Dan Burton

Mr. BURTON of Indiana

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, has objection been heard?

Mr. BURTON of Indiana

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, this is not a parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, parliamentary inquiry before we go to that. We have on the schedule a number of 5-minute special orders and 1- hour special orders, and I just wonder, do the 1-minutes that are now being requested take precedence over that?

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. BURTON of Indiana

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, last week the President reportedly asserted executive privilege over conversations the President had with his longtime aid Bruce Lindsey as well as conversation the First Lady had with White House aide Sidney Blumenthal. This is the first time since President Richard Nixon, during Watergate, that a President has asserted executive privilege in a criminal proceeding. This stunning misuse of executive privilege is one of the White House's many delay tactics designed to drag out investigations. As the New York Times editorialized this morning, Mr. Clinton's attempt to block grand jury testimony by two important White House aides, Bruce Lindsey and Sidney Blumenthal, is an alarming attempt to extend presidential power. Even former Clinton advisor George Stephanopoulos recognizes the absurdity of this claim of executive privilege when on This Week with David Brinkley he said, ``They cannot win this fight on executive privilege. It has been tried before in the Whitewater case and eventually they turned over the documents.'' That was a quote from This Week on March 22, 1998. The President initially raised executive privilege with the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight, my committee, in a deposition of Bruce Lindsey last fall. The President's White House counsel directed Bruce Lindsey not to answer questions regarding conversations Lindsey had with the President about campaign contributor James Riady. When we challenged the White House on these claims, the President's counsel informed the committee last week that the President would not assert these claims over Mr. Lindsey's conversations. It is important to note that the committee could have held Mr. Lindsey in contempt for refusal to answer the questions if the committee determined that there was no basis for a valid claim of privilege. The President's former White House counsel, Lloyd Cutler, wrote in a 1994 executive privilege memo, quote, ``In circumstances involving communications relating to investigations of personal wrongdoing by government officials, it is our practice,'' the White House's practice, ``it is our practice not to assert executive privilege either in judicial proceedings or in congressional investigations and hearings.'' End quote. The President is not following his own order on executive privilege when it comes to the grand jury. Since these proceedings are all behind closed doors, the White House raises frivolous arguments to delay the proceedings. In the light of day with Congress the White House has backed down. Executive privilege is supposed to be used only rarely when national security would be significantly impaired, conduct of foreign relations would be impacted, or the performance of the President's constitutional duties would be impacted. This is not Bosnia, this is not the Middle East. These are scandals about possible personal wrongdoing by government and political officials. It has been White House policy since the Kennedy administration not to invoke executive privilege when allegations of wrongdoing are at issue. In contrast to Mr. Clinton, President Reagan declined to claim executive privilege over any matters in Iran-Contra where sensitive foreign policy decisions and negotiations were at issue. Executive privilege is not supposed to be used as a shield against responding to criminal proceedings. This is a clear misuse of the executive privilege. As George Washington University Professor Jonathan Turley recently stated, quote, ``It is ironic to see the extent to which the Clinton administration has adopted executive privilege arguments far beyond those made by the Nixon administration.'' End quote. Mr. Speaker, this administration and the President has no basis to claim executive privilege on matters before the grand jury that Mr. Starr is conducting, and, Mr. Speaker, I believe they are only doing this to extend the investigation, to drag it out, so that it eventually wears out the American people and they are able to hide behind that. So, Mr. Speaker, I think this is something that should be stopped. I think the President should not claim executive privilege, he should get on with the investigation, he should make a clean breast of all this before the American people so that the American people know the facts.

Mr. BURTON of Indiana

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, as we close this week, I thought I would inform my colleagues and anyone else who may be paying attention that, regarding the investigation that I am charged to chair involving illegal foreign campaign contributions and the possibility of people in very high offices of this country breaking the law, we are now up to 89 people, 89 people who have been associates or friends of the President or political allies or contributors, 89 people have either taken the fifth amendment or fled the country. A lot of my colleagues have asked me about the progress of our investigation. I tried to explain to them that we are making some headway. Charlie Trie, one of the friends of the President who had fled the country and gone to China, has now returned. He is under indictment and we believe there is negotiations going on with him of a plea bargaining nature, but we are not sure about that. The fact of the matter is there has been an indictment of Mr. Trie, a personal friend and associate of the President. We have a number of others that we believe ultimately will face indictment. But the biggest problem we face with the investigation is getting people to talk to us. Toward that end, we have asked the President to contact people who have fled the country to come back and appear before the committee so that they can help us get to the bottom of all these allegations. So far the White House, the President and the White House, has not been cooperative in asking foreign governments to insist that these people return. We have got James and Mochtar Riady in Indonesia whom we would like to have come back. We have asked for the assistance of the White House in convincing these gentlemen, who are executives of the Lippo Corporation and friends of the President in Indonesia, to help us get them back. So far we have had no cooperation. We have asked the President and the State Department to work with us to get people back from other countries like China. We have not had that success. As a matter of fact, the Chinese government would not let my investigators even get a visa to come to China to investigate these allegations of illegal activities. So we are having a difficult time. The President I understand is going to be going to China before too long. There will be Members of Congress, I understand, accompanying him. I would like to urge the President to postpone his trip until China allows my investigators to go in there and to give them visas so that they can do the job that they have been charged by the Congress to do. Mr. Speaker, I hope if the President or any of his friends at the White House or any of his colleagues here in Congress happen to be paying attention, I hope they will urge him to send a message to China that any diplomatic missions to China will be deferred until we get some cooperation from the Chinese government regarding our investigation. I think it is unbelievable that all the trade that we do with China, all the business that we do with China, all the breaks we have given to China, even in spite of their human rights violations, which are legion, they will not cooperate by allowing our investigators to have a visa to get into China. Mr. Speaker, I will just end up by saying that we want to get to the bottom of all this to finish this investigation as quickly as possible. If the President would just come forward and talk to us, if his friends would not take the Fifth Amendment and would come forward and talk with us, we could conclude the investigation rapidly. I would urge all those involved to give us their cooperation so we can get it concluded. That is what the American people want.

Mr. BURTON of Indiana

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, it has come to my attention that India's Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) conspired to place a false label of ``terrorist'' on a young Sikh man named Navjot Singh, and that the vaunted National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) has ignored his case. I have a copy of a letter sent to the NHRC President by the young man's father, Tarlok Singh Chhabra, this past December 12, 1997, that details his case. It is very disturbing. The letter states ``that the CBI with the connivance of Delhi Police, planted a false claim'' against Navjot Singh. According to the letter, ``on protracted correspondence with the NHRC, it transpired that the NHRC had not bothered at all to go through the representation.'' Navjot Singh was forced to sign false papers to implicate him falsely in an incident in Delhi, as well as another pending case. This is an outrageous abuse of power, unacceptable in any country, but especially when that country wants to portray itself as the world's largest ``democracy.'' Several of us recently sent a letter to the Government of Punjab regarding its failure to punish those responsible for the genocide against the Sikh Nation. It requested that the Punjab Chief Minister appoint a commission to investigate over 75 cases of police murder, rape, and torture of Sikh youth that have been documented by the CBI, the Supreme Court of India, and the United Nations Commission on Human Rights. In fact, these agencies report that this abusive behavior has occurred deliberately, and on a massive scale. Also, it has been reported that the Punjab Government is diverting the mail of a fiercely independent journalist named Sukhbir Singh Osan. And a number of my colleagues were dismayed by Prime Minister Gujral's recent threat that ``Hindustan will not tolerate another attack on Iraq.'' Now we are informed about Mr. Navjot Singh and his unfortunate experience with the Indian Government. India may have conducted a new round of elections, resulting in its fifth government in two years, but it takes more than elections to make a democracy. Mr. Speaker, India is one of the five largest recipients of U.S. foreign aid, and the President wants to increase last year's assistance by almost $12 million. The Indian Government is responsible for taking the lives of 250,000 Sikhs in Punjab between 1984-1992, over 200,000 Christians in Nagaland since 1974, and 53,000 Muslims in Kashmir since 1988. There are a half-million Indian soldiers occupying the province of Punjab, and another half-million occupying Kashmir. We should not be supporting a government that condones these widespread abuses with American tax dollars. The United States is the world's preeminent power, arguably the only Nation on earth with both the economic might and the moral legitimacy to make the observance of human rights a pillar of its foreign policy. The unfortunate peoples of the world, whose basic human rights are suppressed either by tyrants or failed economic experiments, turn to the United States for hope, not cheap imports! From India to China, the people who suffer under such regimes understand that, if America joins their struggle by sacrificing short-term economic gain for long-term justice and freedom, the regimes will ultimately succumb. An increase in aid is difficult to justify to the American people, who send their hard-earned tax dollars to a country that obviously shares none of our most-cherished values. The time has come for action, it is time for America to take a stand. The Human Rights in India Act, introduced by me along with my good friend and colleague Gary Condit of California, will bar development aid to India unless the government releases prisoners of conscience, ends the practice of torture by police and military forces, permits impartial investigations of reported torture and disappearances of those in custody, brings to justice police forces responsible for human rights abuses, and permits critics of the government to travel abroad, My colleagues, from this well of the House of Representatives you will hear many stories of human rights abuses from all around the world. Today, I ask that you think of the hundreds of thousands who are suffering in India. Please do not turn your back on the innocent. Give them a flicker of hope and send a strong message to the Government of India. I urge my colleagues to give the Human Rights in India Act their full consideration, and their strong support. I am placing Mr. Chhabra's letter into the Record, and recommend that my colleagues give it their immediate attention. Subject: Conspiracy of the CBI to implicate Mr. Navjot Singh, an innocent boy & labelled him fraudulently as a ``terrorist'' The Chairman, National Human Rights Commission, New Delhi. Sir: Your attention is invited immediately to paras 6 and 7 of my representation dated 19-1-96, which is reproduced for ready reference: ``That the CBI with the Connivance of Delhi Police, planted a false case and implicated him in FIR 681/95 of 27-9-95 and he was lodged in Tihar Jail Delhi for about 6 weeks in `C' class and that too in solitary confinement whereas in Chandigarh he was kept in `B' class on account of his academic and professional qualifications. That the falsification of Delhi Police case can be proven by its own concocted story, that on 17-9-95 he had been arrested from our home and on the next day produced in the Chandigarh Police and remanded to police custody & then Judicial custody and it was from Burail Jail Chandigarh only to Delhi and planted a false case against him in Delhi whereas he was never present at Delhi on 27-09-95 as he was present in his office up to the last date of his arrest. During his police remand Delhi, he was interrogated by the officers/officials of the CBI only and not by any other Agency. There at also he was forced to sign many blank papers etc.'' 2. On protracted correspondence with the NHRC, it transpired that the NHRC had not bothered at all to go through the representation in totality and had taken the matter lightly which required rapt attention of the NHRC in such a crucial matter involving the whole career of an educated young man. I have the documentary evidence to adduce, that it is all a conspiracy of the CBI officials to implicate my son falsely in Delhi case as well as Beant Singh case. What the hell on earth is that my son was forced to sign many blank papers including few diary pages of an old diary at gun point? Why duty is not cast upon the investigating agencies to faithfully discharge their duties and not involve innocent people in concocted and false cases which has glaringly happened in our case? Why penal action should not be taken against defaulting officials, who themselves behave like criminals and human rights are violated? A thorough enquiry be conducted and I be associated with the NHRC Court proceedings with following observations besides other issues: 1. The name of my son in FIR 681/95, does not figure at all at any stage. 2. The concocted confessional statement has been written in a language other than English and his signatures in English were already taken on blank sheets besides diary writings and few papers might have been filled in later on suiting the whims and fancies of the investigating officials, which is again a criminal offence on the part of the so called investigating officials and this fact cannot be ignored. 3. The Delhi case against my son came into being only as CBI were refused further remand by Chandigarh Court in Beant Singh case, in which he was falsely implicated already. 4. My son had never known any person named as co-accused or to any witness cited by the prosecuting agency, which again shows implication in a false and concocted case. 5. He was already arrested on 17-9-95 and was already lodged in Changigarh Jail, whereas the Delhi FIR came into being on 27-9-95, what a big fraud? He was straight away taken from Chandigarh Jail for Delhi, it is highly unbelievable as to how the Delhi Police came to know that he was already lodged in Chandigarh Jail, whereas in the statement of a witness falsely brought on record by Delhi Police in connivance with CBI, as the complete residential address as well as the name of father of Navjot Singh was completely missing, requires thorough probe and stern action against the erring officials, both of CBI and the Delhi Police which culminated in implicating an innocent boy in false cases. It is pertinent to add that he was subjected to 3rd degree methods, just to compel him to become approver in Beant Singh assassination case which he flatly refused to do so. He was also threatened that he will be implicated in other false cases of other states too and his family members shall also be subjected to all sorts of tortures etc.

Mr. BURTON of Indiana

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, the traditional way of doing business in Washington is to create yet another program or spend more money whenever we want to solve a problem. It is just more programs and more money. The President's fiscal year 1999 budget reflects this reliance on expanding government whenever possible. For example, the President wants to expand the Federal role in local schools. The President wants to expand job training, even though the Federal Government has 163 different job training programs. His budget contains 85 new spending programs, including 39 new entitlements. These entitlements add nearly $53 billion to Federal spending over the next 5 years. In short, 1 year after declaring that the era of big government is over, President Clinton is busy reinventing the era of big government. We are being asked to spend all of this additional money without ever having decent answers to some very common-sense questions, like, what is the purpose of the new program? Are there similar programs already in existence? Is it appropriate that the Federal Government should even do it? Or should it be done at the State or local level, or even by the private sector? In 1993, under a Democrat Congress, we passed the Results Act, a law to apply basic business principles to Federal bureaucracies. Last September, every Federal agency was required by this act to submit strategic plans which clearly outlined where the agency is going, how it will get there, and whether it is headed in the right direction. But when congressional teams of Republican, General Accounting Office, and in many cases Democrat staff reviewed these plans, the majority of Federal agencies failed to make the grade. The average score was 46.6 percent, and that fails in any school. Take a look at these statistics right here. Only two agencies of the Federal Government got above 70 percent. The reasons for low scores are obvious. The General Accounting Office best summed it up in testimony on February 12, and it is on this other poster. They said, ``The strategic plans often lacked clear articulations of agencies' strategic directions; in short, a sense of what the agencies were trying to achieve and how they proposed to do it. Many agency goals were not results-oriented. The plans often did not show clear linkages among planning elements, such as goals and strategies. And furthermore, the plans frequently had incomplete and underdeveloped strategies.'' If the Results Act is going to work, the strategic plans must give us a solid foundation for an informed policy debate about funding programs based on results. If we do not pass this bill asking for better plans by September 30, 1998, we will have to wait until the year 2000 before we get updated strategic plans. I guarantee that no successful businessman or woman would sit around for 3 years before getting their strategic plan right. If they did, they would be out of business. Before my committee considered this bill, we offered to OMB and the Democrats to sit down and work out any problems that they had. We offered flexibility on the September due date. We offered to narrow the bill's coverage to only the agencies with the worst scores. We asked if there was anything we could do to bring them to the table, and they rejected everything we offered outright. Their reaction seems to oppose the Results Act goal of changing the old ways of doing business here in Washington. I believe opposition to this bill comes from its threat to the status quo, a threat to the belief that Federal government programs are the answer to all of our problems. There seems to be a lot of talk by this administration about wanting to change the way government works for people. But as we try to change how government is run, true colors begin to show. Let me be clear. If Members vote against this bill and they vote to let agencies off the hook, they vote to continue to accept low quality as a government standard. Vote in favor of this bill, and we vote for accountability in the Federal Government, and vote against failure, inefficiency, ineffectiveness, waste, and mismanagement. Mr. Chairman, this effort started out as a bipartisan effort 5 years ago. It should remain a bipartisan effort. I urge all of my colleagues to vote yes on H.R. 2883.

Mr. BURTON of Indiana

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Let me say to my colleague who just spoke, the gentleman from Ohio, that I am sorry his amendment will not be made in order because of the Rules of the House. What I would like to do is inform the gentleman that we do have accountability in the Congress. It is not necessary to put it in this particular bill. In every session, an oversight plan has to be filed with the Committee on House Oversight by February 15. Every committee in the House does that. So we already do that. If the gentleman would refer to page 427 of the Rules of the House, and I would like to read it to him, he will find that not later than February 15 of the first session of the Congress, each standing committee of the House shall, and we do, in a meeting that is open to the public, and with a quorum present, adopt its oversight plans for that Congress. Such plans shall be submitted simultaneously to the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight, our committee on which the gentleman and I serve, and to the Committee on House Oversight, the committee of the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas). In developing such plans, each committee shall, to the maximum extent feasible, and then it goes on and lays out very clearly what we are supposed to do. That changes from time to time with each session of Congress. Let me just say that we have oversight plans from each committee of Congress. All we want to do with the bill we have before us today is to apply businesslike standards and requirements for every agency of government so that the taxpayer who pays the bills for all this gets the bang for the buck that they want. We get that in the Congress. The rules of the House spell it out very clearly. I would suggest to the gentleman from Ohio, the very distinguished former mayor of Cleveland, take a good look at the rules.

Mr. BURTON of Indiana

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time. I am in favor of free trade around the world and free trade with Africa, I think, is extremely important. But there are provisions in this law that really concern me. For instance, only 35 percent of the product that is produced has to be completed or made in Africa. That means 65 percent of it can be transshipped from another country. Right now, Communist China, one of the worst violators of human rights in the world, is violating people's human rights with impunity. We have not done anything in this body, and many of our friends, other countries around the world, have done virtually nothing to put pressure on the Chinese Government to bring about changes in their human rights activities. Just last week two people were arrested in New York from China who were selling body parts, if my colleagues can believe that. They sell retinas for $5,000 a pair; they will sell a kidney for $10,000 or $20,000. What they do is go to these concentration camps, these gulags, and they shoot these people and then take orders for their livers or kidneys and hearts and sell them in the United States and around the world. This country, China, is going to transship through Africa billions of dollars of products because of the provision in this law that allows 65 percent of the product to be manufactured outside of Africa and then the remaining 35 percent can be completed in Africa and then sold to the United States or wherever. We are already buying billions of dollars in products from China today. I can remember when Wal-Mart said only buy American. They had ``Buy America'' advertisements all over the place. If we go into Wal-Mart today, probably 75 percent of the products we see are made in China by slave labor, by women and children, people whose human rights are being violated. And now we are going to expand their ability to garner a large part of the world market by saying that two-thirds of the product that is made in Africa can be made in China and transshipped through Africa to the United States and elsewhere. We need to be concerned about human rights throughout the world, and that provision in this law does concern me. We should have a different percentage in the bill.

Mr. BURTON of Indiana

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, I yield two minutes to my good friend, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Serrano).

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Kennedy).

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Green). (Mr. GREEN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield, I do not think I owe the gentleman an apology. First of all, the bill only authorizes that language, authorizes the English provisions in that bill. It does not mandate them, if the gentleman reads that.

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I would say to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Solomon), the reason we did was because we knew the gentleman as the chairman of the Committee on Rules was going to put this amendment into the process. That is why we did it, and the gentleman knows it.

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. I yield to the gentleman from New York.

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, let me just say that I think the amendment, my substitute, the gentleman from California's substitute, solves the English language issue if you want to have it attached to this bill. But this bill is not about the English language, nor should it be. It is about whether or not the people of Puerto Rico have a right to let the Congress of the United States know if they want to be a State, a commonwealth or independent. This English issue is a red herring that has been put into the bill to try to drive a stake through the heart of the bill to kill it. That is what they want to do. They want to kill the bill. It should not even be here in here. We should be debating the English only issue in a separate piece of legislation as we have in the past. This is a plebiscite bill to find out from the people of Puerto Rico what status they want. Do they want to be a State, do they want to be a commonwealth, or independent? If they want to be a State, for instance, it has to come back to the Congress and a process of about 8 or 10 years is going to take place before they become a State. So the Congress is going to make the final determination anyhow. This is a red herring. The other thing I want to say is that I have great respect for my colleagues, but I think that every one of my colleagues who are opposing this bill, I hope every one of my colleagues who are sitting in their offices will focus on the main issue at hand today, and that is do people who are American citizens, and that is the people of Puerto Rico, do the people who are American citizens have the right to say, we want representation if we are going to be paying the price in wars and taxes and everything else for this country. Do they have that right? They should. They are American citizens.

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I would just like to say to my colleague from New York and my colleague from Georgia, my very good friends, if they will look on page 2 of my amendment, the second paragraph, it says, in section 4(a) in the referendum language for statehood, amend paragraph 7 to read as follows: ``Official English language requirements of the Federal Government apply in Puerto Rico to the same extent as Federal law requires throughout the United States.'' The law will be the same for Puerto Rico, the same English language law for Puerto Rico as it is for the rest of the United States. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to offer a reasonable substitute to the Solomon English only amendment. Although I agree that we need to debate and pass an English only bill or a constitutional amendment making English the official language of our government, holding U.S. citizens hostage in Puerto Rico, not allowing self-determination to take place is against my strongly held beliefs in democracy. English has been made an issue to kill this Puerto Rico plebiscite bill. H.R. 856 is a process bill to advance the democratic cause, to advance the Founding Fathers' idea that freedom and democracy demand self-determination. That is what this debate is really about. Nevertheless, English has been brought into the debate, forcing me and others to offer an alternative. Supporters of H.R. 123, the Bill Emerson English Language Empowerment Act, share Mr. Solomon's English language policy goals but should not support this amendment to H.R. 856. I supported strongly Mr. Emerson's bill when it was on the floor. The Solomon amendment is not faithful to H.R. 123. Instead the Solomon amendment does two things the House has never endorsed. Number one, the Solomon amendment requires ballot language on the statehood option which confuses voters to believe that Congress has imposed English as the exclusive official language of Puerto Rico's potential State government, which is not the case. And two, it also confuses the voters that English is the exclusive language of instruction in Puerto Rico's public schools, which is not the case. The Solomon amendment does not empower the 3.8 million U.S. citizens of Puerto Rico by promoting English under the current commonwealth territory status. Instead, the Solomon amendment would promote continuation of an enclave of disenfranchised Spanish-speaking U.S. citizens, a recipe for creating a Quebec-style separatism under the American flag, which none of us wants. We can avoid this by passing the Burton-Miller-McCollum-Young substitute. Our amendment would be effective immediately, immediately. English proficiency by age 10 is the Federal policy standard for school students in American's largest and most populous territory if my amendment passes. Our amendment eliminates ambiguity and constitutional flaws in the Solomon amendment with clear and constitutionally sound provisions applying to Puerto Rico, if it becomes a State, the same national English policy applicable to all other States. The irony of the Solomon amendment is that it would isolate Puerto Rico from the purpose the amendment wants to establish when it wants to establish English as the official language of the United States. The Solomon amendment would apply English to all of the 50 States, but would carve out a territory, Puerto Rico, under the U.S. flag without the benefit of English as the official language until and only if Puerto Rico became a State after 10 years. However, under my substitute, there would be an immediate effect by a new national policy to promote the teaching of English to enable students in public schools to achieve English language proficiency by the age of 10 right now. In other words, 50 States would be required to have English as the official language, but not Puerto Rico, until they became a State. So you fortified the position that that is going to be a Spanish-speaking State for at least 10 years. My amendment would make sure that English would be a proficiency, there would be proficiency in English by age 10 in Puerto Rico immediately, not waiting 10 years. The last couple of evenings I was able to watch Braveheart on television. This heroic story of the freedom fighters of Scotland led by William Wallace over their British rulers resonates even to this day. Like Scotland, Puerto Rico desires a chance at true freedom. However, rather than take the debate to the battlefield, they ask us simply for the opportunity to take the debate to the ballot box. Yes, they have local self-government, but under their current status Puerto Ricans are, in effect, ruled by the U.S. Congress but without any representation in Congress. Puerto Ricans have no vote in the Congress but yet can be called into battle in a war on behalf of the United States at a moment's notice. Yes, freedom and democracy are at the heart of this debate over H.R. 856. Do we believe in a free people exercising their right to self- determination or do we not? That is the real question we are debating today. We should, in my opinion, do the right thing and give Puerto Rico the opportunity to let Congress clearly know if they want to be a State, a Commonwealth or an independent country. And once we find out, and my colleagues need to know this, the final determination on the status of Puerto Rico rests with this body. The plebiscite we are talking about is advisory only. We are just asking that the people of Puerto Rico be able to let us know in the Congress, in a clearly defined way, what they want. Once we know that, then the Congress makes the final determination. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1\1/2\ minutes.

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment as a substitute for the amendment.

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young), the chairman of the Committee on Resources and my great friend and colleague. (Mr. YOUNG of Alaska asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. BURTON of Indiana

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on H.R. 856, the bill just passed.

Mr. BURTON of Indiana

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that in the engrossment of the bill, H.R. 856, the Clerk be authorized to make technical and conforming changes as may be necessary to reflect the action of the House just taken.