[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 146 (2000), Part 9]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages 12381-12382]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



 PUERTO RICO-UNITED STATES BILATERAL PACT OF NON-TERRITORIAL PERMANENT 
                  UNION AND GUARANTEED CITIZENSHIP ACT

                                 ______
                                 

                         HON. JOHN T. DOOLITTLE

                             of california

                    in the house of representatives

                         Monday, June 26, 2000

  Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Speaker, I have long been concerned about threats 
to the American taxpayer and to our Constitution. Today I address an 
ongoing and significant threat to both. The issue involves the status 
of Puerto Rico.
  For too long the American public has been misled about how Puerto 
Rico's commonwealth status affects them. Most Americans seem to 
tolerate Puerto Rico's present relationship with the United States 
because they do not realize the direct harm it causes, including to 
Puerto Rico itself.
  Mr. Speaker, the truth is that Puerto Rico's commonwealth status is a 
drain on the American taxpaying public. Its status is an affront to our 
constitutional system of government. And, though it is hard to imagine, 
the leading proposal to continue and to enhance the current 
commonwealth status is even more offensive.
  First, the residents of Puerto Rico do not pay one dime in federal 
income taxes, yet collect roughly $11 billion annually in federal 
subsidies including massive welfare payments. This fact alone should 
offend all taxpaying Americans. At a time when Americans are working 
longer and harder to provide for their families, it is outrageous that 
we are shipping $11 billion of their hard-earned tax dollars to Puerto 
Rico and getting demands for more benefits in return.
  Second, the subsidy to Puerto Rico is likely to remain as long as it 
retains its commonwealth status. Under commonwealth, Puerto Rico has 
become home to a poor population that is losing ground compared to the 
mainland. Indeed, half of the island's residents receive food stamps--a 
rate considerably higher than the poorest of our 50 states. Mr. 
Speaker, we passed welfare reform in 1996 because we said the poor and 
out-of-work in America needed some ``tough love.'' This policy has 
proven successful; it is time to implement it in Puerto Rico.
  Third, the residents of Puerto Rico, even though they are U.S. 
citizens and mostly educated in public schools that receive large 
federal education funding grants, do not have access to a public 
English language education. Instead of diversity and respect for local 
heritage along with our common heritage in the United States, under 
decades of profoundly misguided federal and local policy we are 
allowing the creation of a Quebec-like enclave of linguistic separatism 
in Puerto Rico.
  According to the Census Bureau, only 25 percent of Puerto Rico's 
population is fluent in English and another 25 percent is only somewhat 
fluent. This percentage has not risen in years. English is the language 
of our nation and it is the language of global economic opportunity, 
which is why the wealthy in Puerto Rico send their kids to private 
schools that teach in English. As long as one dollar of federal funds 
is going to Puerto Rico we should require an end to the linguistic 
segregation of students in the public schools of Puerto Rico.
  Other facts demonstrate the cultural divide under commonwealth. For 
example, four times as many residents of the island consider themselves 
``Puerto Ricans'' as opposed to ``Americans''. Yet 95 percent vote to 
retain U.S. citizenship. We need to end this ``have it both ways'' 
relationship and be honest about Puerto Rico's status. In my 
congressional district alone, I know many individuals whose ancestors 
have come from Ireland, Germany, Mexico, and all over the globe, but I 
know they consider themselves to be Americans first.
  Recent developments in Vieques cast further doubt on the wisdom of 
the current commonwealth with the United States. For the first time, 
American servicemen and women are being denied critical training 
exercises on U.S. soil. We all regret the recent accident that took the 
life of a civilian employee working for the Navy, but if we are truly 
serious about protecting lives, we will continue live-fire training 
there so that our American military personnel are fully prepared for 
battle. Instead, we are paying an inordinate amount of attention to an 
extreme overreaction to any U.S. military presence on the island by a 
population that relies on that military to keep them free.
  These are the facts about Puerto Rico. They might not be politically 
correct, but they are the truth. I share them today, Mr. Speaker, 
because I believe it does the American people and the residents of 
Puerto Rico a great disservice to perpetuate the fiction that Puerto 
Rico's federally subsidized commonwealth status can continue 
indefinitely.
  I have little doubt that, if fully armed with the facts, the American 
people would overwhelmingly oppose continued commonwealth status for 
Puerto Rico. But like a doctor who treats a bad reaction with a double 
dosage of the same bad medicine, the leaders of the procommonwealth 
party in Puerto Rico are now proposing an ``enhanced'' commonwealth 
status that gives Puerto Ricans more rights and even fewer 
responsibilities.
  This enhanced commonwealth proposal, Mr. Speaker, is an outrage that 
should be swiftly and forcefully rejected by this Congress. This change 
would not only continue to take advantage of American taxpayers, it 
would violate the United States Constitution. Article IV, Section 3 of 
the Constitution states that, ``Congress shall have Power to dispose of 
and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or 
other Property belonging to the United States.'' Read in conjunction 
with the Supremacy Clause of Article VI, the Framers of our 
Constitution could not have been clearer as to the proper sovereign of 
U.S. territories. In short, it is the Congress that has sole authority 
under our Constitution to make all laws and regulations with regard to 
Puerto Rico. Any proposal that asserts or promises otherwise is 
irresponsible and plainly unconstitutional.
  And, yet, the formula to enhance commonwealth being proposed plainly 
asserts that the Territorial Clause of the U.S. Constitution does not 
apply to Puerto Rico now or in the future. It does so without 
identifying the source of constitutional authority for Congress to 
abdicate its territorial powers through statute and

[[Page 12382]]

to conduct a ``bilateral'' relationship with the ``nation'' of Puerto 
Rico. Mr. Speaker, this is not ``union'' at all under the Constitution. 
It represents a treaty-based form of free association, despite the fact 
that Congress already has determined that free association is 
terminable at will by either party, not permanent. Under such a 
formula, U.S. sovereignty, nationality, and citizenship would be 
terminated at once.
  To continue or, worse yet, to somehow ``enhance'' this fraudulent 
relationship with Puerto Rico will only lead to increased resentment on 
both sides. Consider the anti-death penalty demonstrations taking place 
today on the island. The majority of Puerto Rico's residents not only 
disagree with mainland Americans' support for the death penalty, they 
even object to U.S. officials applying capital punishment for federal 
crimes committed within Puerto Rico. This is another example, Mr. 
Speaker, of the desire to have it both ways under commonwealth. 
Commonwealth proponents want binding permanent union, guaranteed U.S. 
citizenship, and an uninterrupted stream of federal assistance, but do 
not want to be bound by federal capital punishment for federal crimes. 
Enough is enough.
  Mr. Speaker, I think the majority of the American people would agree 
with me and reject both the current and proposed commonwealth status 
for Puerto Rico. It is about time they were given the opportunity to do 
so. They should have the opportunity to make their voices heard through 
their elected representatives. This can only happen if we have a 
legislative vehicle upon which to begin this debate.
  The legislation I am introducing today will provide that vehicle. It 
is the ``United States-Puerto Rico Bilateral Pact of Permanent Union 
and Guaranteed Citizenship Act.'' This bill would implement under 
federal law the ``Proposal for the Development of the Commonwealth of 
Puerto Rico'' as adopted by the Governing Board of the Popular Democrat 
Party of Puerto Rico. It would permit Puerto Ricans to continue to 
receive government handouts without having to pay income taxes. It 
allows for separate Puerto Rican and American cultures, including 
different languages. And it would grant to Puerto Rico the authority to 
negotiate international agreements.
  I am introducing this bill today with the intention that it never 
becomes law. I do hope, however, that this bill will provoke an honest 
discussion of Puerto Rico's future and the truth about its current 
status.

                          ____________________