Open Letter to Puerto Rico Statehood Sponsor Don Young (R-AK)

English First 8001 Forbes Place, Suite 102 Springfield, VA 22151

October 15, 1997

An open letter to Rep. Don Young (R-AK)

The Honorable Don Young United States Congress Washington, D.C. 20515

Dear Congressman Young,

You have been aggressively informing members of English First that your legislation, the United States-Puerto Rico Political Status Act (H.R. 856), has been misrepresented. Many English First members have forwarded your letter on this subject to me.

As you are the chief sponsor of this legislation, I do not fault you for a determined lobbying campaign on its behalf. I would note, however, that your recent letter on behalf of your bill is replete with misleading statements. Allow me to compare our objections to this bill with your arguments.

Your legislation contains no enforceable English language requirement for a 51st state of Puerto Rico.

H.R. 856 states: "It is the policy of the Congress that English shall be the common language of mutual understanding in the United States." A common language is not an official language. H.R. 856 states: "it is anticipated that upon accession to Statehood, English would become the official language of the Federal Government in Puerto Rico to the same extent as Federal law requires throughout the United States." There is no federal official English law.

H.R. 856 does not impose any English requirement on Puerto Rico's state government, state courts or public schools. Most Puerto Ricans on the island do not speak English: "Fully 90% of the island's 650,000 public school students lack basic English skills by the time they graduate," New York Times (National Edition), May 19, 1997 at A12. Accordingly, if H.R. 856 is passed in its present form, a 51st state of Puerto Rico would be America's own Quebec, imposing billions in translation costs on the other 50 states.

Your letter refers to "extensive English language provisions which have been added since the bill was originally introduced." Our legislative staff can identify just one improvement to Section 3(b) of H.R. 856. That section originally stated that even if Congress passed an official English law after Puerto Rico became a state, such a law would not apply to Puerto Rico. This problem was identified by English First and we appreciate the correction. However, that minor improvement is a long way from a real, enforceable English language requirement for a 51st state of Puerto Rico.

Given that Puerto Rico statehood advocate Carlos Romero Barcelo has stated that "[Y]es, we want statehood, but that neither our language nor our culture is negotiable," Congressional silence on this issue prior to beginning the statehood process will be taken for a guarantee that there will be no English requirements applied to a 51st state of Puerto Rico. That is the road that leads to Canadian-style language policy.

A 51st State of Puerto Rico will drain the Federal treasury, not fill it as you claim.

You state in your letter that "The most significant factor from a budgetary standpoint is the expected net budget increase [your emphasis] to the Federal treasury in the event of a vote in favor of a transition to statehood, as new revenues from individuals and corporations would exceed expenditures!"

Yet you are well aware that statehood for Puerto Rico means even more money flowing out of the federal treasury to the island of Puerto Rico. You are aware of this because the General Accounting Office sent a report to your personal attention on this topic on August 15, 1996 [Tax Policy: Analysis of Certain Potential Effects of Extending Federal Income Taxation to Puerto Rico (Letter Report, 08/15/96, GAO/GGD-96-127)].

According to this report, because many Puerto Ricans who are working on the island have extremely low incomes, they will be eligible for the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC). Accordingly, "This additional EITC would be sufficient to eliminate the $49 million of aggregate net federal income tax liability that we estimated would exist for the population that did file [tax returns in 1992]."

In addition, the report states:

We estimated that about 59 percent of the taxpayers who filed Puerto Rico individual income tax returns in 1992 would have earned some EITC. . . . Over half of the taxpayers would have received net transfers from the federal government because their EITC would have been larger than their precredit federal income tax liabilities.

In addition, industries in Puerto Rico that lose their tax exemption need not, nor should be expected to, remain in Puerto Rico. This is why as many as one in three jobs could be lost, driving unemployment still higher on the island. Given that as of 1990 nearly one out of five Puerto Ricans on the island was already unemployed, Puerto Rico is hardly in need of additional unemployment.

Federal benefits are the other half of the statehood equation. Statehood for Puerto Rico will eliminate caps on federal programs for island residents. In 1990, the New York Times calculated that statehood would increase welfare payments to the island by 50% -- an increase of $3 billion annually "in perpetuity."

Statehood supporters in Puerto Rico admit this, including Rep. Carlos Romero-Barcelo (D-PR): "Puerto Rico's per capita contribution to the federal treasury, were we a state, would come to less than that of any other state in the Union. At the same time, the per capita benefits we'd reap from federal aid programs would be greater than those of any other state in the Union."

Many claims in your letter not contained in H.R. 856.

Your letter states that "the bill's three-stage process guarantees that Puerto Rico will never be admitted with a majority of welfare recipients." Your letter also states that "No state will lose any Congressional seats upon [sic] the House following the historical practice of increasing the number of seats to accommodate the admission of new states." I would note that neither of these statements is a written part of H.R. 856.

While I respect your good intentions, the members of English First would prefer that H.R. 856 contain formal written guarantees on both these issues. Your bill does contain numerous guarantees to the pro-statehood forces in Puerto Rico. For example, Section 6 of H.R. 856 contains numerous specific timetables and procedures for enactment of a Puerto Rico statehood bill by the Congress and the President. These fast track procedures and virtually nonexistent opportunities for amendments would ensure that if Puerto Rico votes for statehood, statehood is what it will get.

Your letter states that your bill "is not self-enacting." Why then does it contain these fast track procedures? Your key aide on this issue, Manase Mansur, told me during a debate on your bill in August that this section would not bind future Congresses. Again, then why is Section 6 in the bill to begin with?

It seems that you are telling English First members that their concerns are resolved, yet none of that is contained in writing as part of H.R. 856, and you are also telling us not to worry about provisions of the bill to which we object which are in writing as part of H.R. 856. As you know, our laws are based on what a particular bill says rather than what its sponsors may be thinking.

Lastly, I have received a number of copies of your letter sent to English First members all over the country on your official letterhead. It would seem that you are using the taxpayer's money to run a national campaign in favor of Puerto Rico statehood. The letters sent to you by English First members are not mailed for free.

The 140,000 members of English First urge you to reconsider your support for this legislation.

Sincerely,

Jim Boulet, Jr. Executive Director