Peter Deutsch

Mr. DEUTSCH

Mr. DEUTSCH. Africa.

Mr. DEUTSCH. As my colleague knows, again my understanding is that on thin routes to Africa they are not classified as nondominant.

Mr. DEUTSCH

Mr. DEUTSCH. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this legislation. I am going to focus on two issues that several of my colleagues have raised. The first is whether or not there is an existing monopoly in satellite telecommunications internationally. The facts are, contrary to what the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Wynn) has mentioned, I guess it is in the eyes of the beholder how we look at it, but let me talk specifically about facts. If one is in the United States of America and he wants to make a phone call or receive video from a location overseas that is serviced through a satellite system, the only way to do it, the only way, is through COMSAT. That is a statutory monopoly that this Congress had granted and has granted and is the existing law. That is a fact; there is a statutory monopoly in terms of communications through the INTELSAT system. There are alternative ways, but in some locations there are not. In fact, if one wants to call Africa or Asia, or if one wants to send video from Iran back to America, there is just no other alternative. So that is the first issue. There is a statutory monopoly. Let me also respond, we are going to have several amendments on this, but I think it is going to be the heart of a lot of the debate that is going to take place this morning, the issue of whether we are abrogating contracts and what that means. Since there is an existing monopoly, that monopoly had the power to have contracts, essentially forced contracts, monopoly contractual terms on a variety of consumers throughout the United States of America. And just as has been done previously in telecommunications issues, specifically regarding when AT&T broke up in terms of long-distance service, in a monopoly situation which did exist and does exist today, when we are breaking up the monopoly, which is appropriate in terms of service and price for our economy and every citizen of the United States, we have to view how those contracts were established, and those contracts were established in a monopoly situation. So it is clearly appropriate for us to make that change which is not precedent-making, which we have done previously on several occasions in telecommunications in addressing monopoly situations.

Mr. DEUTSCH. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, hopefully, Members are listening to the debate and listening carefully, because there have really been a lot of red herrings, as my Chairman has stated previously. The facts of the monopoly issue of COMSAT are just a fact. We have heard numbers thrown out: 20 percent of the market, 22 percent of the market. In the specific area of international satellite communications, it is 100 percent of the market. It is a monopoly. There is no way around it. It is a monopoly, that is, a statutory monopoly that this Congress granted for good reason many years ago. But that monopoly that exists is a monopoly. If we are trying to communicate with a phone call from here, Washington, D.C., to Africa, to Asia, there is only one path to complete that phone call, and it is through COMSAT, through INTELSAT, 100 percent. There is no option to that whole aspect, and if one does not accept that the monopoly exists, I guess if one wants to convince oneself that it does not exist, I do not see how one can, but I guess if one wants to, one can, then the next logical step I could understand one saying, well, there is a taking going on in terms of saying that some of the existing contracts need to be modified. I guess if we accept that there is not a monopoly, then there is a logical step that we could take. But, again, I find it very, very difficult even to perceive that argument. But let me follow up though really with the fact that the monopoly exists in terms of the issue of the taking. What has been spoken about before, and I think from a Member perspective to completely understand, is that those people who have contracts with COMSAT entered into those contracts in an environment of dealing with a monopoly, a monopoly in terms of the monopoly power that they had in terms of those contract negotiations. This is not the first time this type of situation has existed. What I have pointed out previously and I think is absolutely appropriate as an analogy is when AT&T was broken up for long distance service, AT&T was a monopoly. It was broken up. When it was broken up, the existing contracts were able to be modified. That is exactly what is being done here. It is not unprecedented. It has been done in other areas as well. That is the policy implication behind what we are doing. Mr. Chairman, I urge Members to oppose the amendment and support the bill.

Mr. DEUTSCH

Mr. DEUTSCH. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the extraordinary achievements in education, public service, and leadership of Dr. Abraham S. Fischler, and to extend my sincere congratulations to him on his retirement from a long and distinguished career. Abe is a long-time personal friend whom I admire for his vision and his commitment to serving South Florida in many capacities. He was President of Nova Southeastern University, in Fort Lauderdale, from 1970 to 1992 and currently serves as President Emeritus and University Professor. He is a member and past Chair of the Broward County School Board and is a past state-wide appointee to the Florida Education Foundation. In addition, Abe has served on the Chambers of Commerce for Fort Lauderdale, Hollywood, and Davie/Cooper City. His leadership with the Hollywood Medical Center, United Way, Southeast Florida-Holocaust Memorial Center, and Overall Economic Development Committee has been a vital asset to South Florida. Upon earning his doctorate in education from Columbia University, Abe accepted professorships at both Harvard University's Graduate School of Education and the University of California at Berkeley. He has been awarded an honorary Doctor of Laws from Nova University and several national honors for his leadership in science, education, and humanitarian involvements. Abe has served as a consultant to the Ford Foundation, various state departments of education, and school districts throughout the United States in addition to publishing several books, text books and numerous articles in professional journals and newspapers nationwide.

Mr. DEUTSCH

Mr. DEUTSCH. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the career of a respected and admired public servant from Florida: The Honorable Fred Lippman. Representative Lippman announced recently his retirement from the Florida House of Representatives. Representative Fred Lippman, who represents most of Hollywood and parts of Hallandale Beach, has been a member of the Florida Legislature since 1978. After attending the Graduate School of Pharmacy at Columbia University in New York, Representative Lippman moved to South Florida and opened several pharmacies. It was at this time that he became active in community affairs. For two decades as a public servant Representative Lippman has fought for legislation to protect children, senior citizens, and to improve Florida's health care systems. Representative Lippman was vital in the effort to pass the country's first laws to mandate the use of child-safety seats; the design of Healthy Kids health insurance program for children; and revising Florida's child abuse laws. The Lippman Family Center and the Lippman Shelter, both in Broward County, were named after Representative Lippman in honor of his work on behalf of Florida's troubled youth and families. Representative Lippman's efforts to provide care for Florida's needy children and adults have earned him numerous awards and honors from organizations such as the American Lung Association, American Jewish Congress, Florida's teachers, professional firefighters, children's advocates, Chambers of Commerce, public health providers, Jaycees, and many others. I believe Representative Lippman leaves the state house with the knowledge that Florida is better for him having served. I thank him today for his work.

Mr. DEUTSCH

Mr. DEUTSCH. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the career of a respected and admired public servant from Florida: The Honorable Debbie Horan. Representative Horan recently announced her retirement from the Florida House of Representatives. Representative Horan, of Key West, was first elected in 1994 at the young age of 31. While serving in the state house she has made education her top priority. For her efforts to improve education in Florida, Representative Horan was named Legislator of the Year by the Florida Association of District School Superintendents, as well as the Florida School Boards Association. Representative Horan was also recognized as the Outstanding Young Floridian by the Florida Jaycees. For Representative Horan, her service to the people in Key West has been a great honor and a tremendous opportunity to be an advocate for better education in Florida. Although Representative Horan is leaving to spend more time with her two young daughters, Lindsey and Kelsey, I hope she will one day return to public service. She will be missed.

Mr. DEUTSCH

Mr. DEUTSCH. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the career of a respected and admired public servant from Florida: The Honorable Jack Tobin. Representative Tobin recently announced his retirement from the Florida House of Representatives. Representative Tobin, who represents parts of Broward County, has served in the state legislature since 1983. During his sixteen years in the legislature and another four as a city official and Mayor in Margate, Representative Tobin has carved out a reputation as a strong consumer advocate. His legislation has protected car buyers, cracked down on fraudulent telemarketers, and protected travelers from travel agencies that go out of business. Representative Tobin was also a champion of issues important to older Americans such as Alzheimer's patient care and Medicare protection. Most important to Representative Tobin were his efforts on the Clean Indoor Air Act, the Foster Care Statute and the Major Telecommunications Acts of 1989 and 1996. Representative Tobin has enjoyed his 20 years in public service and although he will be entering the business world, and will no longer be a public official, I know he will continue serving the people of Broward County and Florida as ably as ever.

Mr. DEUTSCH

Mr. DEUTSCH. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate Chesterfield Smith for being honored by Legal Services of Greater Miami. In his honor, Legal Services of Miami is renaming their offices the Chesterfield Smith Center for Equal Justice. Throughout his long and distinguished professional career, he has strived to improve the quality of legal representation for those less fortunate and has worked to improve our community. Chesterfield Smith's leadership and service to his community are standards for all. For the past several years, he has chaired the Legal Services of Greater Miami's Campaign for Justice. Under his leadership, the Campaign for Justice has worked to improve a great many lives by being actively involved with housing, employment, community, and family issues affecting the poor. During his tenure as President of the American Bar Association, where he served with distinction from 1973- 1974, Chesterfield Smith championed a more activist agenda that remains a hallmark of the Association until this day. As a founding partner of the law firm, Holland & Knight, Chesterfield Smith pushed himself and members of his profession to take a greater responsibility in providing quality legal representation for all those in need. Among his many other accomplishments, Chesterfield Smith has received the Distinguished Floridian Award from the Florida Chamber of Commerce, the Jurisprudence Award from the Anti-Defamation League and most recently, he became only the 12th individual to receive the prestigious Great Floridian Award, presented by the Florida History Associates. Chesterfield Smith has long been respected for his professional achievements but what distinguishes him from all others is his standing commitment to the people and community around him. I wish Chesterfield Smith the best on receiving this distinction from Legal Services of Miami. His leadership and ability to inspire others are truly commendable.

Mr. DEUTSCH

Mr. DEUTSCH. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commemorate the late Jewish community leader, Jean Kletzky. Jean Kletzky was known throughout the community as a woman who truly loved her community and made a lifelong commitment to community service. When she retired to Florida in 1979 from New Jersey, she became immediately active in supporting humanitarian causes in South Florida. Jean Kletzky will be remembered as a listener, a teacher, and a person whose understanding of people and things is admired. Her companion of 18 years, Daniel D. Cantor, regarded her as an intelligent, alert, and strong woman who was responsible for helping fulfill his aspirations and dreams. Together they built the Daniel D. Cantor Senior Center in Sunrise, Florida. The center provides senior citizens more than 65 daily functions including a food service, an Alzheimer division, an elderly division, a wandering garden, support networks, and myriad cultural activities. The belief behind the center is that life begins at 65 and people who participate at the center realize that being elderly does not make them old. The Daniel D. Cantor Senior Center offers people a place that gives them life, happiness, and more hope than they would normally have outside the center. Among her many philanthropic accomplishments, Jean Kletzky served as an administrative assistant to the director of the Retired Teacher's Union of Florida for ten years. She also shared her wonderful sense of style and interior decorating with her friends and family to help them create beautiful homes. And, she was responsible for successfully directing the fund-raising campaign for the construction of the Daniel D. Cantor Senior Center. Jean Kletzky was a member of the National Women's League for Israel, Jewish Adoption and Foster Care Options (JAFCO), City of Hope, National Council of Jewish Women, Women's Division of the Jewish Federation of Broward County, and was an Endowed Lion through the Jewish Community Foundation of the Jewish Federation of Broward County. The people of Broward County will sorely miss Jean Kletzky. Throughout her life those who knew her regarded her as a driven leader, a humanitarian, a friend, a wonderful bridge player, a mother, and a wife. Now, she is remembered as a heroine to the residents of South Florida.

Mr. DEUTSCH

Mr. DEUTSCH. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Rosa R. and Carlos M. de la Cruz, Sr. on receiving the Simon Weisenthal Center National Community Service Award. Mr. and Mrs. de la Cruz are being honored for their outstanding commitment to the community. Over the past several years, they have worked together to improve education and social services, promote the arts, help the underprivileged, and foster better relations for all people. The de la Cruz family defines caring. Born in Havana, Cuba, Carlos and Rosa de la Cruz moved to Miami in 1975. Since arriving in South Florida, they have been a wonderful example of charitable giving, devoting time to education, social services, and the world of art and artists. In 1997, they received the coveted Alexis de Tocqueville Award for Outstanding Philanthropy from the United Way. Carlos de la Cruz's leadership and enduring generosity is a beacon for us all. For six years, he chaired the development committee for the University of Miami. He also established a Black Educational Scholarship Fund at Florida International University and raised endowment for a campus for Belen Preparatory School. In 1990, Carlos became the first Cuban American to chair the United Way campaign. He helped guide the creation of a United Way program called GRASP to help Cuban and Haitian refugees get off to a good start in our country. Among his accomplishments, Carlos de la Cruz has received the Silver Medallion Brotherhood Award from the National Congerence of Christians and Jews, the Distinguished Service Award from Florida International University, and the Social Responsibility from the Urban League. Rosa de la Cruz has shared her talent to the world of art. She serves on the Exhibitor Committee of the Museum of Contemporary Art in Chicago, the Acquisition Committee of the Miami Art Museum and is actively involved with the Museum of Contemporary Art of North Miami. She has helped countless contemporary artists express their talents and themselves. I wish Rosa and Carlos de la Cruz the best on receiving this prestigious honor from the Simon Weisenthal Center. Their leadership and ability to inspire others is truly admirable and I know that they will continue on their benevolent path.

Mr. DEUTSCH

Mr. DEUTSCH. Mr. Chairman, recently, we have heard threats from the Popular Democratic Party of Puerto Rico (PDP) that it will boycott any referendum which does not include a definition of ``commonwealth'' that does not conform to PDP doctrine. It seems to me that this would be an ill-advised course for the PDP, because the elected constitutional legislature of Puerto Rico has adopted two resolutions formally requesting that Congress define the options it is willing to consider, and to authorize a status referendum on the basis of those definitions. When a political party places itself at odds with the will of the people acting through their constitutional process, and threatens to boycott the democratic constitutional process because it cannot dictate the terms of its participation, that political party is risking its credibility. Deliberations regarding H.R. 856 have created an open marketplace of ideas on the Puerto Rico political status question, and I know the PDP is doing some serious soul searching because these are matters of such great concern to party leaders. However, the record of hearings and deliberations in the Resources Committee establishes clearly that the Ranking Minority Member, Mr. Miller, did all that is humanly possible-- and then some--to devise and win support for a definition of commonwealth that is both constitutional and acceptable to the PDP. The record of Resource Committee hearings on H.R. 856 in Washington, San Juan and Mayaguez establish just as clearly that the PDP's ``New Commonwealth'' definition simply cannot be salvaged due to fatal constitutional flaws. In my own view, it is lamentable that the PDP leadership has not been more flexible, because that would have been more helpful to Mr. Miller and others who wanted to be fair and find a definition with which the PDP could live. When it became painfully obvious that the PDP would not adapt to the legal and political realities which govern any legitimate definition of commonwealth, Mr. Miller, Mr. Young, Mr. Romero and staff representing the Clinton Administration decided on a definition that was as fair as possible to the PDP. In the end, however, the definition had to be fair to the real other party in interest with which Congress is dealing in this matter--the people of Puerto Rico. Indeed, the Young-Miller compromise definition goes much further to accommodate the PDP than Mr. Young preferred. However, Mr. Miller went the last mile to try to include a definition that with some creative interpretation can be reconciled with the Federal constitution, and at the same time embody a position that is as fair as possible to the PDP. I support this definition of commonwealth and commend the bipartisan process through which it was achieved. Still, the PDP has rejected any definition it does not write. However, the PDP was allowed to write its own ballot definition of commonwealth in 1993, and even then its definition got less than a majority of the votes in a plebiscite held under local law. The failure of that local plebiscite to resolve the status issue is why H.R. 856 is needed, but the PDP apparently does not want Congress to have its say or work its will in defining the options in a Congressionally- recognized referendum. Since commonwealth is a relationship to which Congress is one of the two parties, this PDP inflexibility is untenable. The real problem is that the PDP will not accept any definition of commonwealth that is compatible with the U.S. Constitution. The PDP does not accept the Federal supremacy under Article VI of the Constitution because the PDP demands a veto power so it can nullify future acts of Congress it does not want applied to Puerto Rico. PDP leaders reject application of the Territorial Clause in Art. IV, Sec. 3, Cl. 2 even though the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled in cases that include Harris v. Rosario (1980) that the Territorial Clause still governs Puerto Rico's status. The PDP insists that Puerto Rico have separate sovereignty and nationality, while also enjoying constitutionally guaranteed U.S. nationality and citizenship and permanent membership in the Federal union alterable only with consent of Puerto Rico. Since Congress can not bind future Congress to a statutory relationship of that kind, even if Congress wanted to do that it would require an amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Since that is, in addition to everything else, a really bad idea which would create a permanent colonial appendage, amendment to the constitution to accommodate the PDP's four decade effort to contrive a new category of statehood seems quite implausible. Instead of trying to reach agreement on the best definition possible in order to sustain and improve the status quo, the PDP leadership has chosen to re-package the ``unalterable bilateral pact'' theory in the form of the ``New Commonwealth'' status definition presented to the Committee on Resources in the House on March 19, 1997. The ``New Commonwealth'' definition would give Puerto Rico functional separate national sovereignty, but seeks to have the benefits of statehood and dual Puerto Rican--U.S. citizenship permanently guaranteed by the federal constitution. This status would be a vested right of Puerto Rico beyond the reach of Congressional legislative authority, protected for all time from amendment without Puerto Rico's ``mutual consent.'' Puerto Rico would not be a state, nor would it be a territory. It would be in a category by itself, a political entity of separate national sovereignty but within the federal union forever. There would be exemptions from federal law applicable to the States, as well as foreign affairs authority sufficient to enter into international agreements. The specific scope of separate foreign affairs authority and exemptions from federal law would be based on defined spheres of ``full self- government'' (meaning separate national sovereign powers) as proposed by Puerto Rico. At the same time, ``New Commonwealth'' would be a permanent form of political union equal to that which binds the States of the Union, and it would extend full U.S. citizenship to a population of 3.8 million people born and living outside the States of the Union. This citizenship would be protected by the 5th Amendment as if it were a fundamental constitutional right, and in addition it would be expressly denominated constitutionally as equal to the citizenship of persons born in the States of the Union. Residents of Puerto Rico would have identical ``rights, privileges and immunities'' as all U.S. citizens under the U.S. Constitution, including full parity in federal benefits and entitlements. However, instead of federal taxation on the same basis as the rest of the nation Puerto Rico would make an ``equitable contribution'' to the federal government in connection with such benefits ``as provided by law.'' This relationship would be binding on Congress in perpetuity--i.e. forever. In other words, it would be separate sovereignty and nationality like free association in the case of Micronesia--but with permanent union, full U.S. citizenship and a status equal to the 50 States. ``New Commonwealth'' would include special preferences not available to the states, including the ``mutual consent'' veto over federal law. That there is nothing ``new'' about this proposal is clear from the letter of May 31, 1996, from the PDP President to Congressman Young, stating that the ``commonwealth'' ballot definition in the 1993 plebiscite--which failed to receive a majority vote--was based on the definition of ``New Commonwealth'' which was allegedly ``approved'' by the House when it passed H.R. 4765 in 1990. Now, on March 19, 1997, the President of the PDP has presented to Congress the same 1990 definition of ``New Commonwealth.'' However, this ``New Commonwealth'' definition was not actually included in the bill approved by the House in 1990. Rather, H.R. 4765 simply included the general option of a ``New Commonwealth Status'' without stating what that might mean. Separately from the bill, House Report 101-790, Part 1, contained the ``New Commonwealth'' definition as proposed by the PDP itself back in 1990. So the PDP is merely playing back to the 105th Congress the same proposal it submitted to 101st Congress. The assertion that this ``New Commonwealth'' proposal was approved by the House in 1990 is disingenuous. Indeed, the 1990 Committee Report stated that this PDP proposal would be considered, but that this did not ``obligate this Committee or its counterpart Senate committee to necessarily incorporate the . . . description . . . in the legislation.'' Thus, in 1990 the House avoided any actual definition of commonwealth. Instead, under the 1990 House bill continuation of the current status would have resulted from a majority vote for a ``None of the above'' option. This made the constitutional and political realities of the current status invisible, and made the status quo seem to be a default option in lieu of a ``New Commonwealth Status'' option which was not actually defined by Congress in the legislation. Instead, the PDP was allowed to ``fill in the blank'' with its own definition in the Committee Report. While extremely prejudicial to informed self-determination and unfair to the statehood and independence parties, it is not hard to understand why the PDP would like to go back to the 1990 approach. Since H.R. 4756 was never enacted by Congress the process for defining ``New Commonwealth'' in federal law ended there. However, the PDP was able to ``fill in the blank'' again in the 1993 plebiscite, and the result was a ``have it both ways'' definition that promised everything and cost nothing. Still, to vote for that option required devotion to the mythology of the unalterable bilateral pact rather than an understanding of the constitutional and political process for improving the current status. By masquerading as a framework for full, legitimate and informed self-determination when it was non-substantive and non-committal on the true status options, and by linking its claim to be the vehicle for self-determination to the false promise that the U.S. will accept whatever the people of Puerto Rico choose in a referendum, H.R. 4756 was calculated to become the symbol but not the reality of a declonization policy. Its very terms assured that it would not be enacted into law. That is why passage on suspension without open debate was engineered by Congressional staff. In contrast, H.R. 856 and S. 472 define what actually exists rather than what does not. Thus, instead of a non-committal ``agreement to agree'' on terms for a ``New Commonwealth,'' the current House and Senate bills constitute informed self-determination. If the House passes H.R. 856, it will supplant the evasion of real self- determination under H.R. 4756 with a constitutionally sound process to present real choices to the people of Puerto Rico. H.R. 856 is not being passed in silence, this is a real and open debate that in and of itself will educate Congress and the people of Puerto Rico on the real work of decolonization that lies before us. The choices aren't painless and sterile, they are difficult and H.R. 856 tells the truth about the choices for the first time. The ``New Commonwealth'' definition remains a ``have it both ways'' option contrary to Supreme Court, Justice Department and CRS constitutional analysis. The veil of ambiguity has been pierced as a result of scrutiny focused on past Congressional measures and lower court rulings influenced by PDP efforts in the 70's and 80's to make the revisionist definition of a ``new'' or ``enhanced'' commonwealth a fait accompli. The true nature of the current status and real options are becoming clear after years of political experimentation.***HD***Constitutional Implications of ``New Commonwealth'' Proposal From the standpoint of American constitutional federalism, the PDP proposal of March 19, 1997, is best understood as a proposal to end Puerto Rico's unincorporated territory status by creating a new political status with some of the attributes of statehood and some of the powers of separate nationhood. In essence, it is an attempt to convert local constitutional self-government under the current territorial status into separate national sovereignty and nationality with permanent union and common citizenship. Unable to make a choice between statehood and independence, Puerto Rico would have Congress convert the international treaty-based relationship of free association into a ``nation-within-a-nation'' status irrevocably guaranteed by the Congress within the framework of the U.S. Constitution. Comparison to Historical Constitutional Practice Regarding Statehood The primary differences between the ``New Commonwealth'' for Puerto Rico and the status of the rest of the states would be: Permanent union and irrevocable citizenship would be created by federal statute defining the commonwealth status as non-territorial, rather than termination of territorial status through admission to the union under clause 1 of section 3 in article IV of the Constitution. Puerto Rico would enjoy the essential rights of states (binding on Congress), but the commonwealth would enjoy ``autonomy'' (not be bound) with respect to critical burden-sharing elements of membership in the federal union. Thus, the benefits of statehood would be guaranteed, but Puerto Rico's reciprocal obligations to the nation would not be constitutionally defined. Puerto Rico's contribution to the nation would be the subject of on-going negotiation and ad hoc decision- making, the very conditions that led to undue influence by the Section 936 lobbyists and creation of the current status dilemma. Congress could not change the initial negotiated terms of the relationship based on changing national priorities. Specifically, Congress would agree in the statute that in perpetuity every future Congress will be bound by this ``New Commonwealth'' status, which is ``unalterable'' without consent of Puerto Rico. This really means that once Congress and the people of Puerto Rico have consented to the terms of the relationship the Supremacy Clause in article VI of the Constitution would be suspended to the extent required to enforce the rights, special preferences and exemptions from laws and responsibilities of the states which would be provided to the commonwealth (``associated free state'' in Spanish). Comparison to Historical Constitutional Practice Regarding Territories Since the period following the Northwest Ordinance of 1789 when the process for admission of new states to union began, the purpose of special measures to promote increased self-government in the U.S. territories historically has been to promote a smooth transition to full incorporation and statehood. Congress departed from this tradition when the U.S. acquired the Philippines, Cuba, Guam and Puerto Rico from Spain in 1899, and the U.S. Supreme Court defined them as ``unincorporated'' territories. Thus, in this century increased self- government for unincorporated territories has meant separate nationhood for Cuba and the Philippines, statehood for Hawaii and Alaska, and varying degrees of local self-government for other unincorporated territories. As a result, instead of statehood like Hawaii or independence like the Philippines, Puerto Rico remains in an unincorporated territory status like Guam and the Northern Mariana Islands. Like the Northern Mariana Islands, Puerto Rico has a ``commonwealth'' structure for internal self-government under a local constitution adopted with the consent of the people--who enjoy statutory U.S. citizenship. The Philippines also had the ``commonwealth'' structure of internal self- government from 1935 to 1946, ending in separate nationhood. In this context it becomes clear that the idea behind the PDP ``New Commonwealth'' proposal is to make a specific set of special rights for an unincorporated territory permanent, rather than resolving the status of the territory through independence or statehood. The essential transaction between Congress and Puerto Rico, as proposed by the PDP, is to mix-and-match the most beneficial features of statehood and separate nationality, make it binding on the U.S. forever, and label it as a non-territorial and therefore non-colonial status. The primary differences between the ``New Commonwealth'' and the historical practice of the U.S. concerning Puerto Rico and other unincorporated territories would be: Congress supposedly would no longer have the ability to exercise its express power to determine the status of Puerto Rico and its inhabitants under the Territorial Clause of the Constitution (Article IV, Section 3, Clause 2). This proposed elimination of a constitutional express power of Congress by statute supposedly would make the ``New Commonwealth'' status a non-territorial. The nationality and citizenship of the residents of Puerto Rico would be guaranteed under the 5th and 14th Amendments on the same basis as it is for persons born in the states rather than being determined by Congress under statutory provisions enacted pursuant to the Territorial Clause and article I, section 8 of the Constitution. At present, statutory citizenship based on birth in Puerto Rico is subject to regulation and termination at the discretion of Congress in accordance with the U.S. constitutional process. See, Rogers v. Bellei 401 U.S. 815 (1971).***HD***U.S. Supreme Court and Department of Justice Positions On July 28, 1994, the U.S. Department of Justice stated in a legal opinion that Congress is not bound by the current relationship with Puerto Rico or the current status of the territory created under federal statute. With respect to the concept of a binding pact based on the ``mutual consent'' principle the DOJ memo addressed the Puerto Rico questions as follows: ``The Department revisited this issue in the early 1990's in connection with the Puerto Rico Status Referendum Bill in light of Bowen v. Agencies Opposed to Social Security Entrapment, 477 U.S. 41 (1986), and concluded that there could not be an enforceable vested right in a political status; hence the mutual consent clauses were ineffective because they would not bind a future Congress.'' In Puerto Rico, it is argued that P.L. 81-600 created an ``unalterable bilateral pact'' since the local constitution adopted pursuant to that law was approved with the consent of the people in the territory. The theory is that once the people consented to the form of local self-government it can not be altered by Congress. From that premise the leap is made that as a matter of federal law this constitutes a fully self-governing status and that Puerto Rico is no longer a U.S. territory. Consequently, the territorial clause no longer applies and Congress can not apply even federal laws to Puerto Rico without its consent. The PDP definition of ``New Commonwealth'' is an attempt to ``perfect'' this ``bilateral pact'' relationship. The 1994 Department of Justice memorandum is ignored in the testimony of the PDP leaders which accompanied the new definition when proposed to the House Committee on Resources on March 19, 1997. Instead of addressing the constitutional issues, the PDP relies upon the following statement of Felix Frankfurter in 1914 when he was an official at the War Department in the days it administered Puerto Rican affairs: ``The present day demand upon inventive statesmanship is to help evolve new kinds of relationships so as to combine the advantages of local self-government with those of a confederated union. Luckily, our Constitution has left this filed of invention open.'' Of course, the field of invention Frankfurter was alluding to exists under the Territorial Clause of the Constitution. In contrast, the PDP proposes to convert the relationship created in 1952 by statute into a permanent form of union which exists outside the Territorial Clause authority of Congress. In 1980 the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that Congress acts with respect to Puerto Rico under the Territorial Clause (Harris v. Rosario, 446 U.S. 651). In U.S. v. Sanchez, 992 F. 2d 1143 (1993) the court stated that Congress retains authority to determine the status of the territory in accordance with the Territorial Clause and the Treaty of Paris as it deems consistent with the national interest. In Reid v. Covert, 354 U.S. 1 (1957), the U.S. Supreme Court described territorial clause status as a ``temporary'' condition regulated by Congress until institutions of self-government are established. The response of the PDP to the Supreme Court ruling in Harris is to cite various 5th Amendment federal property rights cases involving commercial disputes and the enforceability of contract obligations, rather than political status questions. In addition, the PDP continues to rely on dictum from federal lower court decisions which actually went against the ``unalterability'' theory of commonwealth, but acknowledged the unique nature of the highly evolved federal- territorial relationship and the local self-governing status of Puerto Rico. See, for example, U.S. v. Quinoes, 758 F.2d 1143 (1993). The cases cited by the PDP merely confirm the ambiguity and confusion in Congress and the courts due too much ``inventive statesmanship'' regarding the status of Puerto Rico over the years. It is time to sort it out through the deliberative process of our constitutional system. The fact that Congress can be inventive does not necessarily mean that it serves the national interest or redeems the dignity of the concerned territorial population to do so. This is especially true when some in Puerto Rico and the federal government have attempted to convert temporary invention into a permanent extra-constitutional status. The ``New Commonwealth'' proposal is the last gasp of that doctrine. The PDP also rejects the Young-Miller compromise definition because it tells the truth to the voters at the expense of certain long-held PDP positions. For example, it recognizes that the current statutory citizenship is statutory, and in the future Congress could change the current policy of conferring U.S. citizenship on persons born in Puerto Rico. This is not to undermine the PDP, but because it is the truth. If people in Puerto Rico are going to continue to have citizenship which is permissive under the discretion of Congress rather than of right by constitutional guaranty, they should know that is what they are voting to approve. Thus, the current statutory citizenship is secured by the U.S. constitution only in the sense that Congress can not end the conferral of U.S. citizenship on persons born in Puerto Rico without due process law. An act to amend or repeal 8 U.S.C. 1402, in other words, must be a valid exercise of Federal authority, involving legitimate Federal interests and measures reasonably related thereto. Just as Congress extended U.S. nationality but not citizenship to Puerto Rico and the Philippines under the same Treaty of Paris provisions that still govern the civil rights and political status of persons born in Puerto Rico, Congress could alter the status of the territory and its population in the future. Existing policy is not irrevocable. Those currently having U.S. citizenship by statutory policy must be treated in accordance with due process and equal protection, but those born in the future have no right that would prevent Congress from altering the future policy on the status of the territory or persons born there. Similarly, the Young-Miller compromise definition of commonwealth in H.R. 856 as offered by Mr. Young in the nature of a substitute for passage also recognizes that U.S. citizens in Puerto Rico enjoy the rights, privileges and immunities of citizens in the states except where limited by the U.S. Constitution to citizens in the states. In addition to voting rights in national elections for President and Vice President and voting representation in Congress, the limitation on the rights, privileges and immunities of U.S. citizens in Puerto Rico include the absence of any reservation to the people of Puerto Rico under the 10th Amendment to the Federal constitution. For as the Supreme Court made clear in the 1980 case of Harris v. Rosario, as long as Puerto Rico is within U.S. sovereignty but is not a state of the union Congress will retain the authority and responsibility under the Territorial Clause to determine the civil rights and political status of persons born in the territory. The statutory arrangements and policies adopted by one Congress are not binding on a future Congress. Thus, the Foraker Act governed the status of Puerto Rico from 1900 to 1917, then Congress altered that policy and replaced it with the Jones Act. P.L. 81-600 replaced the Jones Act in 1950 and led to establishment of internal self-government, but Congress could change that policy as well. Congress could decide that Puerto Rico will never be a state, as it did in the case of the Philippines in 1916. In that case it would be reasonable and rational if Congress decided to stop conferral of U.S. citizenship which has been creating a large population of disenfranchised citizens who have no right to equality or prospect of self-determination through which such disenfranchisement can be ended. In this regard, the Young-Miller compromise definition of commonwealth also recognizes that the current commonwealth relationship is not a constitutionally guaranteed status, but implements current policy. It is policy not to dissolve the commonwealth without consent of the people, but commonwealth is not a permanent status like statehood under the federal structure of government. Thus, a future Congress could determine that separate sovereignty is the only alternative to commonwealth, and that if commonwealth is to continue taxes must be imposed. That would alter the commonwealth relationship and current policy, and the Young-Miller compromise recognizes that this could happen. No one expects that to happen any time soon, but the voters need to know where they stand under commonwealth in order to make an informed choice in the exercise of the right of self-determination. I want to applaud what Mr. Young and Mr. Miller have accomplished.

Mr. DEUTSCH

Mr. DEUTSCH. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably absent from the Chamber on Rollcall vote Numbers 44, 45, 46, and 47. Had I been present, I would have voted nay on Rollcall vote 44, nay on Rollcall vote 45, aye on Rollcall vote 46 and aye on Rollcall vote 47.

Mr. DEUTSCH

Mr. DEUTSCH. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. Mr. Chairman, this is truly a historic debate in this Congress. This is my sixth year as a Member of this Congress. It is the first time we are really talking about an issue about the fundamental union of our States. That is really what we are talking about. In this Chamber over the last 100 years, and before that in the other Chamber just down the hall for 100 years before that, or just about, this is the kind of debates that went on. Unless it was one of the first original 13 colonies, each State went through a process. There were different debates and different things that went through that process. But that is where we are now. I think part of the acknowledgment of this bill is something that obviously is controversial, but I think the fact, and people can debate it, is that the status of Commonwealth is an unstable equilibrium. In a sense, the bill acknowledges that. It can continue, but it cannot continue indefinitely. The process of the legislation specifically puts that into statute, and that is why it is critical that this legislation pass. I would mention that the amendment by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Solomon), I think we should acknowledge what the amendment offered by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Solomon) attempts to do. We need to be direct about this. This amendment is really not germane to this bill. It is an issue that in and of itself can be discussed and debated, but to turn English into the official language of the United States is not about this bill. It does not deserve to be on this bill, and it is inappropriately on this bill. I think we have to understand the reason it is on this bill is to kill the bill. However anyone in this Chamber feels about that particular issue, and I know it is a passionate issue, I urge the defeat of the Solomon amendment and the support of the substitute offered by the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young) and the gentleman from California (Mr. Miller) and others to assure that this historic opportunity is taken advantage of. Mr. Chairman, H.R. 856 will enable Congress to administer and determine the status of Puerto Rico in the same manner this institution has been administering and decolonizing territories since the Northwest Ordinance of 1789. The historical constitutional practice of the United States has been to decolonize non-state territories which come under U.S. sovereignty by either full incorporation leading to statehood (as in the case of Alaska and Hawaii) or separate nationhood (Philippines). For too long Puerto Rico has been diverted from the historical process of decolonization. Because local self-government was established under P.L. 81-600 in 1952, Congress has pretended that Puerto Rico could be administered permanently as a territory with internal constitutional self-government. However, the local constitution did not create a separate nation as the pro-commonwealth party in Puerto Rico argues. Puerto Rican born Americans are still disenfranchised in the federal political system which is supreme in the territory as long as the U.S. flag flies over the island. Puerto Rico is not a ``free associated state'' in the U.S. constitutional sense or under international law as recognized by the United States. Puerto Rico remains a colony. That is not my choice of words, that is the term used by the McKinley Administration to describe Puerto Rico. It is also the term used by the former chief justice of the Puerto Rico Supreme Court who was one of the architects of the commonwealth constitution. Because H.R. 856 will define the real and true options that the Congress and the people in Puerto Rico have to resolve the status question, I strongly support this bill. Informing the voters in the territory of the real definition of commonwealth, statehood and separate sovereignty including free association is necessary because of the misleading adoption in 1952 of the Spanish words for ``free association'' by the pro-commonwealth party to describe the current commonwealth status. No wonder people are confused! Only when people understand the real options can there be informed self-determination, and only when there has been informed self- determination can Congress then decide what status is in the national interest. Then the status of Puerto Rico can be resolved if there is agreement on the terms for status change. If not the status quo continues, but the process to decolonize Puerto Rico will exist. Then Puerto Rico's colonial status will continue only as long as the people of Puerto Rico are unable to choose between statehood and independence on terms acceptable to Congress. To promote a better understanding of the nature of free association, I would like to share the following background paper on free association written by the U.S. Ambassador who negotiated free association treaties for President Reagan. The U.S. has a free association relationship with three Pacific island nations, and this status is very different from the free association espoused by the so- called ``autonomists in Puerto Rico''--who want to be a separate sovereign nation but also keep U.S. nationally and citizenship. That ``have it both ways'' approach to free association was attempted in the case of the Micronesian Compact of Free Association, but the State Department, Justice Department and Congress rejected that model as unconstitutional and unwise. It was an attempt to ``perfect'' the legal theory of the Puerto Rican commonwealth as a form of permanent self-government, a nation-within-a-nation concept that has always failed and always will because the U.S. constitution does not allow a Quebec-like problem in our Federal system. Ambassador Zeder's explanation of free association as an option for Puerto Rico makes the ground rules for this form of separate sovereignty very clear and easy to understand. I include his statement for the Record. The statement referred to is as follows: Understanding Free Association as a Form of Separate Sovereignty and Political Independence in the Case of Decolonization of Puerto Rico (By Ambassador Fred M. Zeder, II) Consistent with relevant resolutions of the U.N. General Assembly, Puerto Rico's options for full self-government are: Independence (Example: Philippines); Free Association (Example: Republic of the Marshall Islands); Integration (Example: Hawaii). See, G.A. Resolution 1514 (1960); G.A. Resolution 1541 (1960); G.A. Resolution 2625 (1970). For purposes of international law including the relevant U.N. resolutions international conventions to which the U.S. is a party, the current status of Puerto Rico is best described as substantial but incomplete integration. This means that the decolonization process that commenced in 1952 has not been fulfilled. As a matter of U.S. domestic constitutional law, a territory within U.S. sovereignty which has internal constitutional self-government but is not fully integrated into the national system of political union on the basis of equality remains an unincorporated territory, and can be referred to as a ``commonwealth.'' (Example: Puerto Rico and the Northern Mariana Islands). For purposes of U.S. constitutional law, independence and free association are status options which are created and exist on the international plane. Thus, instead of the sovereign primacy of Congress under the territorial clause, the sources of constitutional authority with respect to nations with separate sovereignty include the article II, section 2 treaty-making power and the applicable article I, section 8 powers of Congress such as that relating to nationality and immigration law. Relations between the U.S. and a nation which is independent or in free association are conducted on the basis of international law. Thus, independence and free association are status options which would remove Puerto Rico from its present existence within the sphere of sovereignty of the United States and establish a separate Puerto Rican sovereignty outside the political union and federal constitutional system of the United States. Instead of completing the integration process through full incorporation and statehood, either independence or free association would ``dis-integrate'' Puerto Rico from the United States. This would terminate U.S. sovereignty, nationality and citizenship and end application of the U.S. Constitution in Puerto Rico. In other words, the process of gradual integration which began in 1898, and which was advanced by statutory U.S. citizenship in 1917 and establishment of constitutional arrangements approved by the people in 1952, would be terminated in favor of either independence or free association. Under either independence or free association, the U.S. and Puerto Rico could enter into treaties to define relations on a sovereign-to-sovereign basis. Free association as practiced by the U.S. is simply a form of independence in which two sovereign nations agree to a special close relationship that involves delegations of the sovereign powers of the associated to the United States in such areas as defense and other governmental functions to the extent both parties to the treaty-based relationship agree to continue such arrangements. The specific features of free association and balance between autonomy and interdependence can vary within well- defined limits based on negotiated terms to which both parties to the arrangement have agreed, but all such features must be consistent with the structure of the agreement as a treaty-based sovereign-to-sovereign relationship. In U.S. experience and practice, even where free association has many features of a dependent territorial status the sources and allocation of constitutional authority triggered by the underlying separation of sovereignty, nationality and citizenship causes the relationship to evolve in the direction of full independence rather than functional re- integration. Free association is essentially a transitional status for peoples who do not seek full integration, but rather seek to maintain close political, economic and security relations with another nation during the period after separate sovereignty is achieved. Again, this could be accomplished by treaty between independent nations as well. Thus, free association is a form of separate sovereignty that usually arises from the relationship between a colonial power and a people formerly in a colonial status who at least temporarily want close ties with the former colonial power for so long as both parties agree to the arrangements. Free association is recognized as a distinct form of separate sovereignty, even though legally it also is consistent with independence. Specifically, free association is consistent with independence because, as explained below, the special and close bilateral relationship created by a free association treaty or pact can be terminated in favor of conventional independence at any time by either party. In addition, the U.S. and the international community have recognized that a separate nation can be a party to a bilateral pact of free association and be an independent nation in the conventional sense at the same time. For example, the Republic of the Marshall Islands is party to the Compact of Free Association with the United States, but has been admitted to the United Nations as an independent nation. Thus, the international practice regarding free association actually is best understood as a method of facilitating the decolonization process leading to simple and absolute independence. Essentially, it allows new nations not prepared economically, socially or strategically for emergence into conventional independence to achieve separate nationhood in cooperation with a former colonial power or another existing nation. Under international law and practice including the relevant U.N. resolutions and existing free association precedents, free association must be terminable at will by either party in order to establish that the relationship is consistent with separate sovereignty and the right of self-determination is preserved. This international standard, also recognized by the U.S., is based on the requirement that free association not be allowed to become merely a new form of internationally accepted colonialism. Specifically, free association is not intended to create a new form of territorial status or quasi-sovereignty. It is not a ``nation-within-a-nation'' relationship or a form of irrevocable permanent union, but is, again, a sovereign-to- sovereign treaty-based relationship which is either of limited duration or terminable at will by either party acting unilaterally. In other words, both parties have a sovereign right to terminate the relationship at any time. The free association treaty may provide for the terms and measures which will apply in the event of unilateral termination, but the ability of either party to do so can not be conditioned or encumbered in such a manner that the exercise of the right to terminate the relationship effectively is impaired or precluded. For that reason, the territory and population of each nation involved must be within the sovereignty, nationality and citizenship of that nation, and the elements and mechanisms of the free association relationship must be defined consistent with that requirement. Separate and distinct sovereignty and nationality must be established at the time of decolonization and preserved under the relationship or the ability of either party to terminate will be impaired. Thus, the major power may grant to people of the free associated nation special rights normally associated with the major power's own citizenship classifications, such as open immigration and residence rights. However, these arrangements are subject to the same terminability as the overall relationship, and thus may be either for a limited duration or subject to unilateral termination by either party at any time. Consequently, there can be no permanent mass dual nationality because this would be inconsistent with the preservation of the underlying separate sovereignty. Any special rights or classifications of the major power extended to the people of a free associated nation are more in the nature of residency rights and do not prevent either nation from exercising separate sovereignty with respect to the nationality its own population. Upon termination of the free association relationship by either party, any such classifications or special residency rights will be subject to unilateral termination as well. Both during and after any period of free association, the people of each of the two nations will owe their allegiance to and have the separate nationality of their own country. Any attempt to deviate from these norms of international law and practice would undermine the sovereignty of both nations, and would impair the right of self-determination which must be preserved to ensure the relationship is based on consent rather than coercion. In summary, the United States recognizes each of the three U.N. accepted status options for Puerto Rico to achieve full self-government. One of those options, integration, is within U.S. sovereignty and the federal political union, the other two, independence and free association, exist without U.S. sovereignty, nationality and citizenship. Obviously, Puerto Rico can not act unilaterally to establish a new status. This is so not only because of U.S. sovereignty and the authority of Congress under the territorial clause, but also because Puerto Rico seeks the agreement of the U.S. to the terms under which any of these options would be implemented. This means Congress must agree to the terms under which a new status is defined and implemented. There is no right on the part of Puerto Rico unilaterally to define its relationship with the United States. Nor would it be consistent with U.S. commitments to respect the right of self-determination for non-self-governing people under U.S. administration to dispose of the territory of Puerto Rico in a manner which does not take into account the freely expressed wishes of the residents. Thus, as the two parties which must define and carry out a future relationship based on consent and the right of self- determination which each must exercise, Congress, on behalf of the United States, and the people of Puerto Rico, acting through their constitutional process, must decide whether decolonization will be completed through completion of the process for integration into union or separation and nationhood apart from the U.S. for Puerto Rico.

Mr. DEUTSCH. Mr. Chairman, I think it is important to point out that this is a bipartisan issue in terms of people rejecting the Solomon amendment and supporting the substitute. Mr. Chairman, I wish the gentleman from California (Mr. Riggs) was still here just in terms of responding to his comments. If the amendment was just what the gentleman said he wanted, it probably would not be so bad. It would be at least a relevant debate. But this amendment is not limited to Puerto Rico. This amendment really has no place in this debate. This amendment is an issue which should have been debated on its own, not on this bill. The Solomon amendment's purpose is to kill the bill. That is its purpose. We can debate the issue of Puerto Rico's ability to determine its future outside of that. The substitute allows us to do that. When we want to, we can talk better requirements for statehood, requirements for issues on Puerto Rico outside of the requirements for the entire country. That is what the debate needs to be about. Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to vote strongly in favor of the substitute and against the Solomon amendment, and to give the people of Puerto Rico the opportunity to decide their own future.

Mr. DEUTSCH

Mr. DEUTSCH. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of this important legislation. H.R. 2181 establishes meaningful guidelines for interstate witness relocation procedures. The legislation will help avoid conflicts between law enforcement agents of differing jurisdictions. In 1996, Florida officials narrowly missed an armed conflict with Puerto Rican agents who were protecting a witness in central Florida. This legislation will ensure that state officials are fully aware of witness relocation efforts in their communities so we can avoid the types of problems we've experienced in Florida. Between 1987-1996, 83 witnesses have been relocated to Florida from Puerto Rico alone. More than 1 out every 10 of these have a criminal record. Without a formal process for notification and cooperation, we are unknowingly jeopardizing the lives of innocent Americans and law enforcement agents. This legislation will protect these citizens and public safety officers. There are serious questions about the appropriate procedures for interstate relocation. I attempted to address these concerns when I traveled to Puerto Rico last year and met with the Justice Minister to craft an agreement between our two states. This was followed by the first, and only, Memorandum of Understanding on interstate witness relocation procedures. This legislation will build on our efforts to facilitate coordination between jurisdictions. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to join my colleagues, Congressmen McCollum and Romero-Barcelo, in sponsoring this important legislation and I urge its adoption.

Mr. DEUTSCH

Mr. DEUTSCH. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the 100th anniversary of a tragic and intriguing chapter in American History. This Sunday, February 15th, marks the Centennial Anniversary of the sinking of the U.S.S. Battleship Maine in Havana harbor, Cuba. This still unsolved mystery surrounding the sinking of the Maine and the role her explosion played in the start of the Spanish-American War have given her a most prominent position in American history. On January 24, 1898, the U.S.S. Battleship Maine was dispatched from Key West to Havana to protect American lives and property during the conflict between Cuban revolutionaries and the Spanish Colonial Government. A letter home from Captain Charles Sigsbee recalls that fateful night of February 15, 1898, when the evening's calm was shattered by a ``bursting, rending, crashing sound or roar of immense volume.'' At 9:40 p.m. the explosion lifted the forward section of the Maine followed immediately by a second, large and more violent explosion near the center of the superstructure. The entire interior of the vessel went dark as men struggled throughout the wounded ship to find a way out of the sinking and burning hull. The explosions emanated primarily from the forward section of the Maine where the crew was bunking and housed. 265 sailors were dead or missing following the disaster. After an investigation by the U.S. Navy Court of Inquiry, it was determined that a mine had set off the explosions. While the court did not speculate on who had set the mine, a majority of Americans blamed it on the Spanish. The cry, ``Remember the Maine!'' echoed in the streets of the nation and the halls of Congress. Two days after the report of the court of inquiry, Navy Secretary John Davis Long ordered the peacetime white hulls of U.S. ships overpainted in dull battle gray. The U.S. flag still flies from the salvaged mast of the Maine at Arlington National Cemetery over the graves of the sailors and Marines whose bodies were recovered in 1911. The remains of the first 27 members of the crew returned to the U.S. also rest at the Maine Memorial Plot in Key West, Florida. The U.S.S. Battleship Maine and the people of Key West share an inexorable history. During her brief period of service the Maine would visit Key West on two memorable occasions. The destruction of the Maine and the tremendous loss of life shocked and deeply saddened the people of Key West. The entire community would mourn the dead sailors and offer aide and comfort to survivors of the explosion. Shortly thereafter, the city would offer a portion of its cemetery as a final resting place for the 27 dead sailors that arrived from Havana. This weekend America will join the U.S. Battleship Maine Centennial Commission in Key West to once again remember the Maine on the 100th anniversary of its destruction. As it was a century ago, the history of our nation, the island of Key West and the battleship Maine are bound together for all time.

Mr. DEUTSCH

Mr. DEUTSCH. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the lifetime achievements and the memory of a remarkable visionary, activist, and friend, Tillie Rothstein. Tillie was a determined and tireless trailblazer whose contributions to Broward County, and to me personally, have left a permanent impression and a rich legacy. Tillie is a New York native who made her home and her political career in South Florida. She and her husband retired to Sunrise, Florida in 1977, but Tillie wasted no time launching into the local political arena. She served as a congressional aide and worked in public relations at Broward Federal Savings & Loan. However, she is perhaps best known for her leadership as president of the West Broward Democratic Club which now flourishes as an influential presence, due in large part to her hard work and courageous pioneering. She was unshakably loyal, and her support was one of the most sought after endorsements among those with political aspirations. Always confident and tenacious, Tillie campaigned for her candidates and the causes she championed for over twenty years, thus earning recognition as a stalwart figure in the Broward County community. I am grateful for this opportunity to applaud Tillie for her outstanding efforts and thank her for her innumerable contributions to the community. She will be missed.

Mr. DEUTSCH

Mr. DEUTSCH. Mr. Speaker, south Florida really is known as the cruise capital literally of the entire world. Because of the situation that we are in, unless we pass this legislation at this point in time, several ships that would be sailing from south Florida, or have plans to be sailing from south Florida during the winter season when we are in our break potentially would not be able to sail. These are ships, multi-million-dollar ships. Probably more importantly, these are ships that have already advertised and collected money from hundreds of people, if not thousands of people, who are planning their vacations to go on these ships and, in fact, would have to cancel without this legislation. It is a fair, appropriate piece of legislation in terms of funds that we need to use to have several, as was mentioned, a very few, customs officials because of the way the law is being interpreted. I talked with the customs commissioner himself about this, and again I want to thank the staff and the members of the committee for their help in this matter.

Mr. DEUTSCH

Mr. DEUTSCH. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 2386. This bill addresses two core issues in U.S. policies toward China: No. 1, the current and future political status of Taiwan; and, No. 2, the defense of Taiwan from threats or military attacks by China. H. Con. Resolution 100, which I introduced back on June 18 just prior to the return of Hong Kong to China, is now included in the bill of the gentleman from California [Mr. Hunter]. My legislation has 42 cosponsors and broad bipartisan support. It specifically expresses the sense of Congress that, one, the transfer of Hong Kong to China does not alter the current and future status of Taiwan; two, the future status of Taiwan should be determined by peaceful means through a democratic process; and, three, the United States should assist in the defense of Taiwan in cases of threat or military attack by China against Taiwan. The historic transfer of Hong Kong to China on July 1 should bear no consequence on the future status of Taiwan. The case of Taiwan is separate and distinct from Taiwan. Unlike Hong Kong, Taiwan has never entered into any agreements with China that determine the future status of Taiwan. Taiwan is, in fact, a de facto independent state and should determine its official future political status peacefully through democratic means. Beijing's claim on Taiwan is based neither on historic nor legal realities. The facts are clear. With the exception of a brief period from 1887 to 1895, Taiwan has been free of Chinese rule. Today Taiwan has separate governments, financial markets, dialects and cultures from mainland China. Mr. Speaker, by calling something black does not make it black; by calling something white does not make it white. Taiwan is a de facto independent state. The second major component of this legislation is the U.S. role in the defense of Taiwan. I was deeply concerned last year as I watched the so-called military exercises by the Chinese in the Taiwan Strait. It is obvious that the Chinese attempted to test the will of the United States with those exercises. The United States demonstrated with the deployment of two aircraft carriers and aggressive diplomacy that we would stand up to the Chinese and defend Taiwan against these acts of aggression. H.R. 2386 will further the U.S. commitment to assist in the defense of Taiwan by providing them with arms of a defensive nature which should act as a deterrent from future Chinese threats and protection in case of an attack. H.R. 2386 is consistent with the three communiques and the Taiwan Relations Act which states that any threat to Taiwan's safety and security is of grave concern to the United States. Speaker Gingrich bolstered the basis of the communiques and the act on his recent visit to China when he told China's President that the United States will defend Taiwan, period. I commend the Speaker for his comments and urge this body to adopt such a stance with the passage of this legislation. This is not a partisan issue. I say to my colleagues on both sides of the aisle that we have a responsibility to fortify and defend democracies throughout the world. That is at the crux of U.S. foreign policy. Our relations with Taiwan should not be treated any differently. The issue is not for the U.S. Congress to determine the current or future status of Taiwan or to be their sole defenders in all confrontations. Rather, it is our duty to ensure that Taiwan has the means to defend itself against acts of aggression by China as it seeks to define its political status. Mr. Speaker, I commend the gentleman from California [Mr. Hunter] for this important piece of legislation, as well as the gentleman from California [Mr. Cox], the gentleman from New York [Mr. Gilman] and the gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon] for their hard work and leadership. I urge all my colleagues to support H.R. 2386.

Mr. DEUTSCH

Mr. DEUTSCH. Mr. Chairman, when this debate started, the gentleman from Delaware [Mr. Castle] was the first speaker, and the words that came out of his mouth were words that I could have spoken myself and, in a sense, I will speak myself at this moment. That is that I am, I believe, as strong a supporter of charter schools as anyone in this Chamber. And at the same time, I also voted against the ill-advised voucher proposal that we just defeated. I commend my Republican colleagues, who, without their support, we would not have been able to defeat that proposal. One of the concepts of why I support charter schools is that it really does work. It creates competition within the public school system. I see it work on a very practical basis in the State of Florida in my own district, the 20th District in Broward County, FL. I serve on the board of a charter school. I do not know how many other Members in this Chamber have that distinction in their sort of noncongressional lives. But it is a very proud part of my public service that I was part of a creation of a charter school, and it is a school that is working and that is benefitting about 40 children in my district. It is doing some good things. And within the public school system, it is creating competition. And competition works. But I think if we look at the specifics of this legislation, it goes too far. It expands charter schools more than I think is appropriate, not just in Florida, not just in Broward County, but throughout the entire country. There are a number of specifics that have been pointed out that I think are important in terms of some of the problems that this legislation creates. One is changing from 3 to 5 years the grant proposal. If we want charter schools not to have that fiery entrepreneurship and independence that has worked, that has been practical, that is the way to do it. Again, I think it is worth mentioning, in Florida and in south Florida, charter schools have been bipartisan. I am on the board of a charter school. The gentleman from Florida [Mr. Hastings] is. And former President Bush's son, Jeb Bush, actually started the first charter school in the State of Florida. In closing, I would remind my Republican colleagues that one size really does not fit all, that the Federal Government sometimes does not do best. I urge the defeat of this proposal as presently drafted.

Mr. DEUTSCH

Mr. DEUTSCH. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the legislation, but also today, Mr. Speaker, we recognize two luminaries who ignited the movement to preserve one of America's greatest national treasures, the Florida Everglades. I think most Americans know that the Everglades is an ecosystem in serious jeopardy. Decades of well intentioned but misguided human intervention have pushed the Everglades to the brink of extinction. While the pride of the Everglades is accepted as common knowledge today, this was not always the case. It took years of tireless campaigning by a few early leaders to raise public awareness to the appropriate level. Mr. Speaker, today we consider legislation which recognizes the contributions of two of those early leaders who first led the charge to save the Everglades. The bill before us and the House companion bill, supported by 12 members of the Florida delegation, designates the Marjory Stoneman Douglas Wilderness and the Ernest Coe Visitor Center. Ernest Coe is widely recognized as the father of Everglades National Park. In 1928 he organized a tropical Everglades National Park Association. As a landscape architect, Mr. Coe's vision for the park recognized the need to protect south Florida's diverse wildlife and habitats for future generations. His leadership and selfless devotion to commitment to achieving this vision culminated in the authorization of Everglades National Park by Congress in 1934 and its dedication by President Truman in 1947. Senate 931 dedicates the park's main visitor center in memory of Mr. Coe to remind visitors of his devotion to the Everglades. The legislation also honors a person who is probably most identified with the Everglades, Marjory Stoneman Douglas. In 1947, Marjory Stoneman Douglas wrote a landmark book on Florida's largest wetland ecosystem, ``The Everglades, River of Grass.'' This pioneering work was the first to highlight the plight of the Everglades and ultimately served to weigh upon public interest in restoring its health. Professional journalist and author, Mrs. Douglas went on to lead many battles in defense of the Everglades. In l994, President Clinton awarded her the Medal of Freedom, America's highest civilian honor. Considering her extraordinary accomplishments, it should come as no surprise that Mrs. Douglas is still going strong today at age 107. The legislation designates 1.3 million acres in Everglades National Park as Marjory Stoneman Douglas Wilderness. It is a fitting and permanent reminder by the Everglades' mightiest defender to forever treasure America's greatest tropical ecosystem. Like so many Everglades accomplishments, this legislation has an entire delegation. I would especially like to thank the gentleman from Florida's southwest coast [Mr. Goss], who has been the primary original cosponsor for two Congresses, and Florida's Senators, the sponsors of the bill before us today. Mr. Speaker, our timing is also appropriate because the park is celebrating its 50th anniversary this year. I can say with confidence that the park would not have made it this far without Ernest Coe and Marjory Stoneman Douglas. So as we look forward to the next 50 years, let us remember the contributions of those who made everything possible today. As a resident of south Florida in terms of both my children and my parents and hopefully grandchildren into the future, there are no words or no deeds that we can do that can thank these two people in specifics in terms of their work, in terms of quality of life in south Florida, so I urge the support of the bill today.

Mr. DEUTSCH

Mr. DEUTSCH. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably absent from the Chamber today during rollcall vote No. 540, the vote on H.R. 1479. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye.''

Mr. DEUTSCH

Mr. DEUTSCH. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably absent from the Chamber today during rollcall Vote Nos. 546 and 547. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye'' on each of these votes.

Mr. DEUTSCH

Mr. DEUTSCH. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate the Florida Marlins for having won the 1997 World Series Championship. Created by Wayne Huizenga, administered by Don Smiley, built by Dave Dombrowski, and managed by Jim Leyland, this young team achieved the top honor, to which 28 teams aspire, in just 5 years. By reaching the World Series in record time, the Florida Marlins is the youngest franchise ever to win the World Series and has thus assured itself a place in history. Before this season, the Florida Marlins had never been in the playoffs. Throughout the 1997 division series, however, they never trailed in games won. They initiated their quest by overpowering the San Francisco Giants and then went on to win the National League championship series by upsetting the Atlanta Braves. Then, in a dramatic, extra-inning, seventh game, they defeated the Cleveland Indians to become the 1997 World Series Champions. Within 5 years, the Flordia Marlins attained a monumental goal that has historically taken championship teams decades to accomplish. The players who accomplished this feat are: Kurt Abbott, Moises Alou, Antonio Alfonseca, Alex Arias, Bobby Bonilla, Kevin Brown, John Cangelosi, Jeff Conine, Dennis Cook, Craig Counsell, Darren Daulton, Jim Eisenreich, Alex Fernandez, Cliff Floyd, Felix Heredia, Livan Hernandez, Charles Johnson, Al Leiter, Kurt Miller, Robb Nen, Kirt Ojala, Jay Powell, Edgar Renteria, Tony Saunders, Gary Sheffield, Rob Stanifer, Ed Vosberg, John Wehner, Devon White, and Greg Zaun. Their coaches are: Rich Donnelly, Bruce Kimm, Jerry Manuel, Milt May, Larry Rothschild, and Tommy Sandt. The Marlins' victory was a victory for all Floridians. In a community as diverse as ours, people from different backgrounds have united in their admiration and pride for our baseball team. I applaud the athletic prowess of these men and commend the dedicated efforts of their coaches and manager. I know that the Florida Marlins will continue to give Floridians a spirit of unity and strength in years to come and look forward to another championship season in 1998.