Before Congress passes legislation which will allow the citizens of Puerto Rico to decide whether they wish to become America's 51st state or not, it should resolve the question of what language will be used by the government of Puerto Rico.
Those who argue that the official language question is not an issue since Puerto Rico has had two official languages since 1902--English and Spanish--were not paying attention to events in the legislature of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico during 1990.
In 1990, a member of Puerto Rico's Popular Democratic Party introduced a bill which would declare Spanish to be the sole official language of Puerto Rico.
This legislation was endorsed by both Puerto Rican extremists and moderates. Members of the Puerto Rican Independence Party like Senator Fernando Martin informed readers of the New York Daily News on August 26, 1990 that "Congress has swept the language issue under the rug. . . . Let's see if Congress really wants to accept a Spanish-speaking state."
The reaction of more moderate members of the legislature to this proposal was scarcely less enthusiastic. The Speaker of the Puerto Rican House, Jose R. Jarbo, told the Daily News that this bill was meant to end "a legal ambivalence that does not reflect the culture and sentiments of the Puerto Rican people."
House Bill 417, the original legislative vehicle, declared that Spanish would be the island's sole official language once it has been approved by the legislature. House Concurrent Resolution 35, introduced on August 20, 1990, adds the requirement that people of Puerto Rico must agree to amend their constitution in this way by means of a referendum.
The Statement of Purpose of House Bill 417 announces that: "the dominance of our mother language must be first above any other consideration. The Puerto Rican people feel in their souls that Spanish is their language . . ."
House Concurrent Resolution 35's Statement of Purpose is hardly more moderate. It states, in part, "the Spanish language is synonymous with our being. The affirmation of the common language of the people is an affirmation of national personality . . ."
The legislation in question passed by a vote of 33-10 in the Puerto Rican House of Representatives, according to the Philadelphia Inquirer on October 26, 1990. The Puerto Rican Senate followed suit. Only with the election of the pro-statehood party was the legislation repealed. Once again, Puerto Rico has two official languages--but for how long?
Speaker Jarbo is in a position to know what the feelings of his constituents are on the language issue. Roughly 60 percent of the residents of the island of Puerto Rico, according to its Governor, Rafael Hernandez Colon, speak little or no English. Other estimates place this figure at the 80% level.
Attempts by the United States to "Americanize" the island in the past have failed spectacularly. As Jaime Fuster, the non-voting delegate to Congress elected by Puerto Ricans reminded readers of the Washington Post in his editorial of July 31, 1989:
The Bush Administration has not addressed at all the potentially explosive language issue. . . . For 50 years, Americanization meant imposing the English language and casting aside old values . . . This policy was deeply resented and strongly resisted by most Puerto Ricans, and it failed. Thus, after 91 years of intimate association, Puerto Rico remains a separate cultural nationality.
These basic and unavoidable facts may have been the motivation for the island's former governor, Carlos Romero Barcelo, to plead with Senator J. Bennett Johnston (D-LA) in 1989 to specifically preserve the right of Puerto Ricans to speak Spanish should they choose American statehood. As he was quoted by the Washington Post on June 3, 1989:
We must go home, go to a plebiscite, tell the nation it is not the congressional intention to force the English language on us. This is used by demagogues in Puerto Rico against statehood that . . . laws would be passed requiring the use of English only.
Puerto Rico is by no means a bilingual commonwealth even today. Former Congressman John Buchanan, now chairman of People For the American Way Action Fund, told the Senate Subcommittee on Energy and Natural Resources on July 14, 1989 that "98% of the population speaks Spanish and 20% are fluent in English."
The one out of five Puerto Ricans who are fluent in English are served by just one English-language radio station out of the 116 on the island, according to the Philadelphia Inquirer on October 26, 1990.
Those who argue that a Spanish-speaking state would be little different from a state with a large number of Spanish speakers do have some points in their favor. Just as federal law has been interpreted to mean that states like Texas must teach the children of Spanish speakers to speak and read Spanish first, even if they arrive at school speaking a mixture of English and Spanish, such laws could be used to accomplish the same purpose in Puerto Rico.
Several Puerto Rican organizations based in the mainland United States have, after all, supported bilingual education programs for years. When the then-Committee on Labor and Public Welfare of the U.S. Senate took up the issue of bilingual education in 1967, Mrs. Hilda Koenig, representing the Congreso De Pueblos, "a federation of Puerto Rican hometown groups," testified that:
[I]t definitely believes that the infusion of Federal funds for the . . . development of programs to maintain and enhance Puerto Rican culture, history, and the Spanish language is most essential not only for Puerto Ricans but for all Americans. The fostering of bilingualism is long due in this country.
But while bilingualism is supposed to be good for the mainland, a different view prevails when the question relates to Puerto Rico. The vehicle intended to allow Puerto Rico to choose statehood or two other options which passed the Senate in Committee in Congress during the 1989-90 term, S.712, made no mention of language matters with one exception.
As James Kilpatrick put it in his syndicated column during August of 1989, "One special privilege would apply to federal courts in the new state: At the request of any party in any litigation, all the proceedings would have to be conducted in Spanish."
What this would mean in practice is that a resident of America's 50 other states who finds himself on trial in the state of Puerto Rico could be expected to defend himself in a foreign tongue. The relatively few who speak fluent Spanish may not object, but the vast majority of mainland U.S. citizens may find this an unnecessary hardship.
A New Yorker arrested for a federal crime in New Hampshire can feel free to defend himself with the help of an attorney based in New York, New Hampshire or any other state. But if Puerto Rico attains statehood, yet is allowed to run its courts in Spanish, only a foolhardy man would not hire a bilingual attorney to defend him in a Puerto Rican courtroom.
Pre-1990 census data indicated that the new state of Puerto Rico would instantly outrank 26 other states in population size, entitling it to as many as seven Congressman as well as two Senators.
The Puerto Rican delegation to Congress would be the size of Alabama's or almost twice the size of West Virginia's. Such a delegation will not be uninterested in issues of national language policy, whether businesses may require employees to speak English as a job requirement, and a whole gamut of education issues.
Will this delegation always win? Of course not. And that will create a problem.
Quebec's desire to succeed from Canada has been spurred by the failure of Quebec to get its way with regard to special treatment by the Canadian government. While Canada is officially bilingual and has imposed job quotas for French speakers, certain Quebec politicians remained dissatisfied.
Their demand, that Quebec be officially recognized as a "distinct society," were not met by two other Canadian provinces during the debate on the Meech Lake Accords. Now, nearly all experts on the issue expect Quebec to demand its independence.
In Canada, Quebec separatism arose over many years. In the case of Puerto Rico, a strong current of separatist sentiment exists before statehood has even been granted.
Carlos M. Ayes, a professor at The Center for Advanced Study located in San Juan who was charged, but recently acquitted of taking part in a $7.1 million robbery of a Connecticut Wells Fargo Depot by Puerto Rican nationalists, reminded readers of the New York Times Magazine of February 18, 1990 that statehood will not necessarily put an end to the independence movement:
"Statehood will mean war," he warns. "Violence is hard to stomach, but George Washington killed thousands of British to gain recognition for 13 colonies that claimed the right to be independent. If the United States wants its very own Northern Ireland, let them continue this farce."
The issue of the official language of Puerto Rico's government should it become a state is not only an emotional one for Puerto Ricans, it is a potential problem for the rest of the nation.
What is the U.S. Supreme Court to do if it is appealed to by a party in federal litigation in Puerto Rico if all documents and trial records are in Spanish? Would a defendant be required to pay for all the translation necessary for the Court to consider his case?
If Spanish is made the sole official language of Puerto Rico's government bodies, what will that do to federal agencies based upon or having any dealings with the island? Who will be required to hire all the interpreters needed and pay for all the translations?
Congress could settle this matter in the same way that it resolved the question of French-speaking Louisiana. The Louisiana Constitution accepted by Congress when the state was admitted to the Union clearly stated:
All laws that may be passed by the [state] Legislature, and the public records of this state, and the judicial and legislative written proceedings of the same, shall be promulgated, preserved, and conducted in the language in which the Constitution of the United States is written.
The people of Louisiana, then and now, are free to speak whatever language they choose. The government and courts of Louisiana are required to function in English.
This simple solution has not been a part of the question of Puerto Rican statehood. The legislation considered by the last Congress made no mention of language, save for allowing Spanish to be the language of federal courts on the island.
When Congress was asked to be more explicit on the subject, Congressional leaders actively resisted settling the language question prior to letting Puerto Rico decide if it wished to be a state.
Should Congress continue to refuse to specify what language the government of Puerto Rico should write its laws in before it becomes a state, it may well not be able to address the matter thereafter.
The Supreme Court ruled in 1836 (Mayor of New Orleans v. U.S. (35 U.S. 662)) that every state that enters the Union does so on an equal Constitutional footing with the original 13. In the case of Coyle v. Smith (221 U.S. 559 (1911)), Congress attempted to require that Oklahoma maintain its capital at a particular place as a condition of granting statehood.
Congress made Oklahoma a state in 1907. Oklahoma's legislature then tried to move the capital in 1910 and was sued. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Oklahoma, holding that Congress could not impose conditions on new states that gave it more power over them than over older states.
Clearly, Congress will be unable to regulate Puerto Rico's choice of language once it becomes a state. It must also be understood that Puerto Rico may be able to sue to remove restrictions placed upon it by Congress as a condition of granting statehood. In the latter case, the history of Louisiana's conditional admission, as well as the cases of New Mexico and Arizona may prevent such a requirement from being invalidated in federal court.
If Congress does not resolve the issue of what language the government and courts of Puerto Rico speak before it becomes a state, it may well have nothing to say, and many bills to pay, afterward. Congress has a responsibility to the citizens and the taxpayers of the other 50 states to let Puerto Ricans know beforehand what statehood would mean on the language question.
"Here, you would never suspect that this island receives 72 times more food stamps than Mississippi, eight times more than New York." Pete Hamill, New York Post, July 16, 1989
Puerto Rico is a land of beautiful beaches and dire poverty. Puerto Rico's Governor, Rafael Hernandez Colon, reminded readers of the New York Times in 1990 that many Puerto Ricans are quite poor, despite being exempt from all federal income taxes:
This has enabled Puerto Rico to undertake a highly successful economic development program, which has raised its per capita income from $342 in 1950 to $5,574 in 1989. Still that is less than half that of Mississippi, the poorest state. Our unemployment rate is now about 14%. (emphasis added)
Put another way by the Washington Post on December 27, 1990, fully 60% of the residents in the proposed state of Puerto Rico live "in what the federal government classifies as poverty." Columnist Patrick Buchanan noted in February, 1990, that "40% of the people on the island get federal benefits." The Washington Post reveled in November of that year that Mr. Buchanan's figure was too low, stating that "more than 43 percent of [Puerto Rico's] population receives the equivalent of food stamps from the U.S. government."
The Commonwealth of Puerto Rico already costs mainland U.S. taxpayers over $6 billion each year. The state of Puerto Rico could cost residents of the other 50 states far more.
The question of the costs of statehood to the American taxpayer has been kept out of much of the coverage of this issue. Sometimes, the news media have been fed numbers which sound quite good but obscure reality.
When the New York Daily News covered the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee vote to allow Puerto Rico to vote on the issue of statehood and other choices in July of 1989, the money question was handled thusly:
[Senator J. Bennett] Johnston estimated that the federal government would show a net revenue gain of $13 billion by the year 2000 if Puerto Rico joins the Union, mainly because a tax break for businesses on the island would be ended. But Senator Kent Conrad (D-ND) challenged that projection as overly optimistic.
Just how wildly optimistic that projection was has been demonstrated during 1990. The New York Times Magazine noted that under statehood, U.S. government welfare benefits to Puerto Rico alone would jump from $6 million to $9 billion each year.
The people of Puerto Rico know that as a Commonwealth, the island's welfare benefits are limited, but as a state, those limits would cease to exist. The Washington Post explained this issue rather practically on December 27, 1990:
It is the financial argument for statehood that thousands of people here find compelling. Many would suddenly get between $300 and $400 a month more in federal welfare payments under statehood, which would automatically remove many of the current limits Congress has imposed on welfare programs on the island.
Puerto Rico's former governor, Carlos Romero Barcelo, has written, in his book, Statehood is for the Poor, that "the island would take billions more out of the federal treasury than it would put in," according to Professor Antonio M. Stevens-Arroyo, writing in the January 22, 1990 issue of The Nation. Professor Stevens-Arroyo adds, "[t]his is the bottom line statehooders try not to mention when in Washington.
Puerto Rico's economy is based upon industry, not tourism. "Tourism accounts for no more than 6 percent of its gross domestic product (compared with Hawaii's 35 to 40%)," noted the New York Times Magazine. But much of this industry is in Puerto Rico for a special reason.
Section 936 of the United States Tax Code exempts all corporations on the island, including subsidiaries of mainland U.S. corporations, from federal taxes on their profits. On May 15, 1990, the New York Times summarized the impact this incentive and others have had on the Puerto Rican economy:
That benefit (Section 936 of the United States Tax Code) and the commonwealth's own generous incentives for new businesses have induced hundreds of manufacturers to build plants in Puerto Rico. Most are makers of pharmaceuticals, chemicals and electronics equipment, industries that are well positioned to transfer to their island subsidiaries the profits they earn on the mainland from intangible assets like patents and trademarks. . . .
But so many tax-sheltered investment dollars have been attracted to the island that the overall effect on the size and shape of the Puerto Rican economy has been enormous. Output per person grew at a remarkable 5 percent a year in the 1950's and 60's. The rate of growth plunged to about 1 percent in the mid-1970's after the virtual collapse of the island's tax-sheltered oil refining industry, but it has picked up to 3.6 percent over the last five years.
Manufacturing, as New York University economist Bernard Warsow told the Times, accounts for 40% of its economic output. Much if not all of that manufacturing has been free of federal corporate taxes. Under statehood, that tax freedom could not continue.
Those who endorse statehood suggest that this benefit could be phased out in some fashion after Puerto Rico became a state. But this different treatment by the federal government of income earned by a corporation based in Mississippi from one based in Puerto Rico might not survive Constitutional scrutiny at all.
The question Puerto Rico and the Congress need to be concerned with is not, when will Section 939 be repealed but rather, what will happen to the economy of Puerto Rico when it is?
As of December, 1990, Puerto Rico's governor's office, put the rate of unemployment on the island at 14.6%--over twice the U.S. rate. The Congressional Budget Office concluded this past April that statehood could mean unemployment for one out of every 9 working Puerto Ricans over ten years--effectively doubling the Puerto Rican unemployment rate.
A state of Puerto Rico without Section 936 can be expected to have an unemployment rate of 30%--4 times higher than that of the United States as a whole during the present recession. Even in better times, unemployment in Puerto Rico during 1988 was 15.9% compared to 5.5% in the United States that year.
Not all Puerto Ricans on the island will suffer at first. One out of four Puerto Ricans works for the government, according to the New York Times on May 15, 1990. But a population with one out of every ten people completely illiterate and one out of four functionally so, the wages earned in industry will be hard to replace. It costs an employer twice as much to pay a Puerto Rican workforce today (because of federal minimum wage laws) than it would to do the same work in Singapore, the Times noted that same day.
Once Section 936 disappears and companies in Puerto Rico start paying federal taxes, the CBO estimated that 73% of the investment made in the island by U.S. companies will cease. And its relatively high wage laws will keep more labor intensive manufacturing from moving in to replace the jobs that will be lost.
The unemployed in Puerto Rico will at least have higher welfare benefits to fall back on if statehood is granted, meaning more money lost to the U.S. treasury. Even with the gain to the U.S. Treasury of taxes now not being paid by Section 936 companies, the CBO put the cost of Puerto Rican statehood as $9.4 billion in the first four years.
These costs do not include matters like government and court translation expenses should Puerto Rico declare itself to be a solely Spanish-speaking land.
Nor does it include the costs to the U.S. Treasury of as many as seven representatives and two Senators whose continuance in office will depend on their pleasing an impoverished constituency. Legislation to increase federal spending on social programs of all sorts need not fail narrowly in either house of the U.S. Congress if Puerto Rico's delegation (twice the size of West Virginia's) enters the equation. Clearly neither the United States nor Puerto Rico can afford Puerto Rican statehood.
Send e-mail and suggestions to jboulet@englishfirst.org
English First, 8001 Forbes Place, Suite 102, Springfield, VA 22151 tel: (703) 321-8818 fax: (703) 321-8408 Internet: http://www.englishfirst.org