands that his citizenship and mine are 
statutory. This vote may change that relationship. My child's 
citizenship is constitutional. I have a stake as to what decision is 
made on the island because I may be affected in the future.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. 
Young), my leader on this issue.
  (Mr. YOUNG of Alaska asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend his remarks.)
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this 
amendment, and I do so reluctantly, although my good friend, the 
gentleman from Puerto Rico (Mr. Romero-Barcelo), and I have been 
working very close.
  But I thought about this after the gentleman from New York (Mr. 
Serrano) testified before the committee, and I tried to put myself in 
place of a young man or young woman who had to, either for economical 
reasons or other reasons, had to go to the United States, because they 
are citizens now by statute, had to go to the United States to get 
employment and to work.

                              {time}  1730

  This is a very serious system where we may set forth here an 
independent nation. I would like to know, I would like to participate, 
because I am still a citizen of Puerto Rico although I have gone to the 
United States. I would like to know if it becomes a State then 
everything is equal, or it remains the original commonwealth that it is 
now.
  But more than that we have to understand, these persons have a role 
to play because they were born on the island. They were born on the 
island. Keep that in mind. They had not left the island other than for 
economic reasons or for family, but they were born on the island.
  I will not support grandchildren, aunts, uncles and all the rest of 
them because they are citizens of the United States, because they were 
born here, in the United States. But I think it is imperative that we 
allow that individual who for some reason had to leave the island, as 
beautiful as it is, and now he is being asked to not make a decision, 
not participate in a decision that will affect his or her life.
  After many hours of debate and discussion with myself, and that 
sometimes gets awful boring, I decided in favor of the Serrano 
amendment. I want to compliment him for offering it. I am going to urge 
the gentleman from Puerto Rico who has been the horse in this whole 
program to be very careful in what he offers, and if he offers 
something, to please not ask for a vote on it. Because what will happen 
in the long run, people are going to be tired, and we never know what 
might happen.
  Let us say we do what is correct for the Puerto Rican people today. 
Although we can voice our opinion, let us keep this to the minimum of 
mechanical efforts to make sure this bill comes to fruition and a vote 
tonight.
  Mr. ROMERO-BARCELO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume. I take the advice of the chairman of our committee very 
seriously. I will consider it very, very, very seriously.
  I want to again repeat that it hurts me very much really to take any 
kind of opposite position to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Serrano), 
my colleague here on this issue. I know how deeply he feels about it. 
But as deeply as he feels about it, I also feel deeply about the fact 
that in Puerto Rico, the people who are going to be voting would not 
like to see the results of their vote affected by the vote that is 
taken outside of Puerto Rico, by people that even though they were born 
in Puerto Rico, reside somewhere else, they have a right to vote, and 
are residing there and are going to die there and probably live there 
for the rest of their lives. Whatever happens in Puerto Rico is going 
to, yes, affect them directly, there is no doubt about it.
  But I want to clarify something for the record. The fact is that the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Serrano) has a statutory citizenship, the 
same as I have, that we are citizens because in 1917 a law was passed 
that said all persons born in Puerto Rico shall be citizens of the 
United States. But the results of the plebiscite or the referendum will 
not affect his citizenship or my citizenship. It will not affect the 
citizenship of any of those that are born, only of those that are born 
after the status change occurs.
  If Puerto Rico opts for statehood, once Puerto Rico becomes a State, 
then those that are born in Puerto Rico as a State will be 
constitutional citizens because its constitution says that only those 
that are born in the State shall be citizens and also those that are 
naturalized. It does not talk about anything else. Then we are citizens 
because the law provides us citizenship.
  That is why in the definition of commonwealth in the bill we say that 
the citizenship is statutory under commonwealth. That means that the 
Congress

[[Page H815]]

may in the future if it feels like it say from this day on, or from the 
future day on, those born in Puerto Rico shall no longer be citizens. 
They can do that if we are a commonwealth. They cannot do that if we 
are a State. That is why I say the citizenship is statutory.
  Also, the citizenship of the children in Puerto Rico will not be 
constitutional until Puerto Rico becomes a State. Our citizenship will 
remain the same. The citizenship of his children will remain the same.
  Even to be more clear to the people of Puerto Rico, we are not 
pushing this or misguiding anybody. When we said that citizenship is 
statutory, we also added a statement that says that it is the policy of 
Congress to keep granting citizenship to people born in Puerto Rico 
under commonwealth. That is specified in the bill. When people talk 
about the unfairness of the bill, no, no, the definition of 
commonwealth is about as fair as it can be, the only thing, it is true. 
How can a territory be better than a State?
  That is why they are at a disadvantage. Because when people read the 
definition of commonwealth as what it is, a territory, they realize 
that there are much more advantages to statehood, even though those in 
the territory do not pay Federal income taxes and will not be paying 
Federal income taxes as long as Puerto Rico is a territory. But we also 
want to assume our responsibility and pay our share. We now have a 
commonwealth which is a welfare commonwealth, a welfare territory, 
because we are not contributing and not paying our share.
  As a State Puerto Rico not only would pay their share but we would be 
paying over $4.5 billion in taxes if we were a State right now. The 
additional cost at this point in time would be about $3.1 billion, a 
net benefit of about $1.4 billion to the Treasury of the United States.
  So all of these things that have been flying around against Puerto 
Rico, against Puerto Rico being a State, all of them are misguided. 
They are half-truths, some of them, some are completely erroneous, some 
are completely false. I beseech everybody here on this amendment to, 
yes, we will have to listen to Serrano, but please let us vote against 
it.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Illinois (Mr. Gutierrez).
  Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Chairman, I think this is a very enlightening and 
interesting debate, because as so eloquently has been stated by the 
chairman of the Committee on Resources, he has basically paraphrased 
that there are nationals, that there is a nationality, that Puerto Rico 
is a nation and that the people born in that nation should determine 
the future of that nation.
  I think if for no other reason, this has accomplished very, very 
much. Because when the Serrano amendment, which I hope is adopted later 
on, and I have an amendment to it, when it is adopted, it will say that 
the people of Puerto Rico are a duly constituted people born on that 
island and born on that island of a nation of people, and so they 
should participate, much as the Algerians who lived in France 
participated, much as the Irish who lived in Great Britain 
participated, much as the people of all of the other countries 
colonized.
  What we have stated here is Puerto Rico is a colony of the United 
States. Therefore, that all members of that colony. So Puerto Rico is a 
nation. That by accepting, and I want to thank the gentleman from 
Alaska (Mr. Young) for finally so eloquently stating that point here 
today, because I think that that is an important part. Remember, that 
that is what we are doing, bringing two nations together. We should do 
it very, very carefully, with consultation and making sure that each 
partner understands what we are doing.
  Let me just take exception once again, because I see that there is 
one thing that the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young) and the gentleman 
from Puerto Rico (Mr. Romero-Barcelo) and the gentleman from New York 
(Mr. Serrano) all agree with in unison. That is, that Puerto Rican 
citizenship if you are born on the island of Puerto Rico is statutory. 
I think that is wrong. I think that is wrong.
  Let me just state for the record that the Immigration Nationality Act 
of 1945 tracked from the language of the 1940 act, it says that all 
those who live in the United States, including Alaska, Hawaii and 
Puerto Rico, are nationals of that country and born in the United 
States. Once again what we are saying is that if you are born in Puerto 
Rico, like my dad, like my wife, that her citizenship if you adopt this 
Young bill can be taken away.
  Let me just make two points. A, does anybody really believe in this 
room that this Congress would ever take away the citizenship of 3.8 
million people? Does anybody in this room think that will ever happen? 
Absolutely not. No President would ever sign that legislation. If no 
one would ever do it and no court would ever sanction it, why is it 
that we are saying it is statutory?
  On the one hand we say it is statutory. On the other hand I am sure 
that we will all dive on the blade so that that citizenship would never 
be taken away. I am sure every Member here would say, ``But I would 
never allow that to happen.'' If you are never going to allow it to 
happen and no President would sign it, then let us not make it 
statutory.
  Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
the Virgin Islands (Ms. Christian-Green), a person who well understands 
what the discussion is about.
  Ms. CHRISTIAN-GREEN. I thank the gentleman from New York for yielding 
me this time. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to rise today in support of 
the amendment offered by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Serrano) 
which would allow the persons born in Puerto Rico but who do not 
currently reside on that island to vote in the referendum authorized by 
H.R. 856.
  Mr. Chairman, H.R. 856, if enacted, would allow the people of Puerto 
Rico to exercise their rights to self-determination. The principle of 
self-determination as stated in Article 2 of the United Nations charter 
declares that, and I quote, all peoples have the right to self-
determination; by virtue of that right they freely determine their 
political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural 
development.
  Like the gentleman from New York (Mr. Serrano), I believe the right 
of a people to determine their political status is a fundamental one. 
And unlike local elections, a referendum on the final political status 
of Puerto Rico would affect the future of all Puerto Ricans, whether 
they live in or out of Puerto Rico. And so it is only right that on an 
election that will have such profound consequences on the future of 
their island, all Puerto Ricans who were born in the islands be given 
the opportunity to exercise their right to self-determination. I ask my 
colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the Serrano amendment.
  I also want to take this opportunity to thank and commend the 
gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young) for his leadership on H.R. 856 and 
his willingness to listen to all sides, as well as his commitment to 
all of the United States territories.
  Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, a lot has been said here almost in disagreement but yet 
speaking about statutory citizenship and constitutional citizenship. 
Make no mistake about it, I have no doubt that my citizenship is 
different than the one my son who was born in the Bronx has. I do not 
have a doubt about that. I do not have to be a constitutional lawyer to 
know that I became a citizen on the island of Puerto Rico when I was 
born there, because it was a law in 1917 that said so. That law was 
passed by Congress. The Constitution is not amended by Congress. There 
is a whole process to change that.
  And so I am clear on the fact that my son's citizenship is one that 
is protected by the Constitution of the United States and if I am not 
mistaken, there are only a few ways in which he can lose that 
citizenship. One, for instance, he could be found guilty of treason, 
but it has to be some extreme circumstance by which he would lose that 
citizenship.
  But I have no doubt that this Congress can pass a law to take away 
from me my citizenship and the citizenship of the gentleman from Puerto 
Rico (Mr. Romero-Barcelo), the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. 
Velazquez), and the people who live on the island of Puerto Rico. Would 
they

[[Page H816]]

do it? Probably not. Would a court uphold it? Possibly not. Can they do 
it? Absolutely. One thing is clear, this Congress has the right on this 
kind of citizenship to pass a law here saying that beginning next 
Monday, every person born in Puerto Rico is no longer a citizen, an 
American citizen.
  The outcome of this plebiscite does affect people like myself who 
were born on the island. I understand the concern of the gentleman from 
Illinois (Mr. Gutierrez) and the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. 
Velazquez). I would have wanted to include in this amendment all Puerto 
Ricans regardless of where they were born, but I am also a practical 
person who understands that it is better to accomplish this tremendous 
victory that the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young) has accepted than to 
go with something I could not get and would not be able to gather any 
support.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume, 
just to talk about the precedent that we might be setting here. I worry 
somewhat with the changeover that has happened in the United States 
House of Representatives, where two-thirds of the Members are new in 
the last 4 years. But some of us have to look back institutionally and 
look at situations like this.

                              {time}  1745

  I know of no other precedent that we have ever set where we allowed 
voters in one part of the United States to cast votes in other parts. I 
have a situation representing the Adirondack Mountains and the Catskill 
Mountains in New York State, and we have a lot of people who live in 
Connecticut, live in New Jersey, live in Westchester County or live in 
New York City, and they cannot come up, although they used to do it, 
but it was illegal, they cannot come up to the Adirondacks and cast 
votes up there. This is a similar situation.
  Now, those people, if they live in Connecticut and they want 
representation up there, one of the two spouses will change their 
registration and vote in my congressional district up in the mountains. 
This seems to me a similar situation, because really we are letting 
some U.S. citizens cast votes twice that really affect the entire 
United States of America.
  I just think we have to be very careful about the precedent we are 
setting here. It is because of that I will probably oppose the 
amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds.
  Mr. Chairman, I would just clarify what my colleague, the gentleman 
from New York (Mr. Solomon), said. This is a different kind of vote. I 
would not propose on this floor to vote for Governor of Puerto Rico or 
mayor of Mayaguez, my hometown. This is a special and unique vote.
  In addition, the gentleman may be surprised to know there were 
constituents of yours who did set perhaps a precedent you do not want 
by voting in Polish elections. There is a bill in the Dominican 
Republic to allow Americans of Dominican descent to vote in those 
elections; Colombians; Peruvians. This is happening in other places.
  I am not proposing that. I am proposing a one-time vote on this very 
unique situation about a status question.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Guam (Mr. 
Underwood), who understands what I am going through here today.
  Mr. UNDERWOOD. Mr. Chairman, I want to reiterate for those of us who 
are statutory citizens, i.e., citizens by virtue of congressional 
action, we represent a unique category of human beings that are under 
the American body politic, proud Americans, but recognizing that we 
have a unique status.
  That is why this amendment is necessary, because it speaks to the 
issue not just of political self-determination, but ultimately to the 
issue of who has that right to self-determination.
  This is not the same kind of election that one has when one votes for 
elected officials. We have fought long and hard in this country to make 
sure that that kind of voting is extended to all those people who are 
represented by elected officials. But this is an issue of political 
self-determination.
  When you are born in Wisconsin or born in Idaho, you cannot get up in 
the morning and decide that Idaho or Wyoming should have one day an 
election which gives them the full range of choices about whether they 
should be independent or have a special relationship with the United 
States. They are a State. They are full and equal partners in the 
American body politic. The Civil War has settled that issue once and 
for all.
  But what do we have here? We have here a unique group of individuals, 
of people who have been subsumed into the American flag through 
conquest, and by virtue of that they have always been extended 
citizenship through congressional action. It is their status that is at 
stake. It is their individual status that is at stake. That is why it 
makes perfectly good sense that when we deal with the issue of self-
determination, we must deal with the issue of who has a right to self-
determination.
  Any piece of legislation which deals with the self-determination of 
Puerto Rico, or even in the case of my own home island of Guam, must 
always deal in a serious and thoughtful way with who actually has this 
right to self-determination. Whomever was colonized should be the 
participants in decolonization. In the case of Puerto Rico, it is 
Puerto Ricans. In legal terms, it must be the people whose citizenship 
is in control of Congress.
  If we value Puerto Rican self-determination, and if we really value 
the meaning of the vote, we would deal with the issue of voter 
eligibility. Mr. Serrano has offered an amendment which deals with this 
issue in a thoughtful and meaningful way. The gentleman wants all 
Puerto Ricans to be allowed participation. The people who became 
citizens by virtue of congressional action are the people whose lives 
and political futures are at stake. Those people must be the ones to 
make the choice about their homeland, about their future. It is their 
future which is at stake. Anything less would make a mockery of the 
process and compromise the meaning of self-determination.
  Mr. Chairman, I must reiterate again, a self-determination election 
is very different from any other kind.
  Mr. SOLOMON. I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. 
Gutierrez).
  Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Chairman, this is academic debate we are having 
here. We are asked to believe the following: That Mr. Serrano, who was 
born in Puerto Rico, who came to the United States of America, who was 
allowed into the halls of this Congress with full voting privileges, 
that his citizenship can be revoked; that there is a court in this 
Nation, a Congress, a President and a court in this Nation, that will 
affirm that.
  We know that that is just never going to happen. Let us face it. 
Raise your hand anyone who believes that will ever, ever happen. It 
will not. Think about it. You have tens of thousands of men and women 
who served in the Armed Forces with honorable discharges. What court in 
this Nation would take away their citizenship? They paid taxes, they 
were born, their birth certificates. Think about it. It is not going to 
happen.
  So let us not play the game of fear with the people of Puerto Rico 
and inject fear. That is what is wrong with this bill, that we put them 
into fear. It is never going to happen, and we all know it.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, we have debated the amendment. I understand we are 
going to go on to the amendment process now. The gentleman from Puerto 
Rico (Mr. Romero-Barcelo) has an amendment, I believe, and I believe 
the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Gutierrez) does as well.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time so we can move on 
to the amendment process.
  Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, let me close by saying that I do not function out of 
fear, in terms of putting fear on anyone else. I function out of fact.
  The fact of life is that we would not be here dealing with this very 
good bill unless we understood that there is a unique relationship 
between Puerto Rico and the United States. If everything was fine and 
dandy, we would not be here passing this bill.

[[Page H817]]

  Mr. Chairman, I do not try to bring fear into people, but I know what 
this country is capable of doing. We are a great Nation, but at times 
we are governed in a behavior that may make changes.
  I do not want to run the risk of finding out what kind of citizenship 
I have. I think I already know. Is that good? Is that bad? How do I 
live with it? I dealt with it. I worked my way up the system and became 
a member of the U.S. Congress. Sometimes I try to do a pretty good job 
at it.
  Mr. Chairman, I think it is important to note that this amendment 
today speaks to the fact that so many of us who left the island did so 
as a result of a relationship between the U.S. and Puerto Rico, a 
relationship that started off with a military invasion and which, at 
this date, has not ended with anything which brings either independence 
or statehood.
  Puerto Rico remains in limbo, and, as Puerto Rico remains in limbo 
and we try to solve that situation by bringing forth this bill, then I 
continue to put before you that this vote belongs to all of the 
children of that colony, all of the children of that territory. Yes, I 
am affected by the results of that vote.
  Mr. Chairman, I would hope that everyone takes the lead of the 
gentleman from Alaska (Chairman Young), and accepts this amendment 
without a vote.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to section 2(b) of House Resolution 376, it is 
now in order to consider amendment 2 printed in the Congressional 
Record.


                 Amendment No. 2 Offered by Mr. Serrano

  Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, I offer Amendment No. 2.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 2 Offered by Mr. Serrano:
       In section 5(a), add at the end the following paragraph:
       (3) United states citizens born in puerto rico eligible to 
     vote.--Notwithstanding paragraphs (1) and (2), an individual 
     residing outside of Puerto Rico shall be eligible to vote in 
     the referenda held under this Act if that individual--
       (A) is a United States citizen because of that individual's 
     birth in Puerto Rico; and
       (B) would be eligible to vote in such referenda but for 
     that individual's residency outside of Puerto Rico.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, consideration of this amendment 
and any amendments thereto shall not exceed 1 hour.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New York (Mr. Serrano) for 5 
minutes in support of his amendment.


                         Parliamentary Inquiry

  Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state it.
  Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Chairman, will I still be able to offer my 
substitute amendment after the gentleman from New York (Mr. Serrano) 
finishes with his amendment?
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Illinois may offer his amendment at 
any time during the pendency of the amendment offered by the gentleman 
from New York (Mr. Serrano).
  Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Chairman, there is not a limit of time anymore for 
amendments?
  The CHAIRMAN. The amendment offered pursuant to the rule by the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Serrano) will be pending for no longer 
than one hour. At any point during that pendency, the gentleman from 
Illinois may offer his substitute.
  Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Chairman, further parliamentary inquiry. I had 
asked earlier of the Chairman if I would be guaranteed an opportunity 
to offer my amendment, and the Chairman said yes. I hope that that will 
still stand.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is the gentleman from Illinois offering his amendment 
at this time?
  Mr. GUTIERREZ. I do not think I can proceed. The gentleman is 
amending his amendment, am I correct?
  Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield, if I may, I 
would like to clarify this unique rule, where we debated my amendment 
before I officially presented it. Is that correct?
  The CHAIRMAN. The last period of debate was general debate on the 
subject matter of the amendment of the gentleman from New York (Mr. 
Serrano). Now the gentleman has offered his amendment, and it is in 
order for a substitute amendment to be offered for the gentleman's 
amendment.


 Amendment Offered by Mr. Gutierrez as a Substitute for the Amendment 
                        Offered by Mr. Serrano.

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

       Amendment offered by Mr. Gutierrez as a substitute for the 
     amendment offered by Mr. Serrano:
       In section 5(a), add at the end the following new 
     paragraph:
       (3) Eligibility to vote.--Notwithstanding paragraphs (1) 
     and (2), an individual residing outside of Puerto rico shall 
     be eligible to vote in the referenda held under this Act if 
     that individual--
       (A) is a United States citizen because of that individual's 
     birth in Puerto Rico, or satisfies requirements that shall be 
     prescribed by the Electoral Commission of Puerto Rico (which 
     shall include methods, provisions to include Puerto Ricans 
     who have at least one parent who was born in Puerto Rico) for 
     registering and voting in absentia in referenda held under 
     this Act; and
       (B) would be eligible to vote in such referenda but for 
     that individual's residency outside of Puerto Rico.

  The CHAIRMAN. Without objection the substitute was entertained prior 
to the 5 minute speech on the underlying amendment by the gentleman 
from New York (Mr. Serrano). The gentleman from New York is now 
recognized for 5 minutes on the underlying amendment, after which it 
will be in order for the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Gutierrez) to 
proceed for 5 minutes on the substitute.
  There was no objection.

                              {time}  1800

  Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, I want to reiterate the fact that when the 
gentleman from Alaska (Chairman Young) accepted my amendment, and as we 
heard, he spoke in favor of that amendment, he did it with the full 
understanding that what he was accepting was an amendment that he could 
not only explain but that both of us could actually argue in favor of, 
without anyone being able to raise any questions about it.
  Both the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young) and I have had concerns 
way before this about who constituted and what constituted the body of 
Puerto Ricans that should vote.
  I repeat once more, I personally would have wanted to include 
everyone that the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Gutierrez) would like to 
include. But the fact of life is that that amendment, bringing it to 
that point, would have had very little support not only in committee, 
in negotiations, but on the House floor. I feel that my amendment 
accomplishes 95 percent of the mission that we set out years ago to 
accomplish, which was to enlarge the vote and bring in more Puerto 
Ricans into this decision-making process.
  I understand clearly my colleague, my brother, the gentleman from 
Chicago, my fellow Puerto Rican brother from Chicago's desire to 
include more people. I had to explain to my son why my amendment did 
not include him. But I feel confident that I can explain it, as I have 
here today, and I feel confident that if we move forward with the 
amendment as is, that we will in fact allow for a large body of people 
who would be affected directly to participate.
  What we need to do here today is to do whatever we have to do, but 
not put into jeopardy the underlying amendment which is accepted by 
Chairman Young. In other words, in proposing any other amendment to my 
amendment, please keep in mind that we could throw out everything that 
we have gained up to this moment.
  So I respect the amendment before us now, but I would hope that in no 
way this amendment takes away the importance of the underlying 
amendment, and I would hope that the gentleman from Chicago would 
actually consider retiring his amendment in favor of the one we have 
worked on for so long.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Gutierrez) is 
recognized for 5 minutes on his substitute amendment.
  Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Chairman, first let me say to my good and 
distinguished friend, the gentleman from New York, that I would not 
offer this amendment if I thought it was frivolous, if I thought it was 
silly, if I

[[Page H818]]

thought it was somehow just something that I woke up in the morning and 
thought it was the right thing to do. No, I say to the gentleman from 
New York, I think this amendment is very appropriate.
  But I want to thank the gentleman. He has been here for a long time. 
I went to a hearing back in New York when the gentleman first got 
elected to Congress, and I traveled from Chicago to New York City, and 
I remember the gentleman was chairing that meeting. The interesting 
thing about that meeting that the gentleman from New York (Mr. Serrano) 
was chairing was that it was bilingual, it was both in English and 
Spanish, something unfortunately that these proceedings are not, 
because he wished at that time for everybody to understand, because I 
know that the gentleman understood that Puerto Ricans spoke Spanish and 
that was their language.
  So we do not do that for that purpose. I will say one thing, we will 
ask for a vote on this, but we will ask for a voice vote on this 
amendment. We will ask--I told the gentleman from New York when we were 
in the back that I would do that, that I would ask for a voice vote, so 
we can debate it.
  Now, having said that, and I hope any trepidation that the fine 
gentleman from New York might have that we could somehow stir this 
away, because the gentleman feels he has it, and I hope that at least, 
I really, sincerely hope that we get at least what the gentleman wants. 
Let me now refer back.
  Mr. Chairman, I think it is interesting. The gentleman from Alaska 
(Mr. Young) said something that was really interesting. He said that 
when it came to Puerto Rico, they were born there. I do not remember 
that in Alaska we looked for former Alaskans that got to vote whether 
Alaska should become a State. I do not remember that we looked for 
everybody born in Hawaii in order for Hawaiians to make a decision 
whether we should become a State, or that we looked for former people 
that may have even fought at the Alamo before we said that those are 
all the people from Texas, before they become a State.
  But we are doing it, and rightfully so, for the people of Puerto 
Rico, because it is a Nation and it is different. That is why, I say to 
the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young), by his very words, I continue to 
tell him, he cannot treat this merely as a territory, as another group 
of people, some chattel that happened to have come to the United States 
because of a victory during the Spanish-American war. It is a people, 
it is a Nation, and we should be careful and diligent in ensuring that 
as we proceed, we make sure that the decisions that we make are going 
to be good for all of us. That is why I suggest that we extend the 
amendment.
  What does my amendment do? My amendment says the following. Let me 
explain it as simply as I can say it. See, the gentleman from New York 
(Mr. Jose Serrano), if he has a brother, because his parents moved to 
the United States of America from the nation of Puerto Rico, his 
brother's birth certificate says the same mom, same dad, Puerto Rico, 
Puerto Rico, just as his, except, of course, his would have been in the 
Bronx, maybe his brother, and his would have been in Puerto Rico. So 
you would have two brothers who have an exact same claim, and using 
your very expressions, that they came here because of political 
persecution, the one brother who came here because of political 
persecution and may have returned and be living in Puerto Rico today, 
something that the gentleman from New York (Mr. Serrano) has decided 
not to do, he may be living there today, right? We cannot figure this 
out.
  So I am simply saying, let the family, and I know that the gentleman 
from Alaska (Mr. Young) said that every cousin, uncle, but no, that is 
not what I am saying. In my family, I married Soraida and she has 14 
brothers and sisters. Nine of them were born on the island of Puerto 
Rico. Because of economic and social conditions, the nine of them moved 
with mom and dad to Chicago. The other five subsequently were born. 
Their birth certificates are identical. They are Puerto Rican 
nationals, both born in Puerto Rico. The only difference is five birth 
certificates say Cook County. So we can prove it.
  It is not like I am saying anybody. In order to vote, you have to 
have a birth certificate, and where it says ``Mom born in Puerto Rico, 
dad born in Puerto Rico,'' you get to vote; not the children, not like 
my daughter and the children of other generations. Just so that those 
generations, that immediate generation that has such close ties can 
vote. Let me just tell the Members why. Many Puerto Ricans move back to 
the island of Puerto Rico.
  Mr. ROMERO-BARCELO. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, this amendment to the amendment makes the amendment 
even less acceptable. Let us think about what would happen. A person 
born in Puerto Rico, but his parents were there because they were on a 
contract working for 5 years from the State of Wisconsin, and they have 
two children born in Puerto Rico during those 5 years, then they move 
back to Wisconsin. They never go back to Puerto Rico. The children 
never go to Puerto Rico. They never learn Spanish. They would be 
qualified to vote under the amendment offered by the gentleman from New 
York (Mr. Serrano).
  However, somebody born in Puerto Rico, or somebody born in New York, 
and at an early age his parents got divorced and somehow he ended up 
back in Puerto Rico living with his grandparents, or aunt and uncle, 
and he grew up in Puerto Rico, and he got married in Puerto Rico, went 
to school in Puerto Rico, got married in Puerto Rico, he had children 
in Puerto Rico, and then he got a good job in Pennsylvania so he moved 
to Pennsylvania.
  Now he is living in Pennsylvania, and he is planning in 20 years, he 
is going to go back to Puerto Rico, but he has not demonstrated it, he 
is just thinking about it. He cannot vote, because he was born in New 
York, not in Puerto Rico. Yet, he has much more relationship with 
Puerto Rico, much more emotional attachments with Puerto Rico than the 
one that was born there and obviously now lives in Wisconsin and is not 
even concerned about Puerto Rico. Yet the other one can vote. So that 
could bring constitutional challenges to this vote.
  The way that the gentleman from Illinois is proposing, then that 
multiplies, that kind of situation, with the parents and the children 
and the grandchildren. If you have the children of those who were born 
in Puerto Rico, then you get somebody who was born in Puerto Rico and 
moved to the United States and he is living somewhere else, in 
Wisconsin, Wyoming, in Iowa, and his sons were born over there and they 
were raised over there, they have never been in Puerto Rico, and they 
can vote in Puerto Rico because one of their parents was born in Puerto 
Rico? This is just carrying the thing to an absurdity.
  These people who have no attachments to Puerto Rico, either 
emotionally or otherwise, would be allowed to vote and change the 
results of the vote to be held in Puerto Rico. That is why I think we 
have to oppose this. It would set a tremendous precedent.
  They say, well, this is not an election. Right, this is not an 
election to elect a Governor or to elect a candidate, candidates to 
come to the House or the Senate. No. But then this is a referendum. 
Now, if that precedent was established, it would mean that in Texas or 
in Maine or in Illinois or in California, if there is a referendum and 
there is an amendment to the Constitution, and those that were born in 
that State are living somewhere else, then they should also be allowed 
to vote in that referendum. That might change the situation in their 
State where they are from, where they have family.
  We have established rules of law. Only those that are U.S. citizens 
and who have residence in the place where they are, they are allowed to 
vote. Those Puerto Ricans who cannot vote in Puerto Rico in national 
elections when they move to a State, then they acquired residency in 
the State and then they can vote in the national elections for the 
President, they can vote for Congressmen, they can vote for a Senator, 
they can vote for Governor, they can vote for the State legislature, 
they can vote for mayors. They have a full vote.
  We cannot vote in their States. We cannot vote in anything that 
affects them, and we have family and relatives in the States. We cannot 
vote in their States, even though we feel attachments to something that 
may affect

[[Page H819]]

them, but they can vote in Puerto Rico.
  That is a very, very, very bad precedent. As I said, I hate to oppose 
the proposal offered by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Serrano), 
because he has worked so strongly on this bill, like we all have, and 
he is a good friend, and I know he sincerely believes in this. He is 
emotional about it. But this is my conviction. I have worked, when I 
started in politics, I was working in my party within electoral 
affairs, and I know the impossibility of putting this into effect.
  Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to acknowledge the gentleman from New York 
(Mr. Serrano) for his leadership on this issue. This amendment, the 
Gutierrez amendment, builds on his excellent work. The Gutierrez 
amendment to the amendment offered by the gentleman from New York (Mr. 
Serrano) would allow all Puerto Ricans to participate in this historic 
plebiscite.
  The problem that the gentleman from Puerto Rico has, it seems like he 
does not understand, this is about self-determination. This is not 
about a State election. We know that the people from New York have to 
vote on any election in New York and that they cannot vote on any 
election that takes place in Pennsylvania.
  But this is not about any State election, this is about the political 
future of Puerto Rico. In fact, we Puerto Ricans, we are only 3 million 
Puerto Ricans in the United States. For the most part Puerto Ricans 
have not participated in the electoral process here in the United 
States. Because of the close ties that they still have with Puerto 
Rico, they follow more closely the political situation in Puerto Rico 
than they do in terms of what is going on in the United States.
  So it is important that Puerto Ricans in Puerto Rico participate and 
the Puerto Ricans in the mainland and their children participate. Some 
of them are here because they left the island because of economic 
reasons. Some Puerto Ricans are here not because they wanted to be 
here, but because of political persecution. If that is the case, they 
are entitled to have a say in this self-determination process.
  It will be unfair to deny it, to the entire Puerto Rican community, 
to participate in this process. We are a nation. The United States 
recognizes that Puerto Rico is a nation, that what happens there 
affects us, and this is an important process for all the Puerto Ricans 
here and in Puerto Rico.
  I would say, I would urge my colleagues to allow this to be a fair 
process for all Puerto Rican Americans living in Puerto Rico and in the 
mainland. They should have a right to determine the political future of 
Puerto Rico. At least let us make this legislation better by allowing 
them to participate in the final outcome of Puerto Rico.

                              {time}  1815

  This is a legislation that has been drafted so that we push one side 
of the political formulas in Puerto Rico. It is a legislation that 
supports statehood for Puerto Rico.
  Allow all Puerto Ricans to participate and to say ``no'' to statehood 
and ``yes'' to the democratic process.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SOLOMON. I yield to the gentleman from Illinois.
  Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from New York (Mr. 
Solomon) very much for yielding me this time.
  Mr. Chairman, let us think about this a moment. We want all the 
people to be able to participate in this process that can participate 
in this process. I think we all really want that. Think about it one 
moment. Someone is born on the island. They spend 30 years there. They 
move because of economic reasons. They do not get to vote. But if they 
show up on the island 3 months before the elections, register there and 
have no emotional tie until their next promotion or their next job 
transfer, they get to determine the future of that island.
  Mr. Chairman, think about it. Think about it. Mr. Chairman, I say to 
the gentleman from Puerto Rico (Mr. Romero-Barcelo), the Resident 
Commissioner who is an ardent strong supporter of statehood, that I 
would think he would wish to cherish the fact that people born on the 
island of Puerto Rico who live in the United States of America, and who 
live statehood and who understand statehood, would be allowed to 
participate because he is such an ardent supporter of statehood. And 
since they live in a State, it seems to me they would be voting for 
statehood because that is what they want, because they already live in 
a State and they want everything that he already wants for the people 
of Puerto Rico.
  Why deny those very Puerto Ricans born on that island the opportunity 
to participate when they live in the United States already in a State 
and understand this better? Let us bring the community together. Let us 
bring us all together, because I think that that is what is really 
vitally important.
  Mr. Chairman, I stand here today to speak for the 100,000-plus Puerto 
Ricans that live in my district in Chicago who really want to 
participate in this process.
  Let me end by saying that I think the work that the gentleman from 
New York (Mr. Serrano) has done has raised a lot of other issues. We 
will disagree, however, and I must state this, that it is not 
statutory. That the 14th Amendment of our Constitution applies to the 
gentleman, applies to all of those Puerto Ricans, and that we should 
not use any tactics in order to do that.
  With that, Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask that if there is no 
objection, that we vote on my amendment to the Serrano amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Gutierrez) as a substitute for the 
amendment offered by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Serrano).
  The amendment offered as a substitute for the amendment was rejected.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Serrano).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote, and pending that 
I make the point of order that a quorum is not present.
  The CHAIRMAN. Evidently, a quorum is not present.
  Pursuant to clause 2, rule XXIII, the Chair announces that he will 
reduce to a minimum of 5 minutes the period of time within which a vote 
by electronic device, if ordered, will be taken on the pending question 
following the quorum call. Members will record their presence by 
electronic device.
  The call was taken by electronic device.
  The following Members responded to their names:

                             [Roll No. 31]

                       ANSWERED ``PRESENT''--405

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Andrews
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baesler
     Baker
     Baldacci
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Barrett (WI)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Berman
     Berry
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Blagojevich
     Bliley
     Blumenauer
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     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
     Conyers
     Cook
     Cooksey
     Costello
     Cox
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cummings
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (VA)
     Deal
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     DeLay
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dicks
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     Engel
     English
     Ensign
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Everett
     Ewing
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fawell
     Fazio
     Filner
     Foley
     Forbes
     Ford
     Fossella
     Fowler
     Fox
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frost
     Furse
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt

[[Page H820]]


     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Goss
     Graham
     Granger
     Green
     Greenwood
     Gutierrez
     Gutknecht
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hamilton
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hefner
     Herger
     Hill
     Hilleary
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     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, E.B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kim
     Kind (WI)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kucinich
     LaFalce
     LaHood
     Lampson
     Lantos
     Largent
     Latham
     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
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     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
     Owens
     Oxley
     Packard
     Pallone
     Pappas
     Parker
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Paul
     Paxon
     Payne
     Pease
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pickett
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Portman
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Redmond
     Regula
     Reyes
     Riley
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Rogan
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rothman
     Roukema
     Roybal-Allard
     Royce
     Rush
     Ryun
     Sabo
     Salmon
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Sanford
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaffer, Bob
     Scott
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     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
     Towns
     Traficant
     Turner
     Upton
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Waters
     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)

                              {time}  1837

  The CHAIRMAN. Four hundred five Members have answered to their name, 
a quorum is present, and the committee will resume its business.


                             recorded vote

  The pending business is the demand of the gentleman from New York 
(Mr. Solomon) for a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The CHAIRMAN. This will be a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 57, 
noes 356, not voting 17, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 32]

                                AYES--57

     Ackerman
     Blagojevich
     Bonior
     Brown (CA)
     Carson
     Cox
     Davis (IL)
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Diaz-Balart
     Engel
     Furse
     Gejdenson
     Gilman
     Gutierrez
     Hinchey
     Hoyer
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennelly
     Lewis (GA)
     Maloney (CT)
     Markey
     McGovern
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Miller (CA)
     Moakley
     Nadler
     Neal
     Obey
     Olver
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pastor
     Payne
     Rangel
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rush
     Sanders
     Serrano
     Shays
     Tierney
     Towns
     Velazquez
     Waters
     Weller
     Wynn
     Young (AK)

                               NOES--356

     Abercrombie
     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
     Bishop
     Bliley
     Blumenauer
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Borski
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canady
     Cannon
     Cardin
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins
     Combest
     Condit
     Conyers
     Cook
     Cooksey
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cubin
     Cummings
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (VA)
     Deal
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DeLay
     Deutsch
     Dickey
     Dicks
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Ensign
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Everett
     Ewing
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fawell
     Fazio
     Filner
     Foley
     Forbes
     Ford
     Fossella
     Fowler
     Fox
     Frank (MA)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frost
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gephardt
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     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
     Hinojosa
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Hooley
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Istook
     Jenkins
     John
     Johnson (WI)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Kim
     Kind (WI)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kucinich
     LaFalce
     LaHood
     Lampson
     Lantos
     Largent
     Latham
     Lazio
     Leach
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     Livingston
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Lucas
     Maloney (NY)
     Manton
     Manzullo
     Martinez
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDade
     McDermott
     McHale
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     Meek (FL)
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (FL)
     Minge
     Mink
     Mollohan
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Morella
     Murtha
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Neumann
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Ortiz
     Oxley
     Packard
     Pappas
     Parker
     Pascrell
     Paul
     Paxon
     Pease
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pickett
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Redmond
     Regula
     Reyes
     Riggs
     Riley
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Rogan
     Rogers
     Rothman
     Roukema
     Roybal-Allard
     Royce
     Ryun
     Sabo
     Salmon
     Sanchez
     Sandlin
     Sanford
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaffer, Bob
     Scott
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     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
     Traficant
     Turner
     Upton
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watkins
     Watt (NC)
     Watts (OK)
     Waxman
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Wexler
     Weygand
     White
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wise
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Yates
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--17

     Dingell
     Doolittle
     Franks (NJ)
     Gekas
     Gonzalez
     Harman
     Kilpatrick
     LaTourette
     Luther
     Peterson (PA)
     Portman
     Poshard
     Schaefer, Dan
     Schiff
     Schumer
     Shimkus
     Torres

                              {time}  1848

  Mr. Snyder changed his vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Mr. Cox of California changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


                          personal explanation

  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. Chairman, I was unfortunately absent for rollcall 
votes 28 through 32. Had I been present, I would have voted yes on 
rollcall votes 29 (Burton) and 32 (Serrano), no on rollcall votes 28 
(Gutierrez) and 30 (Solomon), and present on rollcall vote 31, a quorum 
call.
  In particular, I am disappointed that the House has silenced the 
voice of Puerto Ricans living on the mainland by denying them a vote in 
this historic referendum.
  If you have ever been to New York City's Puerto Rican Day Parade, you 
have seen firsthand the pride that Puerto Ricans living on the

[[Page H821]]

mainland have in their rich heritage. Their links to the island--their 
economic, cultural, political, and family connections--make them 
intensely interested in Puerto Rico's political identity.
  The referendum established by H.R. 856 is no typical election. It is 
the most momentous decision the people of Puerto Rico have ever made. 
We should have ensured that all Puerto Ricans were able to participate 
in their people's choice.
  For that reason, I filed an amendment to expand voting eligibility to 
all Puerto Ricans living on the mainland--both those who were born on 
the island and those who have at least one parent who was born here. 
This amendment was very similar to one offered by my colleagues Mr. 
Gutierrez and Ms. Velazquez, which was unfortunately defeated on a 
voice vote.
  Even with this serious flaw, Mr. Chairman, I still believe it is 
important for Congress to allow the people of Puerto Rico to determine 
their own future. For that reason, even though the bill has its 
shortcomings, I want to give the people of Puerto Rico this historic 
opportunity to determine their own destiny, and am voting in favor of 
H.R. 856.
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. BUNNING. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. I yield to the gentleman from Kentucky.
  (Mr. Bunning asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. BUNNING. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me, 
and I rise in opposition to H.R. 856.
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I do not want the full 5 minutes, 
but I do want to suggest to the Members on the floor that it is my 
intention to entertain the amendments that will be offered by the 
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Gutierrez) and the gentlewoman from New 
York (Ms. Velazquez) and that we will roll the votes until 9 o'clock. 
At that time, I hope the gentleman and the gentlewoman, and whoever is 
offering amendments, will have come to a fruition, finalization, of 
these amendments so that we can bring this legislation to the end of 
the day very quickly.
  That is my intent, to have no more votes until, I believe, 9 o'clock.
  Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. I yield to the gentleman from Illinois.
  Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Alaska for 
yielding to me. I want to say two things on behalf of the gentlewoman 
from New York (Ms. Velazquez) and myself.
  We do not intend to call for any recorded votes, at least on our 
amendments, any subsequent recorded votes on our amendments. Just so 
that the gentleman will know, we will debate them but not ask for 
recorded votes on them, A.
  Although we promised the gentleman from New York (Mr. Solomon) and 
the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Moakley) that we would offer no 
more than 12, we will offer no more than 5 additional amendments.
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman, and I thank 
the chairman of the Committee on Rules.
  There will be an amendment offered by the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. 
Barr). I understand that will be debated. But I would suggest that 
everybody will have at least an hour if they wish to go to dinner or go 
to the office to do some work, and then after 8 o'clock all holds are 
barred and we hope to bring this to finalization by 9 o'clock.


               Amendment No. 36 Offered by Mr. Gutierrez

  Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment numbered 36.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment number 36 offered by Mr. Gutierrez: At the end of 
     section 2, add the following paragraph:
       (16) By providing for the people of Puerto Rico to express 
     their preference as to its permanent political status, 
     Congress is aware that Puerto Rico is sociologically and 
     culturally a Caribbean and Latin-American nation, formed by a 
     blend of European, African, and native ethnics with 
     distinctive culture which, unlike the several States, has 
     Spanish as a common language. According to the 1990 decennial 
     census of population, only 21,000 persons born in the several 
     States live in Puerto Rico.

  Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Chairman, first, before I begin, and I do not know 
if we can do something, but I figure with the will and the ability and 
the knowledge that the gentleman of New York (Mr. Solomon) has, and the 
gentleman of California (Mr. Miller) has, and the goodwill, that we can 
figure some way, because they keep referring to all of these amendments 
as mine when, indeed, Mr. Chairman, I just want to make it clear for 
the record that every last amendment is a Gutierrez-Velazquez 
amendment.
  Apparently, we did not do the right thing when we introduced them, 
but if somehow along the way that could be clarified, I think that is 
very important, because the gentlewoman from New York and I are working 
together on each one of these amendments.
  I rise to offer my amendment to section 2 of the bill, the findings 
section. My amendment adds language to the bill to clarify that Puerto 
Rico is, instead, a nation.
  I offer this amendment because I think it is very important that both 
the people of Puerto Rico and the people of the United States 
understand clearly what the United States Congress is doing in relation 
to the people of Puerto Rico.
  The people of Puerto Rico consider themselves a nation. I think that 
should be made abundantly clear to all the Members of this House. They 
consider themselves a nation, a separate and distinct people.
  They love their American citizenship. Some of my colleagues say that 
is a contradiction. That is the contradiction we get with colonialism. 
It is not their contradiction. It is a contradiction that we have. But 
everyone should understand that.
  They love their American citizenship. But yet if you ask them, where 
are you from, they say Puerto Rico, not in the same sense that maybe 
the Chairman, when you say where are you from, and he would say from 
Florida, or I might say from someplace, or the gentleman from New York 
(Mr. Solomon) might say from New York, from the Empire State of New 
York.
  No, I suggest to all of my colleagues, if they go to a Puerto Rican 
Day celebration anywhere in the United States of the America, in the 
United States of America, you have what you have, and it is the 
reality. If we walk up to those people and they are celebrating their 
nationality, and you say what are you, they say I am Puerto Rican. What 
are you? They say, I am Puerto Rican. That is the way they feel.
  Then if you ask them, what are you a citizen of? They say the United 
States of America. That is the distinct difference that we must 
understand. That is why I must offer this amendment so that people 
understand it is not another territory. It is not another group of 
people. It is not. It is very different and distinct.
  I think we should remind ourselves of that as we proceed with these 
deliberations. The people of Puerto Rico have an ethnicity, have a 
language, have a culture. Excuse me, strike the word ethnicity, have an 
idiosyncracy of their own.
  There are words in Spanish--(The gentleman from Illinois spoke in 
Spanish). I mean, if you are from Mexico or Colombia or from Cuba, they 
say you are from Puerto Rico--(The gentleman from Illinois spoke in 
Spanish). That is the way it works, because those, indeed, are from 
here.
  We may wish, as my mother many times said--(The gentleman from 
Illinois spoke in Spanish), which means you may wish to hide yourself 
from the skies with your hand, but you cannot.
  The fact is that Puerto Rico is a nation, and we should recognize 
this here in this bill. It is a nation of people who are citizens of 
the United States.
  Remember something. President Clinton said, oh, but in America, we 
have people from Poland, and they are Polish Americans. We have people 
from Ireland, and they are Irish Americans. We have people from 
Germany, and they are German American, and on, and on, and on. He said, 
we all blend here together in the United States of America. That is 
true.
  The difference is, I would say to President Clinton, there is a 
Germany, a Poland, and an Ireland. When you make Puerto Rico a State, 
is there a Puerto Rico as a State or as a nation?
  Let us understand this is different. All of those people came here as 
immigrants to this country with the intent of staying here forever. The 
people of

[[Page H822]]

Puerto Rico want to have a special relationship with this Nation. Let 
us try to see if we cannot do that and achieve that together. I end my 
comments with that.

                              {time}  1900


                      Announcement by the Chairman

  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair will remind all Members that remarks in 
languages other than English cannot be transcribed by the Official 
Reporters of Debate and cannot be printed by the Government Printing 
Office. Members may, however, submit translations of their remarks in 
other languages and such translations will appear in the Record in the 
distinctive type associated with an extension or revision of remarks.
  Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, Puerto Rico is a nation, a Latin American nation and a 
Caribbean nation. It is a historically constituted stable ethnic 
community with a common culture, a common history, a common economic 
life, and its own language, Spanish. But more importantly, there is a 
common psychology of a people who are unique in their customs, 
traditions, music and way of being. We call it Boricua. It is 
unfortunate that the sponsors of this bill have ignored this fact.
  Puerto Rico has been long recognized by the courts, Congress and 
international countries as being a distinct nation. Puerto Rico's 
special status as a separate nation under the sovereignty of the United 
States derives from an extensive history of legal precedents. The 
Supreme Court recognized Puerto Rico as a distinct nation when, in the 
early part of the century, it decided that Puerto Rico was in fact an 
unincorporated territory which never intended to become a State. 
Congress recognized Puerto Rico as a distinct Nation in 1917 when it 
extended U.S. citizenship to Puerto Rican nationals.
  This is a national issue which deals with the rights of the Puerto 
Rican nation to self-determination. The island existed as its own 
nation well before they were annexed in 1898 by the United States. The 
people of Puerto Rico who are the subject of this pending legislation 
already consider themselves a nation and are in fact a nation who are 
not willing to renounce their own culture, their own heritage and, most 
of all, their own language in order to join the Union.
  Our amendment to the ``findings'' section makes Congress aware that 
Puerto Rico is sociologically and culturally a Caribbean and Latin 
American nation. It is made up of people of European, African and 
native ethnicities with a distinct culture which, unlike several 
States, has Spanish as a common language.
  I would like to correct the gentleman from Puerto Rico who said that 
we embraced the English language in 1902. No, that was not so. Let us 
set the record straight. English was imposed upon the people of Puerto 
Rico in 1902 and still to this day, even with that imposition, the 
large majority of the people of Puerto Rico do not speak English.
  Mr. Chairman, Puerto Ricans are very proud of their cultural heritage 
and of their Puerto Rican national identity. This pride for the 
homeland transcends barriers and oceans. As Puerto Ricans leave the 
island, they take with them the intense pride they feel for their 
nation. Puerto Rico, the nation, shares common geographical spaces, a 
long history, its own economic life and its very distinct Caribbean, 
Latin American culture, but above all a common language, Spanish. 
Puerto Ricans have been speaking Spanish for 500 years, the first 100 
under Spanish rule and the last century under American rule. Its 
closest neighbors in the Caribbean all speak Spanish.
  Language, history and culture are distinct characteristics that all 
point to Puerto Rico being a nation. This amendment will make Congress 
appreciate and adopt that reality. I urge my colleagues to support the 
amendment.
  Mr. ROMERO-BARCELO. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite 
number of words.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to define the word ``nation''. It has several 
meanings, but the meaning that is accepted throughout the world and the 
meaning we first find in the dictionary is a self-containing body 
politic that has a relationship with other countries and other nations 
and has representation in worldwide organizations.
  Puerto Rico is not a nation. Puerto Rico is a community. That we are 
definitely, a community, a community that has its own characteristics 
like communities throughout the world and communities throughout this 
Nation have their characteristics. Our language is Spanish. But we also 
are able to speak English.
  Everyone in Puerto Rico recognizes the importance of English. We not 
only recognize it in Puerto Rico, I think the whole world recognizes 
it. A group of members of the Hispanic Caucus went over to Spain 
recently, 5 of us, on a trip, a good will trip. We had meetings with 
the King and the President, the President of the Chamber of Deputies, 
the President of the Senate. One thing we realized in Spain is that 
they study English from the first grade on, and they accept and they 
realize that English is the lingua franca. Throughout the world, 
everyone is coming to recognize that.
  At home, when I was governor, I visited every single high school in 
Puerto Rico. When I asked them about the issues, the students that 
stood up, they always infallibly, the students, the parents, the 
teachers said that they wanted to have better opportunities to learn 
English. That was in every high school in Puerto Rico.
  If you pick up a newspaper in Puerto Rico, in the job offers on 
Sunday, 90 percent or more of the job offers say bilingual, bilingual, 
bilingual. Everyone realizes that they have to speak English. There is 
no resentment against English. On the contrary.
  When they talk about this Nation, there is no such thing as a nation 
in Puerto Rico. We are a community. We have no international standing. 
We are part of the United States. It was mentioned a little while ago, 
the Irish Americans, the English Americans, the Italian Americans, the 
French Americans, but the Puerto Ricans are Puerto Ricans. Do Texans 
call themselves Texan Americans or Californian Americans or New Yorker 
Americans? No, they are New Yorkers, Texans, Californians, and we are 
Puerto Ricans, because we are part of the Nation.
  Part of our culture is the American democracy and the values for 
which it stands. That is what the people of Puerto Rico and everyone 
has accepted here, they realize it, they want their U.S. citizenship, 
and they will not change their U.S. citizenship for anything and they 
will not trade it, they will not accept anything else.
  Some of them might be misguided as to what it means to be a U.S. 
citizen and might not realize that they do not have all the privileges 
and all the rights and all the responsibilities that other citizens do. 
But one thing the people want to do, they want to be self-supporting 
and we want to pay into the fiscal system and share alike, like 
brothers and sisters, with the rest of our citizens.
  Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the 
requisite number of words, and I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, our two colleagues in support of their amendment 
described, I think accurately, a history of Puerto Rico but they did 
not accurately describe the nation. It is that history, that is the 
reason why we are here today, so that the people of Puerto Rico can 
freely and openly choose the status which they desire. Because of that 
history, because of how this relationship has evolved, that is why we 
are here today, to pass this legislation and then the people in Puerto 
Rico can make the decision about their status. I oppose this amendment.
  Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the 
requisite number of words.
  (Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania asked and was given permission to revise 
and extend his remarks.)
  Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to 
the amendment. I think it arises out of the justified pride of the 
authors, but I do not think we need to really define here the 
nationhood of Puerto Rico. The real issue before us is Puerto Rican 
self-determination. I strongly support the underlying bill, H.R. 856, 
which would allow us to move forward and allow Puerto Rico to make a 
strong and clear decision on its own destiny.
  Since the founding of our Nation, the concept of self-determination 
has been a central

[[Page H823]]

value of how we define ourselves as Americans and what we expect of 
other nations. As our Nation has grown, we have championed these values 
abroad. Today, we ask the developing democracies in Eastern Europe and 
the former Soviet Union to empower their citizens. We demand similar 
rights for communities like Taiwan and Tibet where the national right 
of self-determination has been challenged. We confront those nations 
like North Korea and Cuba that actively repress the natural right of 
self-determination by their own citizens.
  I believe that we must now extend this same principle to Puerto Rico, 
a territory of the United States since 1917 and a commonwealth since 
1952. As a commonwealth, the citizens of Puerto Rico exist in political 
twilight. They are not incorporated as a U.S. State and are not 
represented in Congress as such. But, they do not exist as a separate 
nation either. The U.S. flag proudly flies over San Juan and its 
citizens have fought alongside of us in war.
  Today, the U.S. House of Representatives has an historic opportunity 
to express how much we appreciate the rich and positive contributions 
by the citizens of Puerto Rico. I sincerely believe we are a better 
nation due to their presence. To show our gratitude and our respect, we 
must pass H.R. 856. The legislation provides a non-biased, three-way 
ballot allowing the residents of Puerto Rico to choose between the 
current commonwealth status which is not permanent or to move towards 
independence or statehood. It is important to note that this bill does 
not create a self-executing process towards statehood. I also want to 
emphasize that the U.S. Congress would be the ultimate authority in 
deciding whether to ratify a possible choice of statehood by the 
citizens of Puerto Rico.
  I join House Resources Committee Chairman Don Young and the bill's 
bipartisan list of cosponsors in support of the referendum since it 
serves the national interest and begins the end to Puerto Rico's 
ambiguous territory status. Historically, the United States has 
advanced democratic self-determination procedures in its territories on 
terms acceptable to the U.S. Congress. The referenda enabled the 
residents to achieve the equality of full citizenship, through either 
statehood or independence. Since World War II, Congress has fulfilled 
this responsibility with respect to the Philippines, Hawaii and Alaska, 
but not with respect to Puerto Rico--the largest and most populous U.S. 
territory.
  Much confusion and misinformation has been deliberately raised by the 
bills opponents in hopes of dooming its passage. If you listen to the 
opponents of H.R. 856 and those who oppose a fully self-governing 
Puerto Rico, they would have you believe that this bill is a vote on 
statehood. Nothing could be further from the truth. Chairman Don Young, 
the primary author of the bill, went to great lengths to make any 
change in Puerto Rico's political status gradual and subject to terms 
acceptable to Congress.
  As the United States strives to uphold the responsibility of being a 
beacon of democracy, we must undo the last vestiges of colonialism. 
After 100 years since Puerto Rico joined us in association, the United 
States should let the people of Puerto Rico exercise the liberty and 
independence of decision that our flag represents.
  The time to do the right thing is now. We cannot forget that 3.8 
million citizens--the residents of Puerto Rico--have second-class 
status within our democracy. I call on my colleagues to support H.R. 
856, the United States-Puerto Rico Political Status Act, and to respect 
the rights of the people of Puerto Rico.
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite 
number of words. The hour is getting late and it gets more difficult to 
participate.
  I oppose this amendment, as Puerto Rico is not a nation. This bill 
will enable Puerto Rico to become a nation as a separate sovereignty if 
a majority of the U.S. citizens of Puerto Rico vote to be independent. 
This provision is potentially confusing and should not be accepted, and 
I oppose the amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Gutierrez).
  The amendment was rejected.


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Stearns

  Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Stearns: In paragraph (2) of 
     section 5(c)--
       (1) strike ``sovereignty or statehood, there is'' and 
     insert the following (and adjust the margins accordingly):

     sovereignty or statehood--
       (A) there is
       (2) strike the period at the end and insert ``; and''; and
       (3) add at the end the following new subparagraph:
       (B) not later than 90 days after such referenda, there 
     shall be a second referendum held in accordance with this Act 
     which shall be on the approval of 1 of the 2 options which 
     received the most votes in the first referendum. Such 2 
     options shall be presented on the ballot using the same 
     language and in the same manner as they were presented in the 
     first referendum.

  Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, I wanted the amendment to be read because 
a lot of Members will not know what it is about and I thought they 
could hear the amendment itself. Basically, this is an amendment to 
provide for a runoff referendum if the first referendum required in the 
bill does not result in a 50 plus percent vote for independence or 
statehood. My amendment is a simple method of improving H.R. 856 to 
make the self-determination process more fair for the Puerto Rican 
people.
  My amendment seeks to abbreviate this self-determination process by 
holding a runoff referendum no more than 90 days after the first 
referendum. Because there would be only two choices at this point, 
voters could more easily achieve a binding majority vote for statehood, 
commonwealth, or independence in my proposed runoff. Such a process 
would avoid the lengthy process we have in the bill.
  Let us review this again. First, should the runoff referendum result 
in a majority for one of the 3 processes, yet it did not have a full 51 
percent, then we would have another election, 90 days later, and the 
top 2 would be voted on to see which one would be the winner. The 
runoff would serve to coalesce the interests of the voters because 
those who first voted for the third option would then be forced to vote 
for the first or second options in the runoff. This knowledge of Puerto 
Rico's preference on the issues could help us here in Congress tailor 
future referenda to their preferences.
  I am introducing this amendment to H.R. 856 because I think it is 
important to expedite the process. What the current polls show is that 
45 percent of the Puerto Rican voters support commonwealth and only 35 
percent support statehood. Nevertheless, should Puerto Rico choose 
commonwealth, H.R. 856 mandates continued referenda until either 
statehood or independence gains the majority.
  Would it not be nice within 90 days after the first referendum to 
have the top two voter preferences voted again and we decide 
immediately what the Puerto Rican voters support? They would be 
subjected to the same thing we have here in Congress. When people run 
for Congress during the primary, the first two in the primary run for a 
final runoff before the general election. Why keep having the same vote 
over and over on such a protracted time frame? In the alternative, why 
not consider the desires of the Puerto Ricans when allowing them to 
hold future votes and tailor future referenda to achieve a concrete 
result?
  Mr. Chairman, my amendment seeks to abbreviate the lengthy process 
outlined in the bill and to clarify immediately, within 90 days, the 
desires of the Puerto Rican people for future referenda, both through a 
runoff referendum in 90 days. Supporting this amendment will produce an 
improved bill for Puerto Rico's self-determination. I urge my 
colleagues to support my amendment.

                             {time}  1915.

  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the 
amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I am a little confused, because we have heard a lot of 
debate today about the Congress forcing people to do things, and I am 
afraid that what this will do is put the pressure on two groups to have 
the vote within 90 days. To my knowledge, this never happened in any 
other case in the United States if there was not a majority. In fact, 
there have been other areas that did not have a majority, and they had 
to wait and wait and wait until they did it again. I am a little 
confused why it is necessary to do this on this bill.
  It is very clear in my bill, it says you have to have a majority. The 
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Barr) will offer an amendment that I will 
not support that wants a super majority. This says we are going to have 
a vote on the two top ones in 90 days.
  This adds confusion to the bill and is not necessary. I reluctantly 
oppose the amendment. I just heard about it, and the gentleman talked 
to me a moment

[[Page H824]]

ago, and I do not really know what it is going to try to accomplish, so 
I do oppose the amendment.
  Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last 
word.
  Mr. Chairman, I am not sure that this approach works. I think after 
looking at a number of different approaches, the committee decided that 
all three options ought to be on the ballot; that the people, given the 
political cultural history of people on the islands, they ought to be 
able to express it along those lines.
  I am sure there are many people that might vote for independence, 
which historically has been the third party out. The notion of a runoff 
to many of these people, that is not an option to them. They would not 
go from independence to saying they are looking for statehood. It does 
not work.
  This is a political process where people have very, very strong 
convictions. We may want to transport the mainland system, where people 
kind of wander around between Republicans and Democrats and different 
options and do not seem to hold the same kind of convictions. On this 
issue, people have very strongly held positions, and the fact that you 
lose the runoff does not mean you then convert that position 
immediately to one of the other options, because that is not how your 
political positions have evolved or have been articulated over the many 
years of this relationship.
  Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. MILLER of California. I yield to the gentleman from Florida.
  Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, for example, let us say it turns out 
commonwealth gets 46 percent, statehood gets 43 percent, and the 
remaining goes for a sovereign nation. Then you would have the runoff 
of the commonwealth and the statehood. Those people who believe in 
independence would probably support Commonwealth, and it would move to 
probably 53 or 54 percent. So then we in Congress would know 
immediately that they prefer the commonwealth or independence 
alternative rather than statehood.
  I think that information is very important for the people in Puerto 
Rico to know and important for Members of Congress to know when we 
determine whether this country should move forward to statehood. It is 
another critical piece of information. It gives democracy a chance to 
work, and gives the people who support independence an opportunity to 
vote again.
  Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I am not 
sure that is a real option to many of the people who support 
independence. They will have to determine that. I remain opposed to the 
amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Stearns).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 376, further proceedings 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Stearns) 
will be postponed.
  Are there further amendments to the bill?


                Amendment No. 5 Offered by Mr. Gutierrez

  Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Chairman, I offer Amendment No. 5.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows.

       Amendment No. 5 offered by Mr. Gutierrez: In section 2, in 
     paragraph (2), strike ``Consistent with establishment of 
     United States nationality for inhabitants of Puerto Rico 
     under the Treaty of Paris,''.

  Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young) 
spoke earlier about the hour being late and how people do not listen 
and do not pay attention, but I have got to tell you, we got to. This 
is a very important issue.
  Why do I want to strike these words? I hope that the gentleman from 
Alaska (Mr. Young) and others would participate in this debate, because 
I think it is important.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise to present an amendment and to move the first 
three lines of the findings under the word ``Paris,'' because that 
statement is false.
  I have there at my desk a complete copy and text of the Treaty of 
Paris signed by both the United States of America and Spain, in Paris, 
France, on December 10, 1898. I have read, and I hope all of the 
Members before they enter into a decision read the Treaty of Paris.
  Mr. Chairman, the only, I repeat, the only mention of the word 
``nationality'' is found within Article IX of the treaty, and it refers 
to the future Spanish subjects residing in the newly acquired 
territories. Because this issue goes directly to whether Puerto Ricans 
not only are a distinct people, but also to whether this fact has 
always been recognized by our Congress, our government, and the people 
of the United States, Mr. Chairman, I am going to quote it in full.
  Article IX. Listen. You will learn a little bit of history tonight.
  ``Spanish subjects, natives of the Peninsula, residing in the 
territory over which Spain by the present treaty relinquishes or 
secedes her sovereignty, may remain in such territory or may remove 
therefrom, retaining in either event all their rights of property, 
including the right to sell or dispose of such property or its 
proceeds, and they shall also have the right to carry on in their 
industry, commerce and professions, being subject in respect thereof to 
such laws that are applicable to other foreigners. In case they remain 
in the territory, they may preserve their allegiance to the Crown of 
Spain by making before a court of record, within a year from the date 
of the exchange of ratification of this treaty, a declaration of their 
decision to preserve such allegiance; in default of which declaration 
they shall be held to have renounced it and adopted the nationality of 
the territory in which they may reside,'' Puerto Rico.
  So when we talk about the issue of nationality, it is right in the 
Treaty of Paris.
  ``The civil rights and the political status of the native inhabitants 
of the territories hereby ceded to the United States shall be 
determined by the Congress.''
  Let me repeat that. ``The civil rights and political status of the 
native inhabitants of the territory,'' that is Puerto Rico, ``hereby 
ceded to the United States shall be determined by the Congress.''
  Mr. Chairman, I challenge any of my colleagues to prove me wrong and 
to find another place in the text of the Treaty of Paris in question 
the word ``nationality.'' It is nowhere else to be found in the treaty.
  Now, let us go back to the treaty. ``In default of which declaration 
they shall be held to have renounced it and adopted the nationality of 
the territory in which they may reside.''
  ``The nationality of the territory in which they may reside.''
  What nationality? Of Puerto Rico.
  Now, Mr. Chairman, as I understand it, treaties are in essence 
contracts between two or several nations. Treaties tend to be specific 
and clear. The failure of a treaty between two or several nations to be 
clear about its terms has led on more than one occasion to dispute.
  Mr. Chairman, this is serious business. If the United States Congress 
wished to grant Puerto Ricans the nationality of the United States, as 
it is claimed in the so-called findings of the Young bill, why is it 
not spelled out clearly and specifically in the Treaty of Paris?
  Let me go back and read to you other relevant parts of the treaty 
which I think will shed light on this article. In Article I of the 
treaty, it says, ``Spain relinquishes all claims of sovereignty over 
the title of Cuba.''
  In Article II it says, ``Spain cedes to the United States the island 
of Puerto Rico and other islands now under Spanish sovereignty in the 
West Indies, and the island of Guam in the Marianas or Ladrones.''
  In Article III it says, ``Spain cedes to the United States the 
archipelago known as the Philippine Islands.''
  Mr. Chairman, I ask, where in this Treaty of Paris did the Congress 
of the United States expressly extend United States nationality?
  Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Ms. VELAZQUEZ. I yield to the gentleman from Illinois.
  Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Chairman, I ask, where in the Treaty of Paris did

[[Page H825]]

the Congress of the United States expressly extend United States 
nationality, think about that, to the people of Cuba, to the people of 
Guam, to the people of the Philippines or Puerto Rico? It is nowhere to 
be found in the Treaty of Paris.
  This so-called finding is a lie. It implies that the failure to 
declare allegiance to the Crown of Spain by a specified date meant the 
establishment of United States nationality for the inhabitants of 
Puerto Rico. In other words, they interpret the Treaty of Paris to say, 
hey, if you did not renounce your sovereignty under Spain, you became 
nationals. But we did not say that. The United States of America did 
not grant that to those people. It says, of nationals of that 
territory, the only territory being Puerto Rico.
  The terms of the treaty are very clear. Spanish subjects who fail to 
declare their allegiance to the Spanish Crown by a specified date 
became, in the words of the Treaty of Paris, not Americans or American 
citizens, but nationals of the territory in which they reside. In the 
case of Puerto Rico, clearly they became nationals of Puerto Rico, 
because they were not citizens of the United States, and we did not 
grant them United States nationality.
  I ask anybody to look at that treaty and find something different.
  Mr. Chairman, I think it is very clear, they became Cuban nationals, 
Guam nationals, Philippine nationals, and Puerto Rican nationals. And 
you know something, Mr. Young, the Cubans became independent. Guam, the 
Philippines. So think about it, they were nationals of a nation, along 
with other people of other territories.
  Mr. Chairman, Puerto Rico is a separate and distinct nation with its 
own culture, language and history. But the proponents of H.R. 856 seek 
to deny the existence of the Puerto Rican nation with its very defined 
terms.
  Mr. Chairman, this fact of the existence of a clearly defined Puerto 
Rican nationality is exactly the reason why Congress has not once in 
100 years since the Treaty of Paris incorporated Puerto Rico as a 
territory.
  Mr. Chairman, there is very extensive public available research which 
will substantiate each and every one of my assertions.
  Finally, I will limit my presentation to the following: Think about 
it. After the Treaty of Paris, what is the next document that we have 
in relationship between Puerto Rico and the United States? You know 
what it was, Mr. Young? It was the act of Congress in 1900 known as the 
Foraker Act, the first organic act of Puerto Rico. And guess what? 
Under the section General Provisions of that act of Congress, it puts 
to rest any notion that the Treaty of Paris established United States 
nationality for inhabitants of Puerto Rico, as is alleged in this false 
finding, because I am going to quote it to you. This is an act of 
Congress, 1900 Foraker Act, section 7:

       All inhabitants continuing to reside therein who were 
     Spanish subjects on the 11th day of April, 1899, and their 
     children born subsequent to them, shall be deemed and held to 
     be citizens of Puerto Rico, and as such entitled to the 
     protection of the United States, except such as have elected 
     to preserve their allegiance to the Crown of Spain in 
     accordance with the provisions of the treaty of peace between 
     the United States and Spain; and they, together with such 
     citizens of the United States as may reside in Puerto Rico, 
     shall constitute the body politic under the name people of 
     the people of Puerto Rico.

                              {time}  1930

  Puerto Rico is a nation, under the Foraker Act of Congress. We did 
not give them nationality, we did not give them anything. We signed a 
treaty. So please stop saying that it is a group of people; the Foraker 
Act in 1990 and every subsequent piece of legislation. I am not, and I 
ask anybody to stand up and find where in the Foraker Act it says that 
Puerto Ricans were granted American nationality. It is not there in the 
Treaty of Paris.
  I would think that King George III, he must have just turned. I can 
just see him. If he would just show up for a second, I could just see 
him, because King George must have said, God, did I just hear a Member 
of Congress say that Puerto Rico is not a nation, that it is just a 
group of people? Because I think, as the King of England, I once said 
that about the 13 colonies.
  They said those 13 colonies are not a nation. That is not a group of 
people, that is just a group of colonies that we got out there that we 
own. They would have been cheering and applauding the English throne. 
They would have said, God, we have Members of Congress who say to us 
today, in 1998, after 1776 declaring our independence from the King and 
England, that still people dispute that there are nations out there. 
They are there. The facts are clear.
  Mr. ROMERO-BARCELO. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite 
number of words.
  Mr. Chairman, I had a teacher in law school who said that when you 
had the facts, you harped on the facts. When you had the law on your 
side, you harped on the law. When you did not have the facts or law on 
your side, you made a hell of a mess, and pleaded all over the place.
  That is precisely what the gentleman from Illinois is doing. He is 
trying to confuse the issues here. I repeat once more, Puerto Rico is 
not a nation, as we understand nations to be, and they have no 
participation in international organizations as a separate nation. The 
United States represents Puerto Rico and all the 50 States in all 
international organizations.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to submit, if the gentleman from Illinois and the 
gentlewoman from New York feel that they belong to a different nation, 
a different nation than the United States, I would recommend that 
perhaps they should renounce their seats and let some Americans occupy 
their seats.
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the 
amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, the Congress is given the responsibility to determine 
the civil rights and status of the inhabitants of Puerto Rico under the 
Treaty of Paris. I have the Treaty of Paris in front of me. I do not 
want to get into a great debate with my friend, the gentleman from 
Illinois, but Congress extended U.S. sovereignty to Puerto Rico and 
U.S. nationality to its residents.
  Consequently, I oppose the amendment, and I think that we ought to 
have a vote on the amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there further debate on the amendment?
  If not, the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman 
from Illinois (Mr. Gutierrez).
  The amendment was rejected.
  The CHAIRMAN. Are there further amendments?


                Amendment Offered by Mr. Barr of Georgia

  Mr. BARR of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment, the short 
version.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Barr of Georgia: In section 
     4(c)(3)(B), strike ``Approval must be by a majority of the 
     valid votes cast.'' and insert ``Approval of the separate 
     sovereignty option must be by a majority of the valid 
     votes cast, and approval of the statehood option must be 
     by a super-majority of 75 percent of the valid votes 
     cast.''.
       In section 5(c)(2), strike ``majority vote for'' and insert 
     ``in the approval of''.

  Mr. BARR of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, we have heard a lot of proponents 
of H.R. 856 argue that this bill is necessary in order to offer the 
people of Puerto Rico the opportunity to determine their own political 
destiny. This is not right. This is not correct.
  No one disputes that Puerto Rico should have the right to self-
determination. As a matter of fact, they already have that right. 
Nothing prevents the Puerto Rican people from petitioning Congress for 
admission to the Union without the necessity of a federally-mandated 
plebiscite. But Puerto Rico has not done so. Why not? It may very well 
be that because ever since the first plebiscite was held in 1952, the 
majority of Puerto Ricans have never asked for statehood.
  In the last plebiscite, held in 1993, none of the status options 
received a majority of the vote. In fact, only 46 percent of Puerto 
Ricans chose statehood, while an even larger number, 49 percent, voted 
to retain Commonwealth status. Concerning the permanent, irrevocable 
nature of statehood, it does not make sense to grant it unless the 
overwhelming majority of Puerto Ricans favor such a step.
  Recent national polls show that American and Puerto Ricans alike 
support a requirement that statehood be approved by a supermajority of 
Puerto Rican voters. According to an April 1997 Public Opinion 
Strategies poll, 61 percent of mainland Americans favored a requirement 
that statehood be approved by a supermajority of at least 75 percent of 
the popular vote.

[[Page H826]]

  Likewise, a June 1997 poll of Puerto Rican voters conducted by 
American Viewpoint demonstrated that 57 percent of Puerto Ricans also 
supported such a requirement.
  The amendment I am offering follows the will of the people, both in 
the United States mainland and in Puerto Rico, a 75 percent 
supermajority for the Puerto Rican approval vote, which in the later 
step is a completely reasonable requirement when one considers the fact 
that Alaskans gave 83 percent approval to statehood and Hawaii gave 94 
percent.
  Why is a supermajority requirement necessary? Let us look at the big 
picture. English is the common language of the United States. It is not 
the common language of Puerto Rico. Spanish is an official language of 
Puerto Rico. It is the language of its courts and its legislature and 
its schools.
  According to the 1990 census, less than a quarter of all Puerto 
Ricans speak English. In 1996 this House voted overwhelmingly to make 
English the official language of the United States. Eighty-six percent 
of Americans favor making English the official language of the United 
States and 74 percent of Americans favor a requirement making Puerto 
Rico accept English as its official language prior to becoming a State.
  Puerto Rican statehood and the overwhelming mandate for making 
English the official language of the United States will inevitably 
generate a contentious debate over issues of language and culture. If 
this friction translates into political turmoil similar to the bitter 
separatist struggle in Quebec, it could undermine the long-term 
assimilation of Puerto Rico, or even worse, provoke resentment, 
violence, or acts of terrorism against mainland U.S. and supporters of 
Puerto Rican statehood.
  This is why I say to my colleagues, let the will of the people be 
heard, but let us make sure it truly is the will of the people, 
consistent with the historical standards that were maintained with 
regard to the admission of the last two States of the Union, Alaska and 
Hawaii, during which or in both of which votes, well over 80 percent of 
the people voted for statehood.
  What we are simply saying in this case, with regard to Puerto Rico 
becoming a State, is that before that becomes a reality, and in order 
to ensure a true plebiscite, we ought to require and should require 
through this amendment a 75 percent supermajority.
  I ask adoption of this amendment.
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the 
amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I ask the question of the gentleman, if I understand 
the gentleman correctly, he has modified his amendment from the 
original text where it only applies to the admission stage; is that 
correct?
  Mr. BARR of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. I yield to the gentleman from Georgia.
  Mr. BARR of Georgia. That is correct.
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. This does not apply to the plebiscite that will 
be taken in the first stage?
  Mr. BARR of Georgia. That is correct.
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. That does not apply to the second stage?
  Mr. BARR of Georgia. To the Puerto Rican approval after congressional 
consideration?
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. This is not necessary, except only in the case 
where the plebiscite voted for statehood and they made the application 
to the Congress, the Congress votes, there is a transition stage, this 
goes back, and they have to reach the 75 percent?
  Mr. BARR of Georgia. That is correct.
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. The only question I have, what other States 
required that in the title or in the text of the statehood act? Were 
there any other States that ever required that?
  Mr. BARR of Georgia. I think this is a unique situation. The 
gentleman is certainly correct in his implication that this has not 
been required before, but I do not think that is necessarily a reason 
why, in this particular case, given the language difficulties and the 
very strong feelings; I mean, the gentleman is sitting at a desk where 
there is a bullet hole by some Puerto Rican separatists. Tempers can 
run very high on this.
  This amendment was intended so that it truly reaches the vast 
majority of people, and I think will be a tempering amendment as well.
  Mr. Chairman, to those who say that this is nothing but rhetoric; 
that it couldn't happen here, well, I have news for you. It has already 
happened here. Right here in this very Chamber. On March 1, 1954, 
Puerto Rican nationalists ascended to the House gallery, drew pistols, 
and opened fire. Before they were subdued, five Congressmen lay wounded 
on the House floor. To this very day, we can see the evidence of their 
handiwork. Inside that desk, is a drawer with a bullet hole.
  Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last 
word.
  Mr. Chairman, I think the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Barr) is 
correct in one aspect of his amendment. That is, I think that 
ultimately for this act to succeed, the vote to change the status in 
Puerto Rico to State should be by a supermajority.
  In the past, that has happened in other States because of the 
enthusiasm by the end of the process for statehood, and when they in 
fact voted on the admission, as the proponents of this amendment 
pointed out, they voted by 79 percent and other supermajorities, but 
there was no requirement that they voted. Had Alaska voted by 50.1 
percent, it would have been a State. It voted by 79, but there was no 
requirement. This would be the first time that we have placed this 
requirement on this.
  I agree with that requirement, but I am deeply disturbed by the fact 
that we have a 75 percent threshold here. I just think that we have 
raised the bar where in fact this amendment, in all likelihood, could 
torpedo this act; or should the people in Puerto Rico choose to go 
forward with the process of adopting statehood, that this in fact could 
be a defeat of that aspect.
  I think a reasonable higher percentage, above 50 percent, is 
understandable, but I do not believe that 75 percent is it, and for 
that reason I would oppose this amendment.
  Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I just rise in support of the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Barr) that would require the supermajority 
of 75 percent. The reason is that we have heard many times that no 
other States have had to have this requirement. But no other States 
have been so apparently divided on the question of becoming a State; no 
other territories, if you will.
  Mr. Chairman, I believe that 75 percent is conservative. I believe it 
is a minimum level. It would bother me that we would have a territory 
that wants to become a State with less than 75 percent. I would think, 
Mr. Chairman, that it would be 90 or 95 percent of the people wanting 
to join officially as a State into the great United States of America.
  I believe that the 75 percent is there because the gentleman from 
Georgia (Mr. Barr) and many Members of Congress realize that this is a 
controversial measure. It is a measure that is dividing the island of 
Puerto Rico. We do not know if it is going to be yes, we do not know if 
it is going to be no, but both sides agree that it is going to be a 
very, very close vote.
  I think it would be a shame to admit a new State to the Union where 
we do not have at least 75 percent of the people who enthusiastically 
are willing and want all the rights and privileges of being a State.
  Mr. ROMERO-BARCELO. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite 
number of words.
  Mr. Chairman, I oppose the amendment on the basis that this 75 
percent on the final vote the third time is excessive. Today with the 
mass media and the use of the mass media in any kind of election, it is 
easy to reach 25 percent or more. Just by one 26 percent, all of a 
sudden something stops. And 74 percent, a majority in Puerto Rico, then 
if the opposition gets 26 percent, the whole thing stops.
  I think the requirement of 75 percent is extremely high. I think it 
would dampen the spirits of the people themselves, to say, why should 
we be required 75 percent when nobody else was required more than 50 
percent? Some States were even admitted to the Union with less than 50 
percent. They voted for statehood less than 50 percent, yet they were 
admitted into the

[[Page H827]]

Union. With Puerto Rico it is 75 percent. I think this is too 
exaggerated, and I would oppose it.
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite 
number of words.
  Mr. Chairman, there is a lot of information being disseminated by 
members of this committee that this is a stacked deck against 
Commonwealth. I would respectfully ask them to read the bill. In fact, 
it enhances the Commonwealth position. I am a little bit concerned that 
the type of information being displayed and disseminated by other 
members of this House to those that did vote in favor of the Young-
Miller-McCollum-Burton amendment ought to understand that this bill has 
been carefully crafted contrary to what people may say, and only the 
Congress has the right to define what Commonwealth is.

                              {time}  1945

  Only the Congress. And so, Mr. Chairman, those who will be watching 
this debate on television should reconsider some of the information 
they have received in the very few minutes since the last vote. I just 
ask Members to do that as they watch this debate, to understand that we 
have crafted this bill very balanced and very straightforward.
  Those who say the bill has not seriously considered commonwealth, 
look at the original text. I did not be even include commonwealth in 
it. But because supporters of commonwealth came to me, we wrote with 
the gentleman from California (Mr. Miller) a definition that does give 
them advantage. I would just like to suggest that we stick to the 
script.
  Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the 
requisite number of words.
  Mr. Chairman, once again I would like to commend the gentleman from 
Alaska (Mr. Young), chairman of the Committee on Resources, for his 
work on this bill. It is a historic bill. I feel very privileged to be 
a member of this committee, to have been able to work on this 
legislation, to have had the chance to travel to Puerto Rico many times 
over the course of the last 2 years to hear the voice of the people of 
Puerto Rico.
  Initially when I came to Puerto Rico I was sympathetic to the 
commonwealth cause because that is the cause that has been historically 
identified with the Democratic Party of which I am a Member. And yet I 
felt from the testimony of the people in Puerto Rico that there is a 
transformation going on in Puerto Rico, because the people of Puerto 
Rico have finally come to the realization that commonwealth status is 
no longer the best of both worlds. It does not mean, as many people 
thought it meant, that there was a bilateral agreement between the 
people of Puerto Rico and the United States.
  Mr. Chairman, I wish that we had had that bilateral agreement. I wish 
the people were right when they said that they had an equal voice as 
the United States when it came to determining the laws of Puerto Rico. 
But unfortunately, Mr. Chairman, that is not the case right now in 
Puerto Rico.
  If we need evidence of it, all we need to do is go back to the 103rd 
Congress, last Congress, and see that this Congress unanimously, 
without the support of the people of Puerto Rico, did away with 936, 
the tax status in Puerto Rico. The reason we did away with it is, guess 
what, it is up to this Congress to choose; not the people of Puerto 
Rico. I find that very upsetting. I find that very troubling that we in 
this Congress can decide arbitrarily what the law is going to be for 
Puerto Rico, and yet they have no voice in the matter. So that is why 
we have come to this bill and that is why we need to support this 
legislation.
  Mr. Chairman, in conclusion let me just say those who say 
commonwealth is not favored in this legislation are right, because when 
we define commonwealth status we understand that it can be nothing more 
than territorial status. Like it or not, that is the legal opinion of 
the Supreme Court, of the constitutional experts. Even the United 
Nations know that commonwealth status is not a recognized final status.
  So when people say we leave it up for another vote and another vote 
and another vote when there is not a majority who vote for statehood, 
the reason is that some day the people of Puerto Rico have to choose 
between the constitutionally accepted choices of final status, i.e. 
independence which is recognized, or full assimilation with the United 
States with respect to statehood for the people of Puerto Rico.
  Now, in conclusion, let me just say anybody who has been to the 
Puerto Rican community in my State should know that simply because they 
are in Rhode Island does not mean they have taken away any of their 
Puerto Rican identity. I know for sure that, having been to Puerto 
Rico, even if they become an ``estado,'' it is not going to change the 
people of Puerto Rico. They will still be the shining star of the 
Caribbean and will still have their own culture and identity. There is 
nothing that will take that away from them.
  But ultimately they will have the right of every other American 
citizen to vote for a Congressman who will represent them in the halls 
of this Congress when we choose to make decisions that affect the 
people of Puerto Rico. That is why we need to pass the Young bill as is 
and let a majority of the public decide, which has always been the 
case: a majority decides.
  Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to say to the gentleman from Rhode Island 
(Mr. Kennedy), my friend, that number one, I think it would be good for 
us if the gentleman could please offer to us the Supreme Court decision 
sometime that states that the commonwealth does not exist, because I 
would like to read it.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to also see something from the United 
Nations, since the gentleman referred to the United Nations, where the 
United Nations says that the autonomous status is somehow also 
something that is not acceptable in international law. Because I would 
really like to see that for my own edification.
  I think that that is important because I think that that is the 
process that we are about here today, is learning from one another. 
Because I can bring the gentleman the Foraker Act that was passed in 
1900 that says this Congress gave Puerto Ricans Puerto Rican 
citizenship. I have here the Treaty of Paris which says that those 
members of that territory will be nationals of that territory. 
Complete, complete disregard for these findings that we have here.
  So there is a lot to be debated and I think that we really do have to 
understand something. Let us have a debate about some constructive 
questions. Unfortunately, because of the way the rules are worked out, 
we only could debate it today. It seems interesting.
  I always wondered, as I said yesterday, if we were determining our 
future relationship with Israel, if the 40-some-odd Jewish Members and 
others of us here who care about that relationship would want to limit 
it to one day; if it were about Ireland, if the gentleman from Rhode 
Island and others would say, ``God, Luis,'' if I came to them and said 
we have to limit it to one day; if it was about South Africa and the 
African-American Members would say, ``We have to limit it to one day?'' 
It is sad. So much to discuss. So much to debate. So much to learn 
about. And yet so little time to make this momentous decision.
  That is what I really think. No one hears about the Foraker Act. Did 
my colleagues read the Jones Act of 1917? Did they read Law 600 of 
1950? No, it is like the complete history is in these findings. 
Findings that were prepared.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to repeat something. I think that the gentleman 
from California (Mr. Miller) did a great job, but let us understand 
something. The gentleman said before the Committee on Rules yesterday 
that when he could not reach an agreement with the ``commonwealthers,'' 
he took that definition from the commonwealthers, took it to them and 
it was rejected. Then do my colleagues know what he did next? He said 
he sat down with the gentleman from Puerto Rico (Mr. Romero-Barcelo) 
and the two of them made an agreement of what that definition should 
be.
  I do not think that is an exactly fair and equitable manner of 
arriving at definitions that are going to determine the future of 
Puerto Rico. I thought we had a democracy here, bipartisan. Mr. 
Chairman, can my colleagues imagine if I got to write the platform for 
the

[[Page H828]]

Democratic Party and said here it is, go run on it?
  Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. GUTIERREZ. I yield to the gentleman from Rhode Island.
  Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the 
gentleman's frustration that we have only had a day. I have enjoyed the 
fact that we could pack a lot into this day, even more than the time 
that we have.
  Let me just say that consistent with the Principles 6, 7, 8, and 9 of 
the Annex Resolution 1541 of the United Nations General Assembly, the 
U.N., statehood is the decolonizing status option for decolonization.
  Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time for a moment, because 
that is interesting, the United Nations. And what about section 748?
  Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island. Independence also.
  Mr. GUTIERREZ. It is also independence, and also autonomy is in 
there. Is it not interesting that the gentleman says that the United 
Nations says that self-determination is statehood, the ultimate 
assimilation of one country by another?
  My only point is the Supreme Court has ruled on this thing invariably 
differently. There is no definite decision about that. All I am saying 
is that Cabot Lodge went down there, made the agreement. We went before 
the Committee on Decolonization. We went before them, before the world 
community, and said the people of Puerto Rico and the United States 
have reached a compact. We came back here to Congress and we said this 
is what we are going to respect.
  Now I know the gentleman is going to go back and say that did not 
exist and it was a big lie. The Congress lied. Cabot Lodge lied. We 
were all one big liar. Is that what we are saying here today? 
Eisenhower lied. Everybody lied. I do not think quite we can say that.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Barr).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. BARR of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, on that I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 376, further proceedings 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Barr) will 
be postponed.


               Amendment No. 29 Offered by Ms. Velazquez

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

       Amendment No. 29 offered by Ms. Velazquez: At the end of 
     section 2, add the following new paragraph:
       (16) On November 18, 1997, the Supreme Court of Puerto Rico 
     decided in Ramirez de Ferrer v. Mari Bras, CT-96-14, that 
     there exists a Puerto Rican citizenship which is ``separate 
     and distinct'' from the United States citizenship and that 
     persons born in Puerto Rico who are Puerto Rican citizens may 
     not be denied the right to vote in Puerto Rico even if they 
     are not United States citizens.

  Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Chairman, this amendment adds a new finding to the 
bill. It recognizes the separate and distinct nature of Puerto Rican 
citizenship.
  The amendment provides that on November 18, 1997, the Supreme Court 
of Puerto Rico decided that there exists Puerto Rican citizenship which 
is separate and distinct from the United States citizenship. The court 
further found that persons born in Puerto Rico who are Puerto Rican 
citizens may not be denied the right to vote in Puerto Rico if they are 
not United States citizens.
  Juan Mari Bras, the subject of this lawsuit, has challenged us to 
take a close look at the nature of Puerto Rico nationality and 
citizenship. The proponents of the bill insist that the Puerto Rican 
people have no rights other than what Congress has granted them. This 
reading of history is outright wrong and deceiving. This deliberate 
omission of fact from the findings is yet another example of the 
misleading hand behind the drafting of this bill.
  By omitting this finding, we are ignoring the fundamental protections 
of international human rights as well as the U.S. Constitution. Almost 
50 years ago, several years after the creation of the United Nations, 
the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, a treaty signed and ratified 
by the United States Congress, provided under Article 15 that everyone 
has a right to nationality.
  Furthermore, Article 19 of the American Declaration of the Rights and 
Duties of Man, as well as article 20 of the American Convention of 
Human Rights, recognized this fundamental international right and 
protection.
  The existence of a separate and distinct Puerto Rican citizenship and 
that the Puerto Rican people form a Nation cannot be questioned. The 
Puerto Rican people have a distinct language and culture and a defined 
geographical territory, and it has been self-governing since the 1950s 
through the commonwealth relationship entered with mutual consent with 
the United States.
  Neither the Jones Act nor the Puerto Rican Federal Relations Act took 
Puerto Ricans' inherent right to their own nationality and to be 
citizens of their nation. The Supreme Court, the Puerto Rico Supreme 
Court's recent ruling confirms this historical and legal 
interpretation.
  Mr. Chairman, we should not approve a bill with such a 
misinterpretation of Puerto Rico's nationality and citizenship rights. 
I urge my colleagues to support my amendment.
  Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment. I propose to add 
this finding because I think it is very important for Congress to 
understand the reality of the Puerto Rican people. This bill makes a 
formal offer of statehood, too.
  This amendment informs Congress and the American people about a very 
recent and very important decision made by the Supreme Court of Puerto 
Rico of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, of which the Resident 
Commissioner was once Governor.

                              {time}  2000

  In the case of Miriam J. Ramirez de Ferrer, a great supporter of 
statehood in Puerto Rico, against Juan Mari Bras, somebody who wishes 
independence for Puerto Rico, in this momentous decision the Supreme 
Court of Puerto Rico, not Luis Gutierrez, the Congressman from the 
Fourth District of the State of Illinois, but the Supreme Court of 
Puerto Rico determined that Puerto Rican citizenship is a birthright of 
all persons born on the island, borne of the natural right of all 
persons guaranteed under the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Puerto 
Rico. I did not make this up. This is a recent decision of the Supreme 
Court of Puerto Rico. Talk about self-determination.
  Are we simply going to disregard that decision, the same Supreme 
Court where there is a statehood Governor currently in Puerto Rico? 
This Supreme Court decision based both on Federal law and precedent as 
well as the Constitution of the Commonwealth was that Puerto Rican 
citizenship is, and I quote, separate and distinct from United States 
citizenship.
  A very well known and respected leader of the movement for Puerto 
Rican independence, Mr. Juan Mari Bras traveled to Venezuela and in 
accordance with U.S. law went to the U.S. Embassy in Venezuela and 
filed an application to renounce his American citizenship. He returned 
to Puerto Rico and resumed his law practice. A year later he received a 
formal certificate accepting his resignation of American citizenship. 
When he registered to vote in Puerto Rico, his right to vote in the 
Puerto Rican election was challenged. The case went all the way to the 
Puerto Rican Supreme Court, which upheld his right to vote in Puerto 
Rican elections. The Court decided also that while it was 
constitutional for the Puerto Rican Legislature to require U.S. 
citizenship to vote in Puerto Rico, along with residence and other 
requirements, native-born Puerto Ricans are guaranteed their right to 
vote in Puerto Rican elections by sole virtue of their Puerto Rican 
citizenship conferred to them by their birth in Puerto Rico. So states 
the Supreme Court of Puerto Rico.
  This is very important because it highlights the important fact that 
Puerto Rico is indeed a nation, that citizenship and nationality are 
two different things. It is in the Treaty of

[[Page H829]]

Paris. It is in the Foraker Act. It is in this recent decision, because 
I know that some of my colleagues are saying, why are you going so far 
back? Well, I went back 90 years, and now I am coming present.
  Members should know this, this Congress, that the Supreme Court 
Justices, all American citizens, had decided, what do you do with Juan 
Mari Bras? He was born in Puerto Rico. He renounces his American 
citizenship. What country do you send him to? Where do you get rid of 
him to? The Supreme Court said he was born on this island, there is 
nothing we can do. He renounced it, and he has no other country because 
he is a national of this nation, Puerto Rico.
  I suggest to anybody to please explain to me what you do with people 
in the circumstances of Juan Mari Bras.
  Now, I think it is important that we discuss and debate all these 
issues. Unfortunately, we will not have enough time today.
  Mr. ROMERO-BARCELO. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the 
amendment, and I move to strike the requisite number of words.
  Mr. Chairman, we have been hearing about the nation of Puerto Rico, 
and once again I repeat, Puerto Rico in geopolitical terms is not a 
nation. One might consider Puerto Rico a nation in sociological terms, 
but not in geopolitical position.
  We are a community. What the gentleman from Illinois and the 
gentlewoman from New York are trying to do here is trying to confuse 
the issue by saying Puerto Rico is a nation, a different nation; 
therefore we have to treat it differently from what we treat all the 
other U.S. citizens. But the issue before us is clear. The issue before 
us is, are we going to allow self-determination or not to the U.S. 
citizens in Puerto Rico. All this extraneous material that is being 
brought up here today is for the purpose of confusing. There is no 
legitimate purpose on this issue to have to consider what happened in 
1900, what happened in 1902.
  What we are trying to do is what happens now, what happens in the 
future. The decision in the case of Juan Mari Bras was by a Supreme 
Court in Puerto Rico where five out of the seven members were appointed 
by the Governor, who is of the Commonwealth Party, and all of them had 
been active politically before they were appointed to the bench. The 
Chief Judge of the Supreme Court of Puerto Rico was a lawyer of the 
Commonwealth Party in electoral matters, in matters of election. He is 
the Chief Judge of the Supreme Court.
  The decision by the Supreme Court very carefully kept away from all 
Federal laws and the U.S. Constitution very carefully so the decision 
could not be questioned in the Federal forum. It has been highly 
criticized as a horrendous judicial decision by many outstanding 
attorneys in Puerto Rico.
  So those things happen in this issue of the status. This is why it is 
necessary to bring before Congress and Congress allow the people of 
Puerto Rico to vote to see if we can put an end and decide finally 
which road Puerto Rico is going to take.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Velazquez).
  The amendment was rejected.
  The CHAIRMAN. Are there further amendments?


                Amendment No. 4 Offered by Mr. Gutierrez

  Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:
       Amendment No. 4 offered by Mr. Gutierrez:
       Strike section 2 and redesignate the succeeding sections 
     accordingly.
       In section 1(b), in the table of contents, strike the item 
     relating to section 2 and redesignate the succeeding items 
     accordingly.

  Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Chairman, this amendment seeks to address the 
grave injustice done to the independence and to the commonwealth 
versions of Puerto Rican history that are included in these findings. 
As I have shown previously in the debate on the findings sections, the 
findings sections to be included in this bill have been chosen to 
provide a distorted pro-statehood version of Puerto Rican history, 
beginning with the very denial that Puerto Rico ever existed as a 
nation and as a people.
  It is unfair to present such an unbalanced view of the Puerto Rican 
history if the true objective of this bill were truly self-
determination. Rather than attempt a superficial discussion on 
historical facts on which those of us with a little knowledge of Puerto 
Rican history find it very hard to agree upon, and upon which, in all 
truth, the majority of my colleagues unfortunately know little of the 
details, and of the interpretation of those historical details, we are 
asked to subscribe to with our vote.
  This bill is so slanted in favor of statehood, especially in the 
findings section, that it is really an overkill. The purpose of this 
very conveniently selected presentation of Puerto Rican history is to 
provide political ammunition to the Statehood Party during the 
plebiscite campaign. Adoption of this amendment will make this bill 
less unfair and less skewed in favor of statehood.
  I have just shown you clearly, I think, when we spoke about the 
Treaty of Paris, that nowhere in the Treaty of Paris, and I asked the 
gentleman from Puerto Rico if he has found in the Treaty of Paris where 
it says United States nationality, because if he finds it, then you 
know I will take it back, because then maybe I missed it somewhere, but 
he has not responded to that. Where it is in the Foraker Act of 1900, I 
asked the gentleman from Puerto Rico to please find. And it says there, 
Puerto Rican citizenship. It exists. It existed as a nation of people.
  There is a difference between nationality and citizenship. That has 
already been determined throughout the world. Yes, Puerto Ricans are 
nationals. I know that some of them feel less Puerto Rican than others 
and that there may be degrees to which people feel. I am sure that when 
we had the great war of independence from Great Britain, there were 
many of those who said, oh, God, I do not want to be a member of that 
new emerging Nation of those 13 colonies. I kind of like King George. 
He is okay. And there were others who felt as Thomas Paine, as 
Jefferson and as others, that it was time to incorporate into a new 
Nation and to make that Nation valid. That is what we have got in 
Puerto Rico.
  Let us understand it. Let us not skew the issue. I ask that the 
findings just simply be eliminated because what you are doing, if you 
allow these findings, is a blank check, because they will take these 
findings, convert them into 30-second commercials and distort the 
reality of the congressional intent.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Gutierrez).
  The amendment was rejected.
  The CHAIRMAN. Are there further amendments?


               Amendment No. 21 Offered by Mr. Gutierrez

  Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:
       Amendment No. 21 offered by Mr. Gutierrez:
       In section 4(a), insert after paragraph (6) of the 
     referendum language for Statehood the following new paragraph 
     (and redesignate the succeeding paragraphs accordingly):
       ``(7) Notwithstanding the Amateur Sports Act of 1978. 
     Puerto Rico retains its separate Olympic Committee and 
     ability to compete under its own flag and national anthem in 
     international athletic competitions, even against the United 
     States.''

  Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Chairman, under statehood, according to the 
International Olympic Committee and the Amateur Sports Act of 1979, the 
United States Olympic is the sole representative in the Olympic games 
and Pan American games, of which Puerto Rico participates in both the 
Olympics, sending its own team from Puerto Rico to the Olympics and Pan 
American games. No other body or organization can represent the U.S. or 
any part thereof if they become a State of the Union. If Puerto Rico 
becomes a State, it is extremely unlikely that they may compete in 
Olympic games separately from the U.S. as an Olympic team, as has been 
the long history of the people of Puerto Rico. To the end the 
International Olympic Committee granted the National Olympic Committee 
of the United States exclusive powers for their representation for 
their respective countries at the Olympic games and all other OIC-
sanctioned events.
  Evidently, if Puerto Ricans are pushed to vote in favor of statehood,

[[Page H830]]

they are going to lose one of their most treasured traditions of 
representation in the sports arena. Furthermore, Puerto Rico would no 
longer be able to participate in the Olympics as a separate entity. 
Puerto Ricans would be forced to lose one of their richest and 
treasured sources of patriotic pride.
  I want to remind my fellow colleagues that Puerto Rico is such a 
proud nation that when President Carter called for a boycott of the 
Moscow games in 1990, the Puerto Rican national Olympic team sent two 
athletes with a Puerto Rican flag. Think about it. Puerto Rico as a 
nation will never give up its Olympic representation that ties them 
with the U.S. because they could not disappoint their national athletes 
that train so hard. Think about it. The President of the United States 
says, we are going to boycott, and yet the people of Puerto Rico send 
their own Olympic team, American citizens, to go and participate while 
other citizens. You see how they are different. You see how there is a 
separate relationship. Let us understand that.
  I just want to make one last point. I did have an amendment to pardon 
Bobby Knight because Bobby Knight went out to Puerto Rico in 1976, this 
is true, just to make the point, 1979 during the Pan American games, 
probably the Resident Commissioner remembers, and in the final for the 
gold medal it was the United States and Cuba, and there were 20,000 
fans there, and they were all chanting, Cuba, Cuba, Cuba, not because 
they believed in Communism, not because they believed in Fidel Castro, 
but because they had a sense of the great andeano, the Jose Marti. They 
were applauding the athletes from another Spanish-speaking country. 
Unfortunately, he did not get it and he made some obscene gestures, was 
arrested and said, how can these citizens of the United States not be 
cheering for the American team? Why? Because they loved their American 
citizenship, but they are a different and a special kind of people.
  Let us treat them specially in accordance with their fine tradition. 
That is why I present this amendment. Let us allow them to continue to 
have their Olympic team even if they are a State of the Union, because 
we want to respect their great history and pride.
  Mr. ROMERO-BARCELO. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the 
amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, we must have seen a different Pan American games in 
Puerto Rico because I certainly, the event that he talked about Bobby 
Knight did not happen with Cuba. It was something that happened during 
the practice, and then it was very, he pushed an officer of the law and 
he said some very, very unfavorable remarks about Puerto Rico, 
insulting remarks about Puerto Rico and Puerto Ricans. Therefore, he 
earned the hatred and the bad will of the people of Puerto Rico. And 
they took it out on the team, and it had nothing to do with Cuba.
  Always there are people in Puerto Rico that feel, members of the pro-
Communist party, which has never been registered as a voting party, did 
not maintain a registration as a voting party, and they got about half 
a percent of the vote when they went into elections. Yes, they went 
there and cheered Cuba, but it was not everyone that was there. I was 
there at those games.
  To say that Puerto Rico cannot participate, well, Puerto Rico can 
participate if that would be the desire of the people of Puerto Rico, 
and that was the decision of the Olympic Committee. The International 
Olympic Committee is a private organization. It is not an official 
government organization. As a matter of fact, they say, government, 
stay out. In the International Olympic Committee bylaws it is 
specifically stated that any province, any State, any jurisdiction that 
has been allowed to have a committee, a team representing them in the 
Olympics, if they become integrated with another nation, become a State 
of or a part of another nation, they can maintain their own Olympic 
committee. And that is what has happened with Hong Kong.

                              {time}  2015

  However, whether or not we participate in the Olympic games every 4 
years for 2 weeks cannot be put in the same table of consideration as 
the economic welfare of the people of Puerto Rico and the political 
equality of the people of Puerto Rico; the right to vote, the right to 
representation and the right to participate in a democratic system. We 
believe in democracy. We cannot put that aside in order to participate 
in the games every 4 years for 2 weeks. That is not in the same table 
of consideration.
  So this, again, is another issue that is brought in just to confuse 
and to try to tell people they should not vote for this bill because, 
after all, this is self-determination and this is what America is all 
about.
  Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Ms. VELAZQUEZ. I yield to the gentleman from Illinois.
  Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Chairman, I certainly do not want to make this the 
kind of issue that the resident commissioner wants to make it. I just 
want to make the point the fact is Bobby Knight had a few problems in 
Puerto Rico. He was arrested. And he did say some very disparaging 
words, and those disparaging words had a direct relationship between 
the games that were being played there and the reaction.
  He could not understand how 10 American citizens, if we want to make 
it, it was more than 10 I assure the resident commissioner, could cheer 
for a team other than the United States when it was going for a gold 
medal. And subsequently he got into some trouble about that. But it 
just talks about the special nature of the relationship.
  I want people to understand. It did not happen in Alaska and it did 
not happen in Hawaii and it did not happen in Texas. Why can we bring 
up all these issues, and it happened in Puerto Rico, of language and 
culture? And the resident commissioner said it was not geopolitical. 
Okay. But he said it was sociological. That is pretty incredible. That 
is an admission here. Sociological nationality. Let us examine what 
that means. That means it is a separate and distinct people.
  That is our point here. Our point here is let us have a fair 
referendum. Look, there was a referendum in 1993. The party of the 
resident commissioner was the party that wrote the script and the 
rules. Everyone voted. The resident commissioner, that if statehood 
would have won that plebiscite, that he was going to come here and 
demand statehood for Puerto Rico. So the gentleman thought that was a 
good plebiscite then and those were good rules and regulations then. 
Why is it today that the gentleman comes with this other version when 
he would have taken that version and asked us to have adopted it back 5 
short years ago?
  Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there further debate on the amendment?
  If not, the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman 
from Illinois (Mr. Gutierrez).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 376, further proceedings 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Gutierrez) 
will be postponed.
  Are there further amendments?
  Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  Which amendment is the gentleman proposing?


                         Parliamentary Inquiry

  Mr. GUTIERREZ. Parliamentary inquiry.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state his parliamentary inquiry.
  Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Chairman, is there going to be any time allotted 
to close this debate after the end of all of the amendments?
  The CHAIRMAN. After voting on the amendments, Members can strike the 
last word, after which the Committee will rise and report.
  Mr. GUTIERREZ. There will be an additional 5 minutes then at the end 
so we can all close, those who wish to close; is that true?
  The CHAIRMAN. We are proceeding under the 5-minute rule. This 
amendment that the gentleman proposes, though the gentleman has not 
stated which amendment----

[[Page H831]]

  Mr. GUTIERREZ. Let me explain, and the Chair can help me. I really do 
not want to propose an amendment, I just want to be able to close. And 
I was informed that there would be no opportunity after all the 
amendments were exhausted to say anything in closing
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, does the gentleman mean to close 
on the whole bill?
  Mr. GUTIERREZ. Yes, on the whole.
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. There will be an opportunity to close on the 
whole bill after the amendments are voted on. We can move to strike the 
last word.
  The CHAIRMAN. Members will be able to offer pro forma amendments and 
move to strike the last word.
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Pro forma amendments, move to strike the last 
word and speak on the bill itself.


               Amendment No. 24 Offered by Mr. Gutierrez

  Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Chairman, I offer amendment number 24.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment number 24 offered by Mr. Gutierrez:
       In section 4(a), after paragraph (6) of the referendum 
     language for statehood, insert the following new paragraphs 
     (and redesignate the succeeding paragraphs accordingly):
       ``(7) Section 30A of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 will 
     continue in effect for 20 years after Puerto Rico becomes a 
     State or until the State of Puerto Rico achieves the same per 
     capita income as the State with the next lowest per capta 
     income.
       ``(8) The internal revenue laws of the United States will 
     not apply to residents of the State of Puerto Rico until such 
     time as the State of Puerto Rico achieves the same per capita 
     income as the State with the next lowest per capita income.

  Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Chairman, we have had a good long day here of 
debate and discussion and I think that people should understand 
something. This is a very serious decision that we are entering into. I 
know we have had this debate about statutory citizenship all day and it 
is just very important to me.
  It is important because I think that we have shown that the 14th 
amendment should apply to all the people of Puerto Rico. Think about 
it. The 14th amendment of the Constitution of the United States will be 
simply thrown up in the air if we adopt this. That is wrong. It is 
wrong to all those citizens on the island of Puerto Rico.
  I want a fair process. I want a process that says here is 
independence, and a version of independence a little kinder and gentler 
and a little more realistic than the one offered here; a version of 
statehood, a realistic version of statehood, the kind of statehood that 
I lived in Puerto Rico.
  I would like to tell everybody that in 1972, when I was 19 years old, 
I registered to vote. The first time I voted was in San Sabastian, 
Puerto Rico, so take it from me, I know what the statehooders propose, 
what the independence people propose, what the commonwealthers propose, 
because I was there listening for many years. I went to the University 
of Puerto Rico. I graduated from high school in Puerto Rico. Politics, 
politics and the national questions and status is something that we 
debate and discuss everyday.
  Let me tell my colleagues, if we do not clarify some of these things, 
here is what we will get: the 30 second spot that is going to scare the 
living daylights out of anybody. I see it already. Vote for statehood 
or your citizenship will be taken away. And you know, whoever pays, my 
mother said--(the gentleman spoke in Spanish)--I am sorry, I am not 
supposed to say. Basically what that means is that a paper will hold 
whatever you write on it. And whoever has the money to write those 30-
second scripts and to put them up on the TV set, that is wrong for us 
to allow something like that. That is wrong for people to go in.
  Let us not force a vote on any issue. That is what we are doing here. 
It is wrong to talk about citizenship which we all know will never be 
taken away from a people. And if we know it will never be taken away, 
let us not let it be used in this plebiscite.
  And let us have a plebiscite. And I reiterate once again, whoever 
wins fair and square, we can all come together and move forward, move 
forward as a people.
  I would like to say this last thing. Look, when Members of this 
Congress talked about South Africa and Nelson Mandela, nobody ever said 
they should just move back to South Africa if they thought that was so 
important. When Members of this Congress talk about Ireland and the 
importance of Ireland and its independence, nobody says they should go 
back to Ireland if they want to talk about that. When Members in this 
Congress talk about Israel and talk about their proud Judaism, nobody 
says they have to go back. When people talk about Cuba, nobody says go 
back to Cuba. Why is it that when people want to raise issues because I 
am of Puerto Rican descent that I am told go back to Puerto Rico or do 
not have anything to do with it.
  The resident commissioner is invited to come to my district any day, 
as he has often done. I think we should all be invited to speak to one 
another as brothers and sisters in the quest for justice, equality and 
a fair and reasonable solution to this very critical status question.
  Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last 
word.
  In closing I again want to reiterate that I think that the committee 
has brought to the floor of the House a fair procedure for determining 
the future status of Puerto Rico, should the citizens of Puerto Rico 
decide to engage in that process.
  There is no question that these choices are difficult choices, and 
that is why the process is set forth in the manner it is so that the 
Puerto Rican citizens can be best informed as they proceed down this 
path as to whether or not they want to choose independence, statehood 
or Commonwealth status.
  And there is a very real difference between these three statuses. 
People like to pretend that they can argue that they are sort of the 
same, enhanced Commonwealth; that is, to pretend like you have all of 
the same rights as the citizens of the United States of America, but 
they know, in reality, they do not. So Commonwealth will have some 
burdens.
  Statehood, because it puts them in the same status as all of the rest 
of the citizens, there will be people in Puerto Rico that think that 
that brings burden to the selection, to the plebiscite. They will make 
those decisions, and they will argue about them back and forth.
  But the fact is that if you vote to become a State, you become a 
State. You share all of the benefits and all of the liabilities. If you 
vote to continue in Commonwealth, you are something less than that. You 
do not share equally with the citizens of California in public 
assistance payments and education payments and education to the 
handicap and food stamps and nutrition programs, because you are not a 
State.
  The representatives of Puerto Rico historically have tried to boost 
those allotments, to boost those payments, to argue that these are 
citizens who are treated unfairly. But that has not been how the 
Congress has responded.
  So those citizens are deprived the full benefits, but they are 
deprived the full benefits because the Congress has decided that they 
are not the same as citizens of the States. That is a burden of 
Commonwealth. People do not like to talk about that.
  Another burden a Commonwealth has is it does not want to acknowledge 
that it has to live under the laws of this country as put forth by the 
Congress of the United States, but it does.
  If this was, in fact, a nation today, then what are we doing here 
today? We are here because, under the current arrangement, they are 
forced to live under Federal laws of this country, and some people do 
not like that. They believe they would rather be a separate nation, or 
they believe that, if they have to live under these laws, they also 
want to participate in the benefits of everything else that goes along 
with being a State.
  The definition of Commonwealth is an accurate description of the 
status of Puerto Rico today. That is the status that we would ask the 
people to vote on. That is Commonwealth today. Not what they hope 
Commonwealth would be, not what they would like it to be, but what it 
is under the laws of this country and the Constitution of the United 
States of America.
  If you cannot, if that is not a winning hand in the election, so be 
it. But that is the laws of this country. That is the Constitution of 
this country. Yes, it is different. It is different than being a

[[Page H832]]

citizen of the State of the United States of America.
  Now, many people have come to my office, and they have argued to me 
how really it is not different. Folks, it is different. That is what 
this election will be about. We treat them differently every day. That 
is what upsets so many people, that citizens of the United States of 
America can be treated in this fashion as this Congress deliberates 
action after action after action.
  The remedy for that is statehood, or the remedy for that is 
independence, or the status quo, which would be Commonwealth. Those are 
the choices at the end of the day that the people of Puerto Rico will 
have to decide. Those are the choices in a fair and open and just 
manner that this committee presents to the plebiscite.
  The people of Puerto Rico will make a determination of which status 
they want to determine. If the Olympic team is so important, then I 
guess they can take Commonwealth. They can continue that. But then they 
have to look the citizens in the eye and say, but by the same token, 
you cannot share in the benefits of all the other citizens of the 
United States.
  If it is less important, they might decide that the great athletes of 
Puerto Rico can run on the American team and participate, and they can 
share in equal benefits. That is what this is about. And at the end of 
the day, this bill presents that in a fair and open fashion.

                              {time}  2030

  Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, today has been an education for a lot of Americans 
watching this debate. Perhaps some people have learned about the 
passions surrounding this debate. Maybe some people have come to 
understand at least a little bit how proud the people of Puerto Rico 
are to be American citizens, how proud we are to live in a democracy in 
which the concept of free and open debate not only survives but 
thrives.
  Of course, Mr. Chairman, I am a product of that freedom. I am an 
American citizen born on the island of Puerto Rico, came to the 
mainland, was elected to Congress and stand before this body a full-
fledged voting Member of this great legislative body. I have a great 
respect for this institution, but I am concerned that a process is 
about to be imposed on the people of Puerto Rico that is anything but 
democratic.
  I appreciate the intention of my colleagues on both sides of the 
aisle to allow for the self-determination of the people of Puerto Rico. 
I have said this before and I will say it again. This bill is not about 
self-determination. It is about statehood. This bill is the product of 
a process that did not consult the very people it affects the most.
  In 1990 a commonwealth status definition was agreed to by the authors 
of H.R. 856 that was acceptable to the interested parties. The chairman 
of the Committee on Resources voted for the definition at the time. The 
current ranking member of the committee voted for the definition at 
that time. The definitions were acceptable to the parties that 
represented the statehood, commonwealth and independent options.
  But now it seems that the very definitions that were agreed to 
unanimously in the House of Representatives are not good enough. My 
colleagues seem intent now on forcing a vote on Puerto Rico that 
includes new definitions that many Puerto Ricans strongly disagree 
with. I will tell my colleagues that if they truly want self-
determination for Puerto Rico, they will vote against this bill.
  I have heard my colleagues whom I have great respect for tell me that 
I should vote for independence. I have heard my colleagues tell me that 
I should vote for statehood. The fact is that I do not really have a 
choice, because if this plebiscite is held under this bill, we will see 
a 51st State, not because the people of Puerto Rico want to be a State. 
If they wanted that, they would have voted that way in the plebiscite 
of 1993. No, they will vote for statehood because under the definitions 
in this bill, commonwealth is not really an option.
  The authors of this bill have already said that their intention was 
to eliminate commonwealth status as a viable option and they were 
successful. In fact, the authors of this bill did not even offer 
commonwealth as an option in the plebiscite when they originally wrote 
this bill.
  Mr. Chairman, many people in this Chamber will tell us that they know 
what is best for the people of Puerto Rico. My response is why do we 
not let Puerto Rico decide what is best for Puerto Rico? Why do we not 
give our participants equal input in determining how a status bill 
should be written? Why do we not give all Puerto Ricans the right to 
vote on that question?
  I do not think that this House should be in the business of telling 
the people of Puerto Rico what is best for the people of Puerto Rico. 
They should make that decision. That is what self-determination is all 
about. That is why I ask my colleagues today to oppose this 
legislation.
  Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the 
requisite number of words.
  Mr. Chairman, I think this is a really complicated debate for people 
who are just learning about it for the first time over the course of 
today. I have had the benefit of having the last couple of years in the 
Committee on Resources to listen to this testimony consistently, and to 
have had the chance to visit Puerto Rico, as I said earlier.
  What really came about from my many hours of listening to testimony 
is this issue that I think is something that makes the gentlewoman from 
New York (Ms. Velazquez) and the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. 
Gutierrez) so upset, and that is, this Congress decides what the fate 
of Puerto Rico is whether or not the people of Puerto Rico like it or 
not.
  The thing about it is, I am in total agreement with the sympathies 
and concerns of the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Gutierrez) and the 
gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Velazquez). I am as outraged as anyone 
else, as the gentlewoman just said, that this Congress should think 
that it could make any decision affecting Puerto Rico without the 
opinions and the people of Puerto Rico being part of that decision-
making process. That is why I am for statehood. That is why I am for 
this bill.
  Mr. Chairman, the gentlewoman from New York said that this 
commonwealth definition was decided by the committee very unfairly. Let 
us understand, if we decided what the commonwealth definition was based 
upon the way the commonwealth party wanted it decided, we would have 
had a little bit of everything we wanted.
  I heard this commonwealth definition. I said, ``This commonwealth 
definition sounds pretty good.'' I said, ``It sounds so good I want 
Rhode Island to have commonwealth status.'' I bet every other Member in 
this place would like to have commonwealth status the way the 
commonwealth party in Puerto Rico wants it to be defined.
  But, Mr. Chairman, we have a responsibility not to define 
commonwealth status in any partisan terms but to define commonwealth 
status based upon the laws of what commonwealth means. As much as my 
good friends say that commonwealth status means that we are a nation, 
that commonwealth status means this or that, or guess what the United 
Nations said, the proof is in the pudding.
  Whenever a bill comes up that relates to Puerto Rico, it is referred 
to the Committee on Resources. Why? Because the Committee on Resources 
has jurisdiction over Indian and insular affairs, meaning territories. 
Meaning no matter what we may say about the Supreme Court decisions, no 
matter what we may say about U.N. resolutions, the proof is in the 
pudding.
  We are sitting here debating this. We would not be debating this if 
there was a bilateral pact. If Puerto Rico really had the say in this 
matter, they would have said, ``Hey, U.S. Congress, we don't need you 
to give us the right to vote. We have the right to vote.''
  Puerto Rico could not do that because they are under the Territorial 
Clause of the United States Constitution, like it or not. Mr. Chairman, 
there is the old Snickers ad that says, ``No matter how you slice it, 
it still comes up peanuts.'' The fact of the matter is, no matter how 
you define commonwealth, it still comes up Territorial Clause. That is 
the bottom line here.
  That is why I think this is a good bill, because ultimately the 
people of

[[Page H833]]

Puerto Rico will have a say in their final determination and finally 
get some representation on this floor.
  I want to conclude by saying the gentleman from Puerto Rico (Mr. 
Romero-Barcelo) has taken on this issue singularly, being the Resident 
Commissioner who has not had the chance to vote but who has taken his 
position very seriously and has been a tireless advocate on behalf of 
the people he represents. On the eve of this historic vote, I want to 
salute the gentleman from Puerto Rico for the job that he has done on 
behalf of the people of Puerto Rico; the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. 
Young), as well as the gentleman from California (Mr. Miller).
  Let us support this bill, and let us end colonial status for 3.8 
million people and finally make them full citizens of this country with 
voting representation in this United States Congress.
  Mr. ROMERO-BARCELO. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite 
number of words.
  Mr. Chairman, I first of all would like to thank the gentleman from 
Alaska (Mr. Young), the chairman of our committee, for the dedicated 
amount of work that he has put into this bill. He lived the 
frustrations of being a territory, so he really believes in it and 
feels it. The people of Puerto Rico, not only the people of Puerto 
Rico, the people of this Nation will be grateful for the steps that we 
are taking here today, and I hope we take this step in the final 
passage of the bill.
  I want to thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Miller), our 
ranking member, also for the dedication that he too has put into this 
bill, for being instrumental in doing away with all the suspiciousness 
that reasonable people would have about this bill and the definitions. 
We worked hard and we feel that our chairman, our ranking member and 
all of the members of the committee were very careful in making this 
bill a very, very serious and very objective bill.
  I want to make also a special mention, when we started this bill, I 
had my very serious differences with the gentleman from New York (Mr. 
Solomon), the chairman of the Committee on Rules. But as we have dealt 
with this bill, the gentleman from New York has been a real gentleman. 
He has always kept his word. He has been a formidable opponent in this 
bill, but I must recognize that he has been a real gentleman. I would 
thank him for his dedication, also, to his job.
  The gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Kennedy) and all the others that 
have worked hard on this bill, I want to thank them all.
  In Puerto Rico, as I mentioned earlier, they are watching this on C-
SPAN. I think this probably will be one of the most watched programs in 
Puerto Rico for a long, long, long, long time. Everybody is 
understanding what is happening here. Those who do not understand 
English, believe me, some relative or some friend or some fellow 
workers there are translating the proceedings for them. They are hoping 
that their faith in this Congress, their faith in their Nation, in the 
United States, will be confirmed today.
  Because, as we have spoken before, this bill is about self-
determination. This bill is about the opportunity of 3.8 million U.S. 
citizens who have been disenfranchised for 81 years, for 81 years 
disenfranchised, where they have not been able to participate in the 
democratic process of their Nation. We have been part of the United 
States for 100 years it will be July 25, the American troops first 
landed in Puerto Rico in 1898. This Monday was precisely the 81st 
anniversary of our citizenship.
  As we take a look at the procedures here today, one of my greatest 
sorrows and I am sure one of the greatest sorrows of the people of 
Puerto Rico is to find that the most adamant and vociferous opponents 
of this bill have been, one, a gentlewoman that was born in Puerto Rico 
and the other, a gentleman that was not born in Puerto Rico but is from 
Puerto Rican extraction, that they are opposing it at every instance, 
that the people of Puerto Rico have a chance for self-determination.
  They have given a lot of reasons why this should not happen but it 
all boils down that they oppose this bill. They say that this bill is 
tilted toward statehood. That is not correct. This bill is not tilted 
toward statehood. This bill spells out the differences between 
statehood, between independence and between commonwealth.
  For the first time, for the first time since Puerto Rico has been 
involved in plebiscite and their status, they are going to be voting on 
a bill that defines commonwealth as what it is. I want to read the 
definition of commonwealth because so much has been said. No one will 
disagree with this definition:
  ``Commonwealth. Puerto Rico should retain commonwealth in which 
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.''
  That is a correct and precise statement that was carefully drafted by 
our chairman and by the gentleman from California (Mr. Miller). Yes, I 
participated in the conversations. However, my decisions were not what 
made the final wording of this bill.
  ``Two. 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, the 
treaties and laws of the United States.''

                              {time}  2045

  Congress retains its constitutional authority to enact laws it deems 
necessary relating to Puerto Rico.
  What is false? That is exactly as it is. Everything in this bill is 
the truth, and that is what the people of Puerto Rico should be given a 
choice to vote on.
  Mr. Chairman, I hope that all Members will vote for this bill, not 
only for Puerto Rico, but for the sake of this Nation.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Gutierrez).
  The amendment was rejected.
  The CHAIRMAN. Are there further amendments to the bill?


          Sequential Votes Postponed in Committee of the Whole

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 376, proceedings will now 
resume on those amendments on which further proceedings were postponed, 
in the following order:
  An amendment offered by the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Stearns); an 
amendment offered by the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Barr); and 
Amendment No. 21, offered by the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. 
Gutierrez).
  The Chair will reduce to 5 minutes the time for any electronic vote 
after the first vote in this series.


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Stearns

  The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the request for a recorded vote 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Stearns) on 
which further proceedings were postponed, and on which the noes 
prevailed by a voice vote.
  The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The Clerk designated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 28, 
noes 384, not voting 18, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 33]

                                AYES--28

     Bachus
     Campbell
     Carson
     Combest
     Cubin
     Duncan
     Herger
     Horn
     Hunter
     Istook
     Jones
     Kingston
     McIntosh
     Moran (KS)
     Paul
     Petri
     Radanovich
     Rohrabacher
     Sanford
     Schaffer, Bob
     Sensenbrenner
     Shadegg
     Sherman
     Smith, Linda
     Snowbarger
     Souder
     Stearns
     Taylor (NC)

                               NOES--384

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Andrews
     Archer
     Armey
     Baesler
     Baker
     Baldacci
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Barrett (WI)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Berry
     Bilirakis
     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
     Canady
     Cannon
     Cardin
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement

[[Page H834]]


     Clyburn
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins
     Condit
     Conyers
     Cook
     Cooksey
     Costello
     Cox
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cummings
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (VA)
     Deal
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     DeLay
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     Engel
     English
     Ensign
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Everett
     Ewing
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fawell
     Fazio
     Filner
     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
     Green
     Greenwood
     Gutierrez
     Gutknecht
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hamilton
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hefner
     Hill
     Hilleary
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Hooley
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Hulshof
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Jenkins
     John
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (WI)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kim
     Kind (WI)
     King (NY)
     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
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHale
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (CA)
     Miller (FL)
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Moran (VA)
     Morella
     Murtha
     Myrick
     Nadler
     Neal
     Nethercutt
     Neumann
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Oxley
     Packard
     Pallone
     Pappas
     Parker
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Paxon
     Payne
     Pease
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Pickering
     Pickett
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Portman
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Quinn
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Redmond
     Regula
     Reyes
     Riley
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Rogan
     Rogers
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rothman
     Roukema
     Roybal-Allard
     Royce
     Rush
     Ryun
     Sabo
     Salmon
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schumer
     Scott
     Serrano
     Sessions
     Shaw
     Shays
     Shuster
     Sisisky
     Skaggs
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith, Adam
     Snyder
     Solomon
     Spence
     Spratt
     Stabenow
     Stark
     Stenholm
     Stokes
     Strickland
     Stump
     Stupak
     Sununu
     Talent
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Thurman
     Tiahrt
     Tierney
     Towns
     Traficant
     Turner
     Upton
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Waters
     Watkins
     Watt (NC)
     Watts (OK)
     Waxman
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Wexler
     Weygand
     White
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wise
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wynn
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--18

     Berman
     Bilbray
     Doolittle
     Foley
     Gonzalez
     Granger
     Harman
     Kilpatrick
     Luther
     McDade
     Poshard
     Riggs
     Schaefer, Dan
     Schiff
     Shimkus
     Smith (OR)
     Torres
     Yates

                              {time}  2105

  Mr. BASS and Mr. WISE changed their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


                      Announcement by the Chairman

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 376, the Chair announces 
that he will reduce to a minimum of 5 minutes the period of time within 
which a vote by electronic device will be taken on each amendment on 
which the Chair has postponed further proceedings.


                Amendment Offered by Mr. Barr of Georgia

  The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a recorded vote 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Barr) on 
which further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes 
prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The Clerk designated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The CHAIRMAN. This is a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 131, 
noes 282, not voting 17, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 34]

                               AYES--131

     Aderholt
     Archer
     Armey
     Ballenger
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bateman
     Bereuter
     Boehner
     Brady
     Bryant
     Bunning
     Callahan
     Canady
     Castle
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins
     Combest
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Deal
     Dickey
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Emerson
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fawell
     Fossella
     Fowler
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Goss
     Graham
     Granger
     Greenwood
     Gutknecht
     Hall (TX)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Herger
     Hill
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Istook
     Jenkins
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Kingston
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Lazio
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     Livingston
     McCrery
     McHugh
     McIntosh
     Metcalf
     Miller (FL)
     Myrick
     Neumann
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Oxley
     Paul
     Paxon
     Pease
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pitts
     Porter
     Portman
     Pryce (OH)
     Regula
     Rogan
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Royce
     Ryun
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Scarborough
     Schaffer, Bob
     Sensenbrenner
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherman
     Shuster
     Sisisky
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (TX)
     Snowbarger
     Solomon
     Souder
     Spence
     Spratt
     Stearns
     Stump
     Sununu
     Taylor (NC)
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Upton
     Wamp
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Wicker
     Wolf

                               NOES--282

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Bachus
     Baesler
     Baker
     Baldacci
     Barcia
     Barrett (WI)
     Bass
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Berry
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Blagojevich
     Bliley
     Blumenauer
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Bonilla
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Cannon
     Cardin
     Carson
     Chabot
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Condit
     Conyers
     Cook
     Cooksey
     Costello
     Cox
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Cummings
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (VA)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     DeLay
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doyle
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Engel
     English
     Ensign
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Fattah
     Fazio
     Filner
     Foley
     Forbes
     Ford
     Fox
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Furse
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gejdenson
     Gekas
     Gephardt
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Gordon
     Green
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hamilton
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Hastings (FL)
     Hefley
     Hefner
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Holden
     Hooley
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Hulshof
     Hutchinson
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     John
     Johnson (WI)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kim
     Kind (WI)
     King (NY)
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Kolbe
     Kucinich
     LaFalce
     LaHood
     Lampson
     Lantos
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Leach
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Lucas
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Manton
     Manzullo
     Markey
     Martinez
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHale
     McInnis
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Mica
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (CA)
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Morella
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Neal
     Nethercutt
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Packard
     Pallone
     Pappas
     Parker
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Pickering
     Pickett
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Redmond
     Reyes
     Riley
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rothman
     Roukema
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Schumer
     Scott
     Serrano
     Sessions
     Skaggs
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith, Adam
     Smith, Linda
     Snyder
     Stabenow
     Stark
     Stenholm

[[Page H835]]


     Stokes
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Talent
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thune
     Thurman
     Tierney
     Towns
     Traficant
     Turner
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Walsh
     Waters
     Watkins
     Watt (NC)
     Watts (OK)
     Waxman
     Weldon (FL)
     Wexler
     Weygand
     White
     Whitfield
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wynn
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--17

     Berman
     Doolittle
     Farr
     Frost
     Gonzalez
     Harman
     Kilpatrick
     Luther
     McDade
     Poshard
     Riggs
     Schaefer, Dan
     Schiff
     Shimkus
     Smith (OR)
     Torres
     Yates

                              {time}  2112

  Mr. ENSIGN changed his vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.

                              {time}  2115


               Amendment No. 21 Offered by Mr. Gutierrez

  The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a recorded vote 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Gutierrez) 
on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes 
prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The CHAIRMAN. This will be a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 2, noes 
413, answered ``present'' 1, not voting 14, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 35]

                                AYES--2

     Gutierrez
     Velazquez
       

                               NOES--413

     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
     Berry
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     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
     Conyers
     Cook
     Cooksey
     Costello
     Cox
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cubin
     Cummings
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (VA)
     Deal
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     DeLay
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doyle
     Dreier
     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 (MA)
     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
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHale
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     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
     Owens
     Oxley
     Packard
     Pallone
     Pappas
     Parker
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Paul
     Paxon
     Payne
     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
     Riley
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Rogan
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rothman
     Roukema
     Roybal-Allard
     Royce
     Rush
     Ryun
     Sabo
     Salmon
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Sanford
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaffer, Bob
     Schumer
     Scott
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherman
     Shuster
     Sisisky
     Skaggs
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     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
     Torres
     Towns
     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
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                        ANSWERED ``PRESENT''--1

       
     Waters
       

                             NOT VOTING--14

     Berman
     Doolittle
     Gonzalez
     Harman
     Kilpatrick
     Luther
     McDade
     Poshard
     Riggs
     Schaefer, Dan
     Schiff
     Shimkus
     Smith (OR)
     Yates

                              {time}  2122

  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The CHAIRMAN. Are there any other amendments?
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, we have been on the floor since 10 o'clock this 
morning. We have had a very, very good debate. The amendment process is 
over. The committee is about to rise. I just wanted to alert the body 
that there will be a re-vote on the Solomon amendment as amended by 
Miller-Burton. That vote has been requested by U.S. English and those 
of us who do not want to see this thing die.
  Mr. Chairman, I would just read a couple of paragraphs out of this 
letter from U.S. English. It says, ``There has been much confusion over 
U.S. English's position concerning the amendment introduced by 
Representatives Burton, Miller, and Young. U.S. English wishes to 
clarify this matter.''
  Mr. Chairman, they go on to say that the Burton-Miller amendment is 
meaningless and has absolutely no legal effect. They go on to say that 
U.S. English strongly supports the Solomon amendment as originally 
introduced, and should the Solomon amendment be re-voted on in the full 
House, that they would ask for a ``no'' vote on the Solomon amendment 
as amended, and I too will ask for a ``no'' vote on that when it is re-
voted.
  At the same time, I would rise in opposition to the bill. I think 
Members all must revisit it one more time. Without the Solomon 
amendment language in the bill, anyone anywhere in the United States 
can challenge Federal and individual State laws and declarations of 
English as the official language. This opens up Pandora's box, should 
the bill ever become law without that amendment. I think we all should 
consider that.
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to thank all of my colleagues that participated 
in the debate. They have worked from 10 o'clock this morning until the 
night on this historical moment. Much has been said about this bill. A 
lot of it true; some of it not so true.
  But I would ask Members in your hearts to think about one thing for 
one moment. We are being asked to re-vote on an amendment that was 
offered by

[[Page H836]]

the gentleman from New York (Mr. Solomon). And if Members defeat the 
Solomon amendment, they are left with the language in the bill. Keep 
that in mind.
  Mr. Chairman, I started this process over 4 years ago. I have had the 
hearings. I have done it the right way. I want to thank the leadership 
on my side of the aisle and the leadership on that side of the aisle 
for allowing this debate to begin. This is just one small step, as I 
said earlier in the day. This is one small step to bring justice to 
America and to the Puerto Rican people. I believe it is crucially 
important as we go into the year 2000.
  Mr. Chairman, I think it is the best thing we can do for democracy 
and for this great Nation. I thank you for the indulgence. I gave my 
word. I gave my commitment that we would bring this bill to the floor 
for America and the Puerto Rican people. This is the legislative 
process. This is how this House should work. Not behind closed doors, 
not by secret meetings, but open debate, discussing the merits, the 
cons and the pros of legislation that decides the destiny of this great 
Nation.
  I am asking my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the Burton-Miller-Young 
bill as they voted before.

                              {time}  2130

  I am asking my colleagues to vote yes on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Solomon), my good friend, as he asked you 
to do. I am asking them to vote yes on final passage so we can begin 
this venture into future generations.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment in the nature of a 
substitute, as amended.
  The amendment in the nature of a substitute, as amended, was agreed 
to.
  The CHAIRMAN. Under the rule, the Committee rises.
  Accordingly the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. 
Bonilla) having assumed the chair, Mr. Diaz-Balart, Chairman of the 
Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union, reported that 
that Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 856) to 
provide a process leading to full self-government for Puerto Rico, 
pursuant to House Resolution 376, he reported the bill back to the 
House with an amendment adopted by the Committee of the Whole.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the rule, the previous question is 
ordered.
  Is a separate vote demanded on the amendment to the amendment in the 
nature of a substitute adopted by the Committee of the Whole?
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I demand a vote on the so-called Solomon 
amendment, as amended.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the amendment on which 
a separate vote has been demanded.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment:
       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. SOLOMON (during the reading). Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous 
consent that the amendment be considered as read and printed in the 
Record.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from New York?
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the amendment.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 240, 
noes 177, not voting 13, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 36]

                               AYES--240

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baldacci
     Barcia
     Barrett (NE)
     Barrett (WI)
     Barton
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Berry
     Bishop
     Blagojevich
     Blumenauer
     Boehlert
     Bonilla
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Burton
     Campbell
     Cannon
     Cardin
     Carson
     Castle
     Christensen
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Condit
     Conyers
     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
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Ewing
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fazio
     Filner
     Foley
     Forbes
     Ford
     Fossella
     Fox
     Frank (MA)
     Frost
     Furse
     Gallegly
     Gejdenson
     Gekas
     Gephardt
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Gordon
     Granger
     Green
     Greenwood
     Hall (OH)
     Hamilton
     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)
     King (NY)
     Kleczka
     Klink
     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
     McHugh
     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
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Oxley
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Redmond
     Reyes
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Schumer
     Scott
     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)
     Thompson
     Thurman
     Tierney
     Torres
     Turner
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Walsh
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Wexler
     Weygand
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wynn
     Young (AK)

                               NOES--177

     Aderholt
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baesler
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Barr
     Bartlett
     Bass
     Bateman
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bliley
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Brady
     Bryant
     Bunning
     Burr
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins
     Combest
     Cooksey
     Cox
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Davis (VA)

[[Page H837]]


     Deal
     DeLay
     Dickey
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Emerson
     Ensign
     Everett
     Fawell
     Fowler
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Ganske
     Gibbons
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Goss
     Graham
     Gutierrez
     Gutknecht
     Hall (TX)
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hill
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Horn
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Istook
     Jenkins
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Kasich
     Kingston
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     LaHood
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     Livingston
     LoBiondo
     Lucas
     Manzullo
     McCrery
     McIntosh
     Menendez
     Metcalf
     Miller (FL)
     Moran (KS)
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Neumann
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Packard
     Pappas
     Parker
     Paul
     Paxon
     Pease
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pickett
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Porter
     Portman
     Pryce (OH)
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Riley
     Rogan
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Roukema
     Royce
     Ryun
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Scarborough
     Schaffer, Bob
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shays
     Shuster
     Sisisky
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (OR)
     Smith, Linda
     Snowbarger
     Solomon
     Souder
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stump
     Sununu
     Talent
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Tiahrt
     Towns
     Traficant
     Upton
     Velazquez
     Wamp
     Watkins
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     White
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wolf
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--13

     Berman
     Doolittle
     Gonzalez
     Harman
     Kilpatrick
     Luther
     McDade
     Poshard
     Riggs
     Schaefer, Dan
     Schiff
     Shimkus
     Yates

                              {time}  2147

  Mr. BENTSEN and Mr. HILLIARD 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 SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Bonilla). The question is on the 
amendment in the nature of a substitute.
  The amendment in the nature of a substitute was agreed to.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on engrossment and third 
reading of the bill.
  The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was 
read the third time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the bill.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 209, 
noes 208, not voting 13, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 37]

                               AYES--209

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baldacci
     Barcia
     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Bishop
     Blagojevich
     Blumenauer
     Boehlert
     Bonilla
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Burton
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Cannon
     Cardin
     Carson
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Condit
     Conyers
     Cooksey
     Coyne
     Cummings
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (VA)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     DeLay
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Engel
     English
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fazio
     Filner
     Foley
     Forbes
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frost
     Furse
     Gallegly
     Gejdenson
     Gekas
     Gephardt
     Gilchrest
     Gilman
     Granger
     Green
     Hall (OH)
     Hamilton
     Hastings (FL)
     Hefner
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Holden
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     John
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kanjorski
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kim
     King (NY)
     Klink
     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
     McKeon
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Mica
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (CA)
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Moran (VA)
     Morella
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Neal
     Oberstar
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Pallone
     Parker
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Peterson (PA)
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Quinn
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Redmond
     Reyes
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Sabo
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Schumer
     Scott
     Serrano
     Skaggs
     Skeen
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith, Adam
     Snyder
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stenholm
     Stokes
     Stupak
     Tauscher
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Thompson
     Thurman
     Tierney
     Torres
     Turner
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Walsh
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Wexler
     Weygand
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wynn
     Young (AK)

                               NOES--208

     Aderholt
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baesler
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Bereuter
     Berry
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bliley
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Brady
     Bryant
     Bunning
     Burr
     Callahan
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canady
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins
     Combest
     Cook
     Costello
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Davis (IL)
     Deal
     Dickey
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     Ensign
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fawell
     Fossella
     Fowler
     Fox
     Ganske
     Gibbons
     Gillmor
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Goss
     Graham
     Greenwood
     Gutierrez
     Gutknecht
     Hall (TX)
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hill
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Istook
     Jenkins
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (WI)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Kaptur
     Kasich
     Kind (WI)
     Kingston
     Kleczka
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     LaHood
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     Livingston
     LoBiondo
     Lucas
     Manzullo
     McCrery
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McIntyre
     Menendez
     Metcalf
     Miller (FL)
     Moran (KS)
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Neumann
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Obey
     Oxley
     Packard
     Pappas
     Paul
     Paxon
     Pease
     Peterson (MN)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pickett
     Pitts
     Porter
     Portman
     Pryce (OH)
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Riley
     Rivers
     Rogan
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Roukema
     Royce
     Rush
     Ryun
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Scarborough
     Schaffer, Bob
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherman
     Shuster
     Sisisky
     Skelton
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (OR)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith, Linda
     Snowbarger
     Solomon
     Souder
     Spence
     Stabenow
     Stearns
     Strickland
     Stump
     Sununu
     Talent
     Tanner
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Tiahrt
     Towns
     Traficant
     Upton
     Velazquez
     Wamp
     Watkins
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     White
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wolf
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--13

     Berman
     Doolittle
     Gonzalez
     Harman
     Kilpatrick
     Luther
     McDade
     Poshard
     Riggs
     Schaefer, Dan
     Schiff
     Shimkus
     Yates

                              {time}  2207

  The Clerk announced the following pair:
  On this vote:

       Mr. McDade for, with Mr. Riggs against.

  Mr. FOSSELLA and Mr. RUSH changed their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania and Mr. POMEROY changed their vote from 
``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the bill was passed.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________