[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 73 (Tuesday, June 9, 1998)]
[House]
[Pages H4246-H4247]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




      SELF-DETERMINATION FOR THE AMERICAN CITIZENS OF PUERTO RICO

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of 
January 21, 1997, the gentleman from Puerto Rico (Mr. Romero-Barcelo) 
is recognized during morning hour debates for 5 minutes.
  Mr. ROMERO-BARCELO. Mr. Speaker, 3.8 million American citizens of 
Puerto Rico are eager to exercise self-determination. We care 
passionately about our political status and we support congressional 
measures which call for a referendum, define status options, and 
provide for the implementation of the status choice that prevails.
  Opponents of these bills object to the fact that if a majority of the 
3.8 million U.S. citizens vote for statehood, a process might begin 
which would lead to the islands's full incorporation into the United 
States as an equal partner. So, some may be wondering what is the 
problem? What is the problem with having American citizens achieve the 
right to vote and the right to representation? If my colleagues should 
ask me, nothing. But some Members of Congress want to impose a 
supermajority requirement on Puerto Rico if we were to vote for 
statehood. If they have their way, even if a majority of American 
citizens in Puerto Rico voted for statehood and only 44 percent voted 
for Commonwealth, we would remain as a Commonwealth.
  Why? Why should the will of a minority decide the relationship of 3.8 
million American citizens? Why should a minority keep almost 4 million 
American citizens disenfranchised and denied the right to participate 
in their Nation's democratic process?
  Mr. Speaker, is the imposition of such a threshold not unprecedented 
and shameful? Of course it is. It is also undemocratic.

[[Page H4247]]

  H.R. 856 or S.472 would allow the American citizens in Puerto Rico to 
exercise their right to self-determination. They would give the 
American citizens in Puerto Rico an honest choice by providing 
congressionally approved and constitutionally sound definitions which 
explicitly detail the privileges and limitation of each of the status 
options.
  In such a contest, statehood most probably would prevail. That 
apparently is not acceptable for the opponents of Puerto Rican self-
determination. They imagine that the voters of all the territories 
overwhelmingly favored statehood before entering the Union and Puerto 
Ricans should do likewise.
  But that simply is not the case. Most territories never even held 
referendums on statehood and, in some instances, the progress towards 
incorporation was advanced or stalled by whether or not the voters 
accepted their State constitutions. By this measure, voters in 
Colorado, Wisconsin, and Nebraska were decidedly ambivalent about the 
prospect of statehood, yet they all became States.
  In Colorado's case, Congress passed an enabling act, but the citizens 
of the territory resoundingly rejected their first State constitution. 
A second State constitution was drafted and it prevailed by a narrow 
majority of 155 votes. But that is just the beginning of the story. 
President Andrew Johnson vetoed two statehood measures because 
Colorado's constitution differed substantially from the enabling act. 
Another 9 years passed before Colorado's voters managed to ratify a 
constitution compatible with the statehood measure.
  Nebraska, for its part, could be nicknamed the reluctant State. Its 
voters rejected the first proposal floated for a convention to draft a 
State constitution and were happy to let the matter rest there. But 4 
years later, Congress seized the initiative and, without a mandate from 
territorial residents, passed an enabling act for Nebraska.

                              {time}  1300

  The voters wanted nothing to do with it and wasted no time in 
defeating the second proposal for a State constitutional convention. 
Two years later, in a referendum which was plagued with irregularities, 
Nebraskans grudgingly consented to join the Union with statehood 
prevailing by a mere 100 votes.
  Incorporating Texas into the U.S. was a cliffhanger as well. When the 
Republic of Texas and the U.S. each failed to ratify a treaty of 
annexation, Congress jettisoned the treaty process. It adopted a 
different strategy, drawing up a joint resolution for annexing Texas to 
the United States. Even that almost failed. In the Senate, the 
resolution squeaked by with just two votes to spare.
  Last but not least, all of the States south of the Mason-Dixon line 
decided to secede from the Union in the 1860s, but they were forced to 
remain against their will. How can anyone claim that in order for 3.8 
million American citizens to be allowed a vote and to become a State or 
share as partners in equal terms a simple majority is not enough?
  Given the historical record, we need to abandon this pretense, this 
exercise in revisionist history, that this Union was conceived and 
expanded without thoughtful reservations on the part of all 
participants. We need to reject unprecedented requirements which are 
designated to frustrate the exercise of democracy rather than enhance 
it. We need to extend to the American citizens of Puerto Rico the right 
to self-determination in the same way it was proffered to all the 
territories, freely. It is the only fair and just thing to do. It is 
the right thing to do for Congress and for our Nation.

                          ____________________