V
U.S.-PUERTO RICO POLITICAL STATUS ACT
Y 4, R 31/3: 104-87 _^^_^
NG
U.S. -Puerto Rico Political Status «...
.HE
SUBCOMMITTEE OX XATR^ A.MERICAX & IXSUIAR
AFFAIRS
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES
HOUSE OP REPRESENTATR^S
ONE HUNDRED FOURTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
ON
H.R. 3024
TO PROVIDE A PROCESS LEADING TO FULL SELF-GOVERNMENT
FOR PUERTO RICO
MARCH 23, 1996— SAN JUAN, PI
Serial No. 104-87
Printed for the use of the Committee on Resources
/?
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
24-926 cc WASHINGTON : 1996
For sale by the U.S. Government Printing Office
Superintendent of Documents, Congressional Sales Office, Washington, DC 20402
ISBN 0-16-053513-1
U.S.-PUERTO RICO POLITICAL STATUS ACT
Y 4. R 31/3:104-87
NG
U.S. -Puerto Rico Politicil Status »...
.HE
SUBCOM.AIITTEE OX XATRTE A.\IERIC.\X & IXSUIAR
AJ^TAIRS
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATR^S
ONE HUNDRED FOURTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
ON
H.R. 3024
TO PROVIDE A PROCESS LEADING TO FULL SELF-GOVERNMENT
FOR PUERTO RICO
MARCH 23, 1996— SAN JUAN, PI
Serial No. 104-87
Printed for the use of the Committee on Resources
'4..
D
'>
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
24-926 cc WASHINGTON : 1996
For sale by the U.S. Government Printing Office
Superintendent of Documents, Congressional Sales Office, Washington, DC 20402
ISBN 0-16-053513-1
COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES
DON YOUNG, Alaska, Chairman
W.J. (BILLY) TAUZIN, Louisiana
JAMES V. HANSEN, Utah
JIM SAXTON, New Jersey
ELTON GALLEGLY, California
JOHN J. DUNCAN, Jr., Tennessee
JOEL HEFLEY, Colorado
JOHN T. DOOLITTLE, California
WAYNE ALLARD, Colorado
WAYNE T. GILCHREST, Maryland
KEN CALVERT, California
RICHARD W. POMBO, California
PETER G. TORKILDSEN, Massachusetts
J.D. HAYWORTH, Arizona
FRANK A. CREMEANS, Ohio
BARBARA CUBIN, Wyoming
WES COOLEY, Oregon
HELEN CHENOWETH, Idaho
LINDA SMITH, Washington
GEORGE P. RADANOVICH, CaUfornia
WALTER B. JONES, Jr., North Carohna
WILLIAM M. (MAC) THORNBERRY, Texas
RICHARD (DOC) HASTINGS, Washington
JACK METCALF, Washington
JAMES B. LONGLEY, Jr., Maine
JOHN B. SHADEGG, Arizona
JOHN E. ENSIGN, Nevada
GEORGE MILLER, California
EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts
NICK J. RAHALL II, West Virginia
BRUCE F. VENTO, Minnesota
DALE E. KILDEE, Michigan
PAT WILLIAMS, Montana
SAM GEJDENSON, Connecticut
BILL RICHARDSON, New Mexico
PETER A. DeFAZIO, Oregon
ENI F.H. FALEOMAVAEGA, American
Samoa
TIM JOHNSON, South Dakota
NEIL ABERCROMBIE, Hawaii
GERRY E. STUDDS, Massachusetts
SOLOMON P. ORTIZ, Texas
OWEN B. PICKETT, Virginia
FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey
CALVIN M. DOOLEY, California
CARLOS A. ROMERO-BARCELO, Puerto
Rico
MAURICE D. HINCHEY, New York
ROBERT A. UNDERWOOD, Guam
SAM FARR, California
PATRICK J. KENNEDY, Rhode Island
Daniel Val Kish, Chief of Staff
Elizabeth Megginson, Chief Counsel
Christine A. Kennedy, Chief Clerk /Administrator
John Lawrence, Minority Staff Director
SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIVE AMERICAN & INSULAR AFFAIRS
ELTON GALLEGLY, California, Chairman
DON YOUNG, Alaska
WAYNE T. GILCHREST, Maryland
WALTER B. JONES, Jr., North Carohna
RICHARD (DOC) HASTINGS, Washington
JACK METCALF, Washington
JAMES B. LONGLEY, Jr., Maine
ENI F.H. FALEOMAVAEGA, American
Samoa
DALE E. KILDEE, Michigan
PAT WILLIAMS, Montana
TIM JOHNSON, South Dakota
CARLOS A. ROMERO-BARCELO, Puerto
Rico
ROBERT A. UNDERWOOD, Guam
Tim Glidden, Counsel
T.E. Manase Mansur, Professional Staff
Christopher Stearns, Democratic Counsel
(II)
CONTENTS
Page
Hearing held March 23, 1996 1
Text of H.R. 3024 87
Statements of Members:
Abercrombie, Hon. Neil, a U.S. Representative from Hawaii 12
Burton, Hon. Dan, a U.S. Representative from Indiana 9
Kennedy, Hon. Patrick, a U.S. Representative from Rhode Island 15
Romero-Barcelo, Hon. Carlos, a U.S. Delegate from Puerto Rico 6
Roth, Hon. Toby, a U.S. Representative from Wisconsin 12
Underwood, Hon. Robert, a U.S. Delegate from Guam 14
Young, Hon. Don, a U.S. Representative from Alaska 1
Statements of witnesses:
Aboy, Roberto Buso, Bar Association of Puerto Rico 78
Prepared statement 172
Acevedo, President Hector Luis, Popular Democratic Party 32
Prepared statement Ill
Brown, Chairman Herbert W., Ill, Citizens Educational Foundation 76
Prepared statement 143
De Rosario, Pilar Barbosa (prepared statement) 202
Fas-Alzamora, Antonia J., Esq 74
Prepared statement 139
Ferre, Luis A., founder and representative of the New Progressive Party
of Puerto Rico 54
Garcia-Passalacqua, Juan M., Presidente, Analsis Incorporado 64
Prepared statement 105
Loubriel, Wilson M. {prepared statement) 207
Martinez, President Ruben Berrios, Puerto Rican Independence Party 48
Prepared statement 115
Martinez, Noel Colon (prepared statement) 225
Ortiz, Angel Israel Rivera (prepared statement) 212
Ramirez de Ferrer, Dr. Miriam J. (prepared statement) 192
Rossello, Governor Pedro, from Puerto Rico 17
Vega-Romos, Luis, President, PROELA 66
Prepared statement 124
Additional material supplied:
Bush, President George: Memorandum on the Commonwealth of Puerto
Rico, dated Nov. 30, 1992 173
De Rosario, Pilar Barljosa: Letter dated March 24, 1996, to Don Young .... 183
Ferre, Luis A.: Letter dated March 12, 1996, to Hon. Don Young 233
Ford, President Gerald R.: Letter dated Jan. 14, 1977, to Speaker of
the House 246
Joint Letter from 32 signers, dated March 4, 1996, to Hon. Elton
Gallegly 236
Rossello, Pedro: Letter dated March 13, 1996, to Hon. Elton Gallegly 235
Torres, Zaida Hernandez: Letter dated March 1, 1996, to Hon. Elton
Gallegly 231
Valentin, Manuel Roman: Letter dated Jan. 23, 1996, to Hon. Don Young 238
Vidal, Ramon E. Dapena: Letter dated Feb. 9, 1996, to Hon. Don Young .. 223
Young, Don:
Letter dated Feb. 29, 1996, to Mr. Roberto Rexach-Benitez and Ms.
Hernandez-Torres 174
Letter dated March 4, 1996, to Colleague 179
Communications submitted:
Congressional Record excerpt dated March 6, 1996, Vol. 142 No. 29 180
(III)
^ Page
°°Tottof ChVolTe*datd''Mtchl4. 199<^Sovere,gnty or statehood to ^^^
Puerto Rico by 2° W -v'- :.;: p-.:(oR|c-„ status Act .^^ 182
KTorTTm*/d"?rM!S^S^1?6^Hean„gWe,ghs^ ^^^
on Puerto Rico
U.S.-PUERTO RICO POLITICAL STATUS ACT
SATURDAY, MARCH 23, 1996
House of Representatives, Subcommittee on Native
American and Insular Affairs, Committee on Re-
sources,
San Juan, Puerto Rico
The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:00 a.m., at Gov-
ernment Reception Center, Old San Juan, Puerto Rico, the Honor-
able Don Young [Chairman] presiding.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. DON YOUNG, A U.S. REPRESENTA-
TIVE FROM ALASKA; AND CHAIRMAN, COMMITTEE ON RE-
SOURCES
Mr. Young. It is my intention to keep our hearing on schedule.
This is the first hearing in Puerto Rico on the Legislation H.R 3024
United States-Puerto Rico Political Status Act.
I will make an opening statement, and then I will recognize Mr.
Romero-Barcelo, as your delegate, and then alternate between each
member of the committee.
I would like to thank the members for being here for this hear-
ing, this historical moment, and the audience, which I hope will
participate in the feeding of information.
When I became chairman I made the decision to bring the Unit-
ed States Government to the people, and have hearings in the
areas in which the people are affected.
It is an honor to be here today in this internationally renowned
city of San Juan — in the gorgeous weather — regarding an issue
that has gone unresolved for many centuries: providing a process
leading to full self government of Puerto Rico.
[Applause.]
Mr. Young. Let me thank our distinguished witnesses for their
willingness to appear before the subcommittee today and share
their differing views — and I mention that differing views regarding
legislation now pending in the Congress, and the subject of this
hearing, the United States-Puerto Rico Political Status Act of H.R.
3024.
We received a large number of requests to testify from many sec-
tors of Puerto Rico. Although the amount of time available for to-
day's hearing has limited the number who will present their testi-
monies orally, all other requesters have been notified by letter that
they may submit their written statements for the official hearing
file.
(1)
All of the testimonies submitted will be reviewed and considered
as the bill moves through the legislative process. All of your input
is valued and appreciated.
I also want to thank the Legislature of Puerto Rico, and I am ad-
dressing all members of all parties for their cooperation with this
hearing. I understand that some may not be in favor of the pending
legislation, but again, I thank you for your cooperation.
It is indeed appropriate for the second hearing of the 104th Con-
gress on the issue of Puerto Rico's status be held near the Capital.
It is the Legislature of Puerto Rico who called upon the 104th Con-
gress to respond to the results of the 1993 status plebiscite and to
indicate the next steps in the process to resolve Puerto Rico's sta-
tus.
We are here today fundamentally because of a very special docu-
ment— a very special document — the Constitution of the United
States.
The United States is a constitutional democracy, which means
the government of the people, based on the provisions of the Con-
stitution.
The roles of the Presidents, the courts, and the Congress are de-
fined by the Constitution.
Congress is given the responsibility for territories. According to
Article IV, "The Congress shall have the power to dispose of and
make all needful rules and regulations respecting the territory or
other property belonging to the United States."
In the Congress, it is the Committee on Resources of the House
that has jurisdiction for those territories. In other words, the buck
stops here. I know from experience that territorial issues can be
difficult to resolve.
When the Legislature of Puerto Rico enacted Concurrent Resolu-
tion 62, asking the 104th Congress to respond to the results of the
1993 status plebiscite, and to indicate the next steps necessary for
Puerto Rico to resolve the status issue, I realized we should base
a legislative proposal on the proven successes of this century.
If you'll look at the display behind me, there have been 10 areas
under the sovereignty or control of the United States during the
20th century which have attained permanent self government.
Five of these became separate sovereigns, as either independent
or freely associated States; and the other five territories became
States of the Union.
Full self government has generally been developed in three
stages involving an initial decision, a transition period, and an im-
plementation act.
In the case of the Philippines, which also came under United
States sovereignty with Puerto Rico under the Treaty of Paris,
there was an initial decision in 1916 by the United States — in the
Philippines to seek separate sovereignty.
In 1934, Congress enacted a 10-year transition plan for the Com-
monwealth of the Philippines, which culminated with an independ-
ence act in 1946, from 1916 to 1946.
The latest areas under United States Administration to gain self
government are the free associated States of the Marshall Islands,
Palau, and the Federated States of Micronesia.
Although Puerto Rico experienced increased self government dur-
ing the first half of the 20th century, these critical stages of devel-
opment of full self government have yet to occur.
It is clear that in order for Puerto Rico to advance toward full
self government in an orderly manner, legislation must provide for
these three stages, beginning with an initial decision of choices de-
fined by Congress and approved by the people of Puerto Rico.
I want to stress that. Being from Alaska we went through the
same thing. Defined by Congress and approved by the people of
Puerto Rico.
The United States Puerto Rico Political Status Act, H.R. 3024,
uses all three historical stages to provide a careful and slow proc-
ess leading to full self-government.
Let me explain this three stage process of the United States-
Puerto Rico Political Status Act.
First, it helps to envision the process leading to full self govern-
ment as a road map, with Puerto Rico as the car.
Although Puerto Rico made remarkable progress in local self gov-
ernment by mid-century, with the direct election of Governor and
the authorization and conditional approval by Congress of a local
constitution, there has been no other significant advances in self
government.
Clearly Puerto Rico has eclipsed all other territories in the level
of self government at that time. Only Puerto Rico elected their gov-
ernor and operated under a local constitution.
However, since that time, the other territories have either be-
come fully self governing, or have also reached a similar level of
self government. For over 40 years, Puerto Rico has been poised at
the junction of different paths toward self government.
On April 18, 1952, President Harry Truman responded to a letter
of Governor Muiioz regarding the recent adoption of the Constitu-
tion of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico by stating, "I think we
have made great strides. The adoption of the constitution that per-
sonally gives Puerto Rico the status of a State in the Union is a
wonderful step in the right direction."
That was President Truman.
The initial decision stage of the legislation permits Puerto Rico
to decide which path to follow toward self government — either sep-
arate sovereignty leading to independence, or free association, or
United States sovereignty leading to statehood.
The vote would be conducted by Puerto Rico before the end of
1998. The President then would send Congress a Transition Plan
for full self government based upon the outcome of the referendum.
After Congress passes the Transition Plan, Puerto Rico would
have another vote. If the Transition Plan is not approved in the
second Transition Stage Referendum, the Commonwealth of Puerto
Rico would remain at the fork in the road as an unincorporated ter-
ritory.
However, if the Transition Plan is approved, Puerto Rico moves
forward along the path toward self government in a 10-year transi-
tion.
The final implementation of stage begins at least two years be-
fore the end of the transition period with the President sending
Congress a proposed Implementation Act.
After Congress passes the Implementation Act, the third vote is
held in Puerto Rico. If the Implementation Act is not approved,
Puerto Rico remains under the United States sovereignty.
However, if the Act is approved, Puerto Rico arrives at the end
of the path and attains full, permanent, full self government, either
through separate sovereignty of independence, or free association,
or through the United States Sovereignty and Statehood.
During this century, the number of years it has taken for areas
under United States control to achieve full self government has
varied greatly. And I want to stress that. If you look at that, this
century has taken a lot of different time for different areas.
Cuba became independent in three years, and Oklahoma became
a State after 104 years.
Under the timeframes set forth in the legislation for the develop-
ment of full self government, including a 10-year transition, Puerto
Rico can reach full self government in the year 2010, or after 113
years of United States government control. The longest time for
any territory.
The territorial clause will no longer apply when Puerto Rico be-
comes a separate sovereign or a State.
I believe full self government will be in the best interests of both
the United States and Puerto Rico, whether as a separate sov-
ereign, or as a State of the the Union.
The people of Puerto Rico have a right to be fully enfranchised —
not defranchised — enfranchised, either on their own as a separate
sovereign, or within the United States political system as a State.
I look forward to hearing the testimony after the other Congress-
men make their presentations. I am open to suggestions. I want to
stress that. I am open to suggestion. This is a hearing process.
I am open to suggestion to improve the bill, as long as it remains
consistent with the overall objective to provide a process leading to
full self government for Puerto Rico.
Thank you.
[Applause.]
[The prepared statements of Hon. Don Young and Hon. Elton
Gallegly follow:]
Statement of Hon. Don Young
Today, the introduction of the "United States-Puerto Rico PoHtical Status Act"
will, for the first time in nearly a century of U.S. administration, provide a Congres-
sionally recognized frame work for the inhabitant of Puerto Rico to freely express
their wishes regarding the options for full self-government.
I want to acknowledge the insightful leadership of Speaker Newt Gingrich in
working with the Committee to formulate a process to advance the U.S. -Puerto Rico
relationship towards a conclusive one of full self-government.
A number of Members have been supportive and instrumental in the development
of the legislation, including Elton Gallegly, Chairman of the Subcommittee on Na-
tive American and Insular Affairs of the Committee on Resources, Ben Gilman,
Chairman of the Committee on International Relations, and Dan Burton, Chairman
of the subcommittee on the Western Hemisphere who co-chaired with Mr. Gallegly
the October 17, 1995 joint hearing on the 1993 Puerto Rico status plebiscite. There
also has been substantial input from Members on the other side of the aisle.
This matter of tremendous importance to the United States and the nearly 4 mil-
lion U.S. citizens in Puerto Rico can only be resolved by adhering to constitutionally
and internationally based principles and standards for full self-government.
While many may misconstrue this legislation to be designed to benefit one local
Puerto Rico political party over another, it is in fact a serious bipartisan effort to
enact into law a pragmatic process with the long-term objective of resolving the
Puerto Rico dilemma. The legislation divides the process into three manageable
stages which follow historical precedent set by the Congress in providing for final
political statuses of territories and trust territories during this century.
After 400 years of colonial rule by Spain ended in 1898, it should not have taken
another 100 years of American administration of the U.S. Congress to define the op-
tions for full and permanent self-government.
The United States-Puerto Rico Political Status Act permits full self-government
to be realized in Puerto Rico in definitive steps, with a smooth transition to what-
ever form of full self-government the people choose: Independence, separate sov-
ereignty in free association with the United States, or Statehood.
Statement of Hon. Elton Gallegly, A U.S. Representative from California;
AND Chairman, Subcommittee on Native American and Insular Affairs
Congress has a Constitutional responsibility to act to provide a process for full
self-government for Puerto Rico Political Status Act will permit the United States
and Puerto Rico to cooperatively advance down the path of full self-government se-
lected by the people of Puerto Rico.
Congress is providing the structure for attaining full self-government in Puerto
Rico — consistent with Constitutionally and internationally based standards and
Erinciples, with definite time frames for action. By the year 2010, Puerto Rico could
e a separate sovereign and member of the United Nations, or a state of the Union.
Let me note that it is not only Puerto Rico self-determination which is involved.
The United States also has a right to self-determination. That is why both the Unit-
ed States and Puerto Rico are included in the title of this bill both the United States
Congress and the people of Puerto Rico are required to take their respective step
in approving each stage in the process prescribea in the bill in order attain full self-
government.
This is a monumental undertaking, but one deserving of the energy and time re-
quired. The co-sponsorship of this bill by Speaker Gingrich is indicative of the im-
portance of this matter to this body. The people of Puerto Rico deserve nothing less
than a clearly defined process leading to a full self-government relationship with the
United States — whether that be without or within the sovereignty of the United
States. Either choice is acceptable as status alternatives of full political dignity.
Mr. Young. Now I recognize the former governor, Romero-
Barcelo, a good friend of mine that serves on the committee. Gov-
ernor?
Mr. Romero-Barcelo. Thank you, thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And, Mr. Chairman, first I would like to offer here a statement
by ranking minority member. Congressman George Miller, who has
asked me to submit this for the record as his statement.
Mr. Young. Without objection, so ordered.
[The prepared statement of the Hon. George Miller follows:]
The statement of Hon. George Miller, a U.S. Respresentative from
California
Today's hearing by the Subcommittee on Native American and Insular Affairs
marks another important step towards a goal we all share: the determination of a
permanent political status for Puerto Rico.
The decision of status must be made by the voters of Puerto Rico — clearly, deci-
sively and credibly. Past efforts, including the plebiscite of 1993, did not yield the
clear results that are needed to permit the Congress of the United States to consider
the status question.
Any new plebiscite must result in a decisive statement by a majority of Puerto
Rico voters. And to be credible, that vote must be free of any taint of pressure of
bias. In my view, H.R. 3024 as introduced will not pass that test, and would not
produce a result that would be viewed credibly by the United States Congress, and
properly so.
H.R. 3024 plays games with the plebiscite process by prohibiting voters from
choosing an option — Commonwealth — that is not only a legitimate and longstanding
political faction among voters, but also is the option selected by a plurality in the
1993 plebiscite.
The Commonwealth option, like the other options placed before the voters, must
be realistic and unbiased. These options should state the legal and factual ramifica-
tions of each status choice. And Puerto Rico voters should be able to make their de-
cision without being forced to choose from what they may regard as the lesser of
two evils.
If this legislation is amended to present a fair and credible Commonwealth option,
or other options that reflect the views of a significant portion of the electorate, I
will be pleased to support its passage. Otherwise, we will offer amendments to en-
sure that the Congress does not prejudge the voters of Puerto Rico by limiting their
choices unfairly. I note with satisfaction editorials in the San Juan Star & El Nuevo
Dia just this week endorsing this position which I proposed earlier this month.
We all seek a decisive result from the next plebiscite, and I recognize that some
who favor H.R. 3024 in its present from believe the limitation of choices is the only
way to produce a clear winner. In my view, the end simply does not justify the
means because the provisions of H.R. 3024 taint the electoral process and, by so
doing, taint the outcome itself
I personally endorse no particular long term status for Puerto Rico. That is very
much a decision for the people of Puerto Rico themselves without pressure from the
Congress. I am hopeful this legislation can and will be amended as I have rec-
ommended so that we — and especially the people of Puerto Rico — can move forward
to resolve finally this hundred year old question of status.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. CARLOS ROMERO-BARCELO, THE
RESIDENT COMMISSIONER FROM PUERTO RICO
Mr. Romero-Barcelo. Mr. Chairman, first of all I would like to
welcome you, Mr. Young, as chairman of this Resource Committee,
to Puerto Rico. And welcome, Mr. Burton, our chairman of the
Western Hemisphere subcommittee, and my fellow Committee
Members and good friends. Congressman Neil Abercrombie, Patrick
Kennedy, and Bob Underwood, and the distinguished gentleman
from Wisconsin, Toby Roth. Welcome to Puerto Rico, the Shining
Star of the Caribbean.
I would also like to take this opportunity to publicly thank you,
Mr. Chairman, for your interest in matters related to Puerto Rico,
and for your commitment to achieve full self government, and to
put an end to the disenfranchisement of the 3.7 million American
citizens that reside on the Island.
Furthermore, I want to thank the three newest cosponsors of this
bill. Congressman Wayne Gilchrist, Richard Pombo, and Michael
Forbes.
Both Mr. Gilchrist and Mr. Pombo are very distinguished Mem-
bers of this Committee, and their addition brings the total of the
Resources Committee cosponsors to fourteen. And 41 members are
so far cosponsoring this bill.
Mr. Chairman, when you introduced the United States-Puerto
Rico Political Status Act a couple of weeks ago, few people on the
Island took this effort seriously.
Many saw this legislation as just another status bill with no pos-
sibility, a bill that was dead on arrival, a bill that would fade away
like so many others in the past.
Two weeks and 41 Congressional cosponsors later — including
among them the Speaker of the House of Representatives, Newt
Gingrich — we meet in the historical city of San Juan, the oldest
city in the United States, to continue building upon a process that
suddenly seems to be very serious, even to the most skeptical
minds.
I believe that the presence of seven Members of Congress here
today attests to the seriousness of this effort.
As we begin today's vital discussions, and hear from the very dis-
tinguished panehsts representing the entire political spectrum of
the Island, I believe that it is of the utmost importance that we put
this event in the proper perspective.
Puerto Rico became a possession in 1898. Nineteen years later,
in 1917, U.S. citizenship was granted to all Puerto Ricans pursuant
to the terms of the Jones Act.
For nearly 80 years we have cherished and valued that citizen-
ship with our hearts and our minds and have defended it with our
blood.
Nearly 200,000 Puerto Ricans have served in the United States
in this century's major wars. Many paid the ultimate price for the
cause of democracy, more so than in any other U.S. territory prior
to their becoming a State, and in more than many States of the
Union.
The Commonwealthers, and even the independentistas, for they
advocated for a combined Puerto Rico and U.S. citizenship in the
1993 plebiscite independence definition, will have to agree with me
that the U.S. citizenship is something that the vast majority of
Puerto Ricans, over 95 percent, I would say, treasure deeply.
However, the citizenship that we enjoy in Puerto Rico is less
than equal to that of our fellow citizens in the 50 States.
We are not empowered to give consent to the policies or decisions
of the government under which we live, through proportional vot-
ing representation in Congress, or voting in National elections.
Neither are our rights as citizens as secure as those of our fellow
citizens in the States. Nor do U.S. citizens living in Puerto Rico re-
ceive equal treatment under Federal policies and programs.
The fact that Puerto Ricans do not pay Federal income taxes is
often used by both the executive and the legislative branches of the
Federal Government to justify this political and economic discrimi-
nation and unequal treatment.
Mr. Chairman, ours is a colonial relationship that clearly con-
tradicts the basic tenets and principles of democracy, one in which
Puerto Rico's economic, social, and political affairs are, in large de-
gree, controlled and influenced by a government over which we ex-
ercise no control, and in which we do not participate.
Our Nation cannot continue to preach and, at times, attempt to
enforce democracy throughout the world while at the same time it
continues to disenfranchise and deny political participation and
economic equality to 3.7 million of its own citizens.
Therefore, the real issue is how can we enable the U.S. citizens
of Puerto Rico to achieve a first-class citizenship?
The answer to this fundamental question was clearly expressed
in the February 29, 1996 historic letter that Chairman Young, Ben
Oilman, Elton Oallegly, and Dan Burton sent to the leadership of
the Puerto Rico Legislature.
If we are ever to resolve Puerto Rico's status dilemma, the
choices to do so are clear:
(1) equality of benefits and burdens, rights and responsibilities,
known to be attainable by the U.S. citizens of Puerto Rico only
through statehood, or,
8
(2) the establishment of a Puerto Rican citizenship through sepa-
ration from the Federal union and commencement of a new era
through a treaty based or bilateral pact relationship.
Mr. Chairman, the masquerade is over. It is time for the pre-
tending, the partisan mischief, and the dysfunctional political sta-
tus process in Puerto Rico to end.
It is time for all of us to put hypocrisy aside and be truthful
about what the real choices are for Puerto Ricans.
It is time to decide if we want to have full self government, and
full empowerment, that will allow us to search for a brighter fu-
ture, or if we would rather live hanging on to an outdated colonial
relationship of the past.
As we approach a century of U.S. sovereignty over Puerto Rico,
the time has come to empower the people by giving them the clear
choices which they understand, and which are truly decolonizing so
that we can reveal Puerto Rico's true desire through a legitimate
act of self determination.
The bipartisan initiative that we are considering today seeks to
resolve, once and for all, the long standing Puerto Rico status di-
lemma by providing a Congressionally recognized process that
would allow true Puerto Rican self determination for the first time
since the U.S. acquired control over the territory of Puerto Rico
nearly 100 years ago.
I am both appalled and amazed by the fact that the Common-
wealth party leadership has labeled this bill as undemocratic. They
have compared you, Mr. Chairman, with Adolf Hitler.
Well, the fact is that this criticism is coming from self proclaimed
"leaders" who, while they preach democracy on one side, they
would like to perpetuate a relationship that disenfranchises its own
people, and denies them a vote, and equal participation in the deci-
sionmaking process of their Nation.
"Leaders" that would rather keep corporate welfare in billions of
dollars worth of tax credits for U.S. companies operating in Puerto
Rico then have our elderly, our persons with disabilities, and our
children receive the same opportunities and treatment under Fed-
eral programs that their fellow citizens in the 50 States receive.
"Leaders" that promised the "best of two worlds" but have not
been able to deliver on a single one of those promises.
"Leaders" that want all the benefits of U.S. citizenship but none
of its responsibilities.
"Leaders" that want some of the sovereignty that comes only
with independence but expect to keep their U.S. citizenship also.
If the Congressional intent here is to establish a process to re-
solve Puerto Rico's colonial dilemma permanently, then Common-
wealth should not be included as an option, because Common-
wealth means disenfranchisement. And that, Mr. Chairman, is the
problem.
As my good friend and colleague from New York, Congressman
Jose Serrano, has said, "If you want to take the pulse of the people,
see what they like, then Commonwealth should be included.
However, if the intent is to start a truly decolonizing process,
then this bill is the right approach."
I do have to say that I look forward to Governor Pedro Rossello's
testimony, particularly as it pertains to this subject.
Even though I believe that the Commonwealth formula is incon-
sistent with the purposes of this bill, I am open to the idea of in-
cluding it as one of the options, so long as it is defined by Congress,
and is not a dishonest "wish list" prepared by those who want to
have their cake and eat it too.
When history demands upon a people, they must either rise to
the occasion, or live with the consequence of their inaction.
In this, the last decade of the 20th century, the United Nation's
proclaimed decade of decolonization, history demands that the peo-
ple of Puerto Rico take control of their own destiny.
To ignore the situation of Puerto Rico — that is, to ignore our dis-
enfranchisement — is to betray the spirit of our own democratic val-
ues.
Mr. Chairman, and fellow Members, I want once again to thank
you for your interest, and your attention to this vitally important
matter.
I look forward to the testimony of our distinguished guests and
to further an expeditiously Congressional action on this subject.
The 3.7 million U.S. citizens in Puerto Rico deserve no less.
And, Mr. Chairman, just some final words.
Some decades ago our nation decided in the south that a white
majority could not disenfranchise an Afro-American minority. Here
in Puerto Rico we have a political party, a political group that not
only purports to maintain a minority disenfranchisement, but it
purports to maintain all of the people of Puerto Rico
disenfranchised, all of the citizens of the United States in Puerto
Rico, 3,700,000.
How can disenfranchisement be tolerated in a democracy?
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Young. I thank the gentleman. A very eloquent presen-
tation.
[Applause.]
Mr. Young. At this time I'd like to recognize the Congressman,
Dan Burton, the subcommitteet chairman of International Affairs,
Mr. Burton.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. DAN BURTON, A U.S.
REPRESENTATIVE FROM INDIANA
Mr. Burton. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Governor, Mr. Mayor, distinguished guests, it is great to be here
to see this great outpouring of democratic action. I don't think I
have ever been to a meeting that was so well attended, in the
streets and every place else, and so we really appreciate your en-
thusiasm.
his is a very timely event, something that has been a long time
in coming, and I think that we are approaching the time when we
are going to finally resolve the problems that we have been talking
about regarding independence, statehood, or Commonwealth.
I would like to thank my colleague, Don Young, Chairman of the
House Committee on Resources, for this opportunity to have this
hearing on the United States-Puerto Rico Political Status Act.
As chairman of the Western Hemisphere subcommittee, I have
the desire and the responsibility to examine the political pref-
erences of the people of Puerto Rico.
10
After all, the U.S. territories, including Puerto Rico, are governed
by or under the authority of Congress, pursuant to the territory
clause.
Further, the future political status of the island has broad impli-
cations with respect to both National and international policy, and
I believe, security as well.
As you know, on December the 14th, 1994 the legislature of
Puerto Rico adopted Concurrent Resolution 62 which sought Con-
gressional guidance regarding the results of the 1993 plebiscite.
Recently, Don Young, Ben Oilman, Elton Gallegly, and myself,
the chairmen of the committees that deal with the status of Puerto
Rico, responded in writing to Concurrent Resolution 62.
I would like to, at this point, Mr. Chairman, insert this in the
record, so that it will be made part of the record.
Mr. Young. Without objection, so ordered.
Mr. Burton. The letter expresses clear, very clear Congressional
intent with respect to Puerto Rico and its inhabitants, and any fu-
ture actions hereto would be within the framework of the policy ex-
pressed in that letter.
Today, we are here to discuss H.R. 3024, the United States-Puer-
to Rico Political Status Act. Essentially, the bill would provide a
process of self determination and a path toward a permanent sta-
tus for Puerto Rico.
Under the bill, a plebiscite would be held not later than Decem-
ber 31st, 1998. And approval of a status option must be by a major-
ity of the votes case.
Voters will be presented with two status options in the bill: one,
the path of separate Puerto Rico sovereignty leading to independ-
ence or free association. And, two, a path under United States sov-
ereignty leading to statehood.
In the 1993 plebiscite — and this is very important — the definition
of the Commonwealth option received a plurality of the votes.
However, as my colleagues and I have detailed in our letter to
Concurrent Resolution 62, the Commonwealth definition in that
plebiscite was both unworkable and unconstitutional.
As drafted, that option would have established a bilateral pact
where Puerto Rico would be granted veto power over all Federal
and Congressional actions.
Such a pact is highly unlikely, because Puerto Rico is currently
an unincorporated territory subject to the authority of Congress
under the territorial clause.
If Puerto Rico was not a territory of the United States, then the
Resources Committee and Congress would have no jurisdiction, and
we would not be here today to discuss this important issue.
Furthermore, the only viable status options that could be based
on an unalterable bilateral pact are free association and independ-
ence.
The results of the 1993 plebiscite clearly reflect that the people
of Puerto Rico want a change in the island's current status.
In this light, the status quo does not seem to be consistent with
the wishes of the people.
In addition, the current relationship between the United States
and Puerto Rico is constantly changing. For example, in Fiscal
11
Year 1995, Puerto Rico received $12 billion in Federal transfer pay-
ments, including Section 936 tax credits.
Given the current deficit reduction efforts in Congress, however,
it is clear, very clear, that Section 936 will be significantly reduced
or eliminated in the future.
This uncertain climate will simply not provide Puerto Rico with
the economic and social stability that it needs to prosper.
Therefore, Congress needs to clarify the various options for a per-
manent status and self government.
H.R. 3024 provides Puerto Rico with realistic and achievable sta-
tus options. Many supporters of the Commonwealth have criticized
the Young bill because the Commonwealth option will not be on the
ballot in the form that it appeared in the 1993 plebiscite.
This charge deserves to be addressed, and I understand that
Chairman Young will consider this possible change. However, if
this occurs, the correct definition of Commonwealth must be what
is on the ballot, as defined by the Constitution of the United States
and the Congress.
In the event that the people of Puerto Rico do not exercise their
right to self determination. Commonwealth will continue to exist
until Congress unilaterally determines Puerto Rico's disposition
and the status of its inhabitants.
Regardless, under H.R. 3024, Commonwealth has a distinct ad-
vantage over independence, free association, or statehood.
For any of these options to replace Commonwealth, the voters in
Puerto Rico must approve the change three times by majority over
a period of 10 years.
On the other hand, a defeat in any one of these votes will keep
the status quo in effect.
Chairman Young specifically incorporated this into the bill to en-
sure that Congress does not implement any new policies directly
impacting Puerto Rico that are not supported by a majority of the
island's residents.
Nevertheless, let me be clear in stating that Commonwealth re-
mains an option in the bill, a possible option in the bill, and that
Congress has the authority, as I said, and the duty, to define what
the options will be.
As stated in my response to Concurrent Resolution 62, the 1993
plebiscite Commonwealth definition was both unrealistic and un-
constitutional.
Therefore, it must be defined as an unincorporated territory sub-
ject to the jurisdiction of the Congress of the United States. It can-
not be considered a permanent status.
On a final note, I would like to emphasize that the continued un-
certainty over Puerto Rico's political status does not serve the best
interests of the mainland United States or Puerto Rico.
As such, I encourage my colleagues to move forward on H.R.
3024. I believe this bill provides an opportunity to work together
with the people of Puerto Rico and forge a consensus relationship
between them and the mainland.
In this respect, and in the interest of mutual prosperity, I look
forward to hearing from our witnesses, and I thank you, Mr. Chair-
man.
Mr. Young. Thank you.
12
[Applause.]
Mr. Young. I thank the gentleman, the chairman, Mr. Burton.
At this time I would like to recognize the Congressman Abercrom-
bie from Hawaii, my sister State. Congressman, you're on.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. NEIL ABERCROMBIE, A U.S.
REPRESENTATIVE FROM HAWAII
Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Buenas dias, Puerto Rico.
I bring you greetings from the 50th state of Hawaii, the rainbow
State. Aloha, aloha, noeloha.
I join with Mr. Young, our 49th state, and Hawaii, the 50th
State. Hawaii, as you know, and the people of Hawaii are an island
people. And so I feel a very close relationship with the people of
Puerto Rico.
I, too, was excited by the enthusiasm coming here today. I am
here to listen. I feel an obligation and responsibility as a represent-
ative of urban Honolulu in the rainbow State, the last State to
enter the Union, to pay respectful attention to the views being ex-
pressed today.
I look forward to hearing from you. I look forward to the resolu-
tion of this issue. And I thank you once again with a mahalo
nuiloha, thank you very much for the opportunity to be here with
you in Puerto Rico today. Viva la gente!
[Applause.]
Mr. Young. I thank the gentleman from Hawaii, and I also have
great sympathy for the Interpreter.
At this time I'd like to recognize the gentleman, Mr. Roth from
Wisconsin. Mr. Roth.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. TOBY ROTH, A U.S.
REPRESENTATIVE FROM WISCONSIN
Mr. Roth. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate
being invited to be here today, and I compliment you, Mr. Chair-
man, for coming all this way to have this hearing. And I enjoy
being with the members of this panel, all of them my friends.
Mr. Chairman, Puerto Rico for me is a special place, and the
Puerto Rican people are a special people.
I came to this wonderful island sometime ago and was struck by
how proud the Puerto Rican people are of their heritage.
I attended school in the early sixties with young men and women
from Puerto Rico at Marquette University in Milwaukee, and later
on at the University of Wisconsin.
I have found the Puerto Rican people to be a proud people, and
they should be proud. Puerto Rico's culture is rich with history and
language, and has impressive monuments that are unique to the
people of Puerto Rico.
From the island's historical figures, like Ponce de Leon, their
first governor, to the history making battles fought at El Morro,
Puerto Rico has a rich legacy that sets it apart from any other na-
tion.
Since 1917, that legacy has been intertwined with the United
States. Puerto Rico and the United States formalized the Common-
wealth relationship they have enjoyed since 1952.
13
For over four decades, both peoples have benefited from this as-
sociation, and the mixing of cultures, languages, and heritage have
made both countries richer and more diverse.
Today, this special relationship continues to be an issue that ex-
cites the passions of the Puerto Rican people.
It seems that, once every generation, the island reevaluates its
political status and revisits the issue by putting its future in the
hands of the Puerto Rican people. Such was the case in 1967, and
again, just recently, in 1993.
This is clearly not a matter to be taken lightly. Congress has a
role to play in the resolution of this issue.
But I believe that the proper role for that lies in respecting the
wishes of the Puerto Rican people, and acting on the democratically
expressed decision regarding their political status.
[Applause.]
Mr. Roth. I have always maintained a strict neutrality on this
issue. I don't have a position on the political status question. My
only interest is in being here today to ensure that the people of
Puerto Rico have the freedom of choice when deciding their fate.
[Applause.]
Mr. Roth. The relation between our two Nations, between the
United States Congress and the Puerto Rican people, has always
been one based on mutual respect and faith in the democratic prin-
ciples of government.
The only way to continue this democratic tradition is to present
the people of Puerto Rico with all the options available to them and
let them decide.
It would seem to me that they expressed their views three years
ago, when the Commonwealth option won a clear plurality of the
votes.
There are some people in Washington and in Puerto Rico who
would like to overlook the results of that referendum, or at least
cast doubts on their legitimacy. I believe that it would be a mis-
take.
The 1993 plebiscite was a fair expression of the Puerto Rican
people's will.
[Applause.]
Mr. Roth. It was called by the duly elected government in power,
and it was held on the government's terms. I see no reason to effec-
tively nullify the results of this referendum, and I think it the
Congress's duty in this matter to respect, respect the expressed
views of the Puerto Rican people.
[Applause.]
Mr. Roth. Puerto Rico and its citizens may freely decide to re-
visit this issue. That is their right as a self governing nation. How-
ever, no other country or government or individuals or those gov-
ernments should intervene or meddle in the local political matter.
I believe the United States Congress shares my views that the
people of Puerto Rico, and they alone, should decide the political
status of their island.
I respect the people of Puerto Rico. I feel that the people of Puer-
to Rico can decide their own fate. They don't need other people
coming in here telling them what to do. Let the people of Puerto
Rico decide.
14
[Applause.]
Mr. Young. I thank the gentleman. And may I remind the audi-
ence, you have now seen democracy at work. This is what this all
about. This is a hearing process, and although Mr. Roth gave us
a very emotional presentation, just keep in mind that Mr. Roth will
not be with us next year.
[Laughter and applause.]
Mr. Young. But I have also again tried in my ability to do the
thing that is correct, and that is to have a hearing process go forth,
to listen to people constructively and try to solve this issue where
Puerto Rico is going to be in the future.
At this time I would like to recognize another gentleman who has
the interests of Puerto Rico, and his own territory, Mr. Underwood
from Guam, much further away even than Puerto Rico. Congress-
man Underwood, please.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. ROBERT UNDERWOOD, A U.S. DELE-
GATE IN CONGRESS FROM THE NON-SELF GOVERNING
TERRIROTY OF GUAM
Mr. Underwood. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And Buenas dias to the people of Puerto Rico.
I represent, as many of you know, an area of the United States
that is exactly on the opposite end of the world. Yet my own home
island of Guam is linked to Puerto Rico in many ways. And in
many ways historically.
And these are ways in which I am constantly reminded, not only
by the kind of ambiance that I feel here, but also the fact of his-
tories being intertwined.
Both Guam and Puerto Rico became part of the American frame-
work through the Treaty of Paris and in the Spanish-American
War, and as a result of the Spanish-American War we, the conflict
really produced four island children; Cuba, and the Philippines,
which have since been resolved. And the two remaining children
are Puerto Rico and Guam.
I certainly wouldn't want to characterize those children as prob-
lem children, but they certainly remain as challenges for the peo-
ples involved, and certainly for the United States.
I would like to congratulate you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this
hearing in Puerto Rico and for, I think, establishing a Federal re-
sponsibility toward the resolution of political status.
I think one of the great defects perhaps in the process of discuss-
ing political status is the lack of a clear Federal policy in terms of
that, and a clear Federal process.
I am committed to the full resolution of political status issues,
but I am committed to the full resolution only with the full explo-
ration of political status options.
I think any kind of political status resolution process which at-
tempts to disguise, or perhaps eliminate options, is one that is not
tolerable.
I believe, and I am committed, to full consultation with the peo-
ples involved, and respect for the process of self determination. And
I believe, and I remain committed to the idea and the recognition
that there are unique, historical developments for some peoples.
And that whether it is under the U.S. flag, or separately from the
15
U.S. flag, or with the U.S. flag under some special conditions, I
fully accept the fact that there may be some special conditions in
recognition of unique historical circumstances.
Some people may characterize that as having your cake and eat
it too, but I prefer to think of it as getting your just desserts.
It is an honor to be here, and it is also an honor to bear witness
to the spirit and the intensity with which the various positions are
articulated here in Puerto Rico.
I only wish that every community that I come into contact with
could be as spirited and as committed as you are.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[Applause.]
Mr. Young. At this time I will recognize our most junior member
on the committee, which I have great hope and aspiration for, if I
can just get him away from George Miller a while we might make
progress. I'd like to recognize Mr. Kennedy. Congressman Kennedy,
you're on.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. PATRICK KENNEDY, A U.S.
REPRESENTATIVE FROM RHODE ISLAND
Mr. Kennedy. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Buenas dias.
Last evening I had the opportunity to fly into Gov. Muhoz-Marin
Airport, and it gave me a great deal of pride to know that my
uncle. President Kennedy, was a great friend of Gov. Muiioz Marin.
In 1962 President Kennedy had a vision for Puerto Rico, so that
Puerto Rico could develop itself, and its economy, and its way of
life for all of its people.
Today I am pleased to be joined with my colleagues in working
toward the next logical step called for by President Kennedy, and
that step, I believe, is H.R. 3024.
H.R. 3024 is a step which ultimately belongs to the 3.7 million
people here in Puerto Rico. But, for the record, let me say that
given the same choice, in the same set of circumstances, I would,
without any reservation, choose for Puerto Rico to become the 51st
State of the United States of America.
[Applause.]
Mr. Kennedy. As a territory of the United States, Puerto Rico
has become the shining star of the Caribbean, and in large meas-
ure it has been because of its Commonwealth status.
But unfortunately, as a territory, the scope of Puerto Rico's fu-
ture, going forward, is limited under a Commonwealth status.
The day of Puerto Rico
[Applause.]
Mr. Kennedy. The day of Puerto Rico being able to quote/un-
quote have the best of both worlds, because of its Commonwealth
status, are coming to an end.
You only need to look at this Congress, and I know as active and
as interested as anyone is, in the political processes going on in the
United States Congress, that they understand what I mean when
I say that we are going through changes right now in the United
States of America, in the United States Congress. And it's impor-
tant that Puerto Rico keep up with the dynamic changes that are
taking place.
16
With the forthcoming budget reductions in the Congress, in its
budget, there will be less money allocated for Puerto Rico in discre-
tionary entitlement funds. And it is misleading to assume that the
citizens of Puerto Rico will continue to prosper under Common-
wealth status when their very coveted 936 tax and economic status,
that has defined Puerto Rico and the United States relationship, is
itself beginning to come under review and change.
As a State, the wealth of opportunities available to Puerto Rico
are boundless. In the United States Congress you'd have Rep-
resentatives and Senators who could vote for you, who could fight
for you, who could work for you.
[Applause.!
Mr. Kennedy. And, Mr. Chairman, this is the essence of rep-
resentative democracy.
In my State of Rhode Island I am fighting very hard for my con-
stituents, very hard for their health care, very hard for their edu-
cation, and their ability to work and earn a living.
I know that you want your representatives to have the same
power to vote as I have in the United States Congress.
[Applause.]
Mr. Kennedy. Just for a moment, with respect to us telling the
people of Puerto Rico what's in their best interests, let me just say,
under the current territorial status, we in the Congress could pass
English as an official language. And as a territory you'd have to
comply with it, even though it may run contrary to your own wish-
es.
And, to me, that is the affront to the people of Puerto Rico. That
is where your self determination is being at the expense of.
And when you look at the number of wars that the people of
Puerto Rico have fought on behalf of the United States of America,
and yet they weren't even able to vote for their commander-in-
chief, even though they were willing to lay down their lives for the
people.
[Applause.]
Mr. Kennedy. In conclusion, let me just say that I believe, once
again, that the shining star of the Caribbean will make an even
more bright shining star as the 51st State in the United States of
America.
[Applause.]
Mr. Young. Again, may I express, this is democracy. If you no-
tice, that there's two speakers at both ends, and then you have the
middle. So I deeply appreciate the process which we go through.
Now we'll get to the witnesses. And I could remind my good
friends in the audience, those that have strong feelings on both
sides, if you interrupt too often for the fine testimony that will
occur, that means you possibly could take time from the testimony.
So, when I wave this little gavel down, you don't have to pay at-
tention to it, but I'd appreciate it if you would try to watch it real
close. It helps things go along pretty good.
I would like to at this time, and it gives me great honor, to intro-
duce the Honorable Pedro Rossello, Governor of Puerto Rico. Gov-
ernor?
[Applause.]
17
Mr. Young. Before the Governor gives his testimony I'd like to
also recognize his lovely wife in the audience. Please stand.
[Applause.]
Mr. Young. Governor, it's an honor to have you here, and you're
on.
STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE PEDRO ROSSELLO,
GOVERNOR OF PUERTO RICO
Governor RosSELLO. Thank you very much.
Mr. Chairman, I am Pedro Rossello, and I appear before this sub-
committee as Governor of Puerto Rico.
I extend a warm welcome to Chairman Don Young of the Com-
mittee on Resources, and the members of the Subcomittee on Na-
tive American and Insular Affairs, including the gentleman from
Puerto Rico, Resident Commissioner Carlos Romero-Barcelo.
I also want to welcome Chairman Dan Burton of the subcommit-
tee on the Western Hemisphere, and the other Members of Con-
gress who, by their presence at this hearing, are demonstrating
commendable interest in the vital issue of authentic and perma-
nent self determination for the 3.7 million of their fellow citizens.
A journey of a thousand miles must begin with a single step. But
to reach his destination, a traveler must head in the right direc-
tion.
In our quest for self determination we, the people of Puerto Rico,
have taken thousands of steps, dating all the way back to the 19th
century. Yet it could be argued, quite plausibly, that those thou-
sands of steps have carried us closer to our destination by as little
as a single mile.
Literally, for generations, we have been exerting ourselves — ear-
nestly and in good faith — only to discover again and again that our
body politic has been going around in circles.
We have possessed the will. What we have lacked is the way.
Missing has been a compass, an instrument that will unfailingly
keep us on course by pointing us always in the right direction.
Now, at last, our constitutional partner in the self determination
process, the United States Congress, is furnishing that necessary
tool.
H.R. 3024, the United States-Puerto Rico Political Status Act, is
indeed a compass. It is a sturdy, reliable compass. We, the people
of Puerto Rico, requested such an instrument. Chairman Young has
provided it.
What do I mean when I assert that we, the people, requested
this compass? What I mean is this:
In 1992, 85 percent of Puerto Rico's eligible voters went to the
polls.
By the largest margin in 20 years, those voters elected a slate
of candidates who promised that upon taking office they would act
immediately to consult the people of Puerto Rico on the subject of
political status.
In 1993 that promise was kept: 3.5 percent of Puerto Rico's eligi-
ble voters participated in a consultation process that was conducted
with the full and unequivocal support of all three Puerto Rican po-
litical parties.
18
In 1994, the Legislative Assembly of Puerto Rico adopted a con-
current resolution which conveyed to the Congress of the United
States a formal petition that Congress respond to the outcome of
that 1993 consultation.
In 1995, this Subcommittee of the U.S. House of Representatives,
meeting jointly with the International Relations Subcommittee on
the Western Hemisphere, conducted a hearing in Washington, DC,
for the purpose of evaluating the Puerto Rico political status con-
sultation of 1993.
And in 1996, exactly 17 days ago. Chairman Young introduced
H.R. 3024, a bill that responds clearly, fairly, comprehensively to
the request for a compass that we, the people of Puerto Rico, have
systematically articulated, one step at a time, over the past 4-
years.
H.R. 3024 offers the people of Puerto Rico a responsible, dig-
nified, eminently viable mechanism for emerging at last from the
vicious circle of sound and fury signifying nothing, a vicious circle
that has wasted, wastefuUy consumed far too much of our energy
throughout the entire 98 years of United States sovereignty over
our homeland.
I am deeply grateful to Chairman Young, as well as to Speaker
Newt Gingrich, and dozens of other cosponsors of this bill.
The United States-Puerto Rico Political Status Act is truly a
blueprint for constructive collaboration between the Federal Gov-
ernment and the people of Puerto Rico on the fundamental ques-
tion of democratic self determination for Puerto Rico, consonant
both with the United States Constitution and the principles of
international law.
Having said that, Mr. Chairman, I must caution the subcommit-
tee that patience and persistence will be required in abundance as
we set about the arduous task of draining that bottomless quag-
mire of indefmition.
The entrenched local custom of mounting ideological obstacles to
dispassionate policymaking has not evaporated with the introduc-
tion of H.R. 3024.
Accordingly, this subcommittee will, both today and in the weeks
ahead, be obliged to endure the slings and arrows of outrageous
testimony.
As you listen conscientiously to critics of this bill, it will be help-
ful to keep firmly in mind a few salient facts.
The central theme of the criticism that has surfaced regarding
H.R. 3024 is that allegedly it presumes to abolish the so called
Commonwealth status under which Puerto Rico is currently gov-
erned.
This, we are told, is anti-democratic, arbitrary, dictatorial, de-
meaning.
As you well know, however, such criticism is predicated upon a
premise that is utterly false.
H.R. 3024 establishes a procedure for decolonization that entails
three separate referenda spread over a period of at least 10 years.
However, if any one of these three referenda produces an incon-
clusive outcome, with no form of full self government obtaining a
majority support, then the whole process concludes, back where we
started.
19
In that event, Puerto Rico's current political status, and Puerto
Rico's current Commonwealth government structure, would con-
tinue to exist in their present form.
This is the reality, as specifically expressed in the bill. It is a
mechanism that is eminently fair.
Nevertheless, it is my duty, as Governor of all Puerto Ricans, to
ensure that the reality of fairness goes hand in hand with the per-
ception of fairness.
We must ensure that demagogic arguments can never cast a
shadow over a process that is of such momentous importance for
the people of Puerto Rico.
For that reason I submit to you that the option of Common-
wealth, Estado Libre Asociado, should be explicitly included on the
ballot in the 1998 referendum that will commence this whole proc-
ess.
Such an approach will require that the initial decision stage, as
we can see it here, will be modified or amended to increase the
number of available options from two to three.
Two of those options would start us on the pathway to the attain-
ment of full self government, as that term is defined under inter-
national law. And a third option would allow for the retention of
the current Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, or Estado Libre
Asociado, as a locally self governing unincorporated territory under
Congressional jurisdiction, in accordance with the Territorial
Clause of the United States Constitution, Article IV, Section 3,
Paragraph 2.
I realize that the sponsors of H.R. 3024 have every intention of
leaving all available options open to the Puerto Rican people, op-
tions that will lead to complete self government and decolonization,
as well as even that option which would perpetuate the existing
territorial status.
To accomplish this, however, in a manner that simultaneously
achieves both the reality of fairness and also the perception of fair-
ness. Congress will be obliged to make absolutely clear to the peo-
ple of Puerto Rico exactly what is meant by the status quo option
of Commonwealth, or Estado Libre Asociado.
[Applause.]
Governor ROSSELLO. It is thus indispensable that Congress ex-
plicitly define that option.
It is of the utmost importance to me, as Governor of Puerto Rico,
that all Puerto Ricans feel totally confident, both in their hearts
and in their minds, that this process endows them with ample op-
portunity to manifest their true preference and to deliver an un-
equivocal mandate.
To me, it is imperative that this process not only be fair in its
substance but that it likewise be universally perceived as fair.
Therefore, I urge that you amend the bill so that, in its initial deci-
sion stage, up front, at the very outset, there be three options open
to our voters.
In addition to the options for full self government, either through
a separate Puerto Rican sovereignty, via independence or free asso-
ciation, or by participating on an equal footing in the United States
sovereignty, through statehood, I urge that you include a third op-
tion, and that this third option be the current Commonwealth of
20
Puerto Rico, or Estado Libre Asociado, as it is clearly defined in
this bill, namely a locally self governing unincorporated territory
under Congressional jurisdiction.
By adopting this approach. Congress can ensure that our people
will reject, as categorically false, and totally irresponsible, any at-
tempt to portray this bill as a calculated maneuver aimed at taking
away from the Puerto Rican people the system of government
which has been in effect here since 1952.
And finally, Mr. Chairman, I urge that the subcommittee take
fully into account that the critics of H.R. 3024 are guilty of, at best,
a flip flop, and, at worst, an act of hypocrisy when they criticize
this bill's central purpose; that purpose is to remove our people
from the colonial stigma imposed upon us by the Territorial Clause
of the United States Constitution.
Puerto Rican leaders of every partisan persuasion have for dec-
ades been demanding precisely that. Congressman Young's bill of-
fers us precisely that on a silver platter.
Where, then, we must ask, where is the beef? What is the prob-
lem?
This bill is unambiguous, straightforward in its language, and
presents the people of Puerto Rico with a golden opportunity to put
up or to shut up.
If we so desire, we can choose to cooperate with Congress on im-
plementing a course of action which will, at last, empower us with
permanent, dignified, internationally recognized, fully self govern-
ing political status.
But that is only half of the equation.
This bill simultaneously empowers us to remain as we are, to
maintain the status quo, if that is the desire of the majority of our
people, and that is what they want.
My petition to you is that you make this second half of the equa-
tion explicitly clear and that, when you define exactly what this
status quo option entails, you do so in a manner that obliterates
every trace of the abundant ambiguity that currently surrounds the
true nature of the so called Estado Libre Asociado.
Accordingly, Mr. Chairman, I believe it is fundamental that these
points be kept in mind at all times as the subcommittee weighs the
testimony of any witness who purports to object on principle to the
course of action that this bill contemplates.
In closing, there is one other substantive suggestion that I would
like to offer for your consideration.
As introduced, the United States-Puerto Rico Political Status Act
provides that the duration of its transition plan, leading to full self
government for Puerto Rico, shall be a minimum of 10 years.
Ten years, I respectfully submit, is an inordinately long period
of time.
Ten years ago there were two Germanys, and a Berlin Wall.
South Africa was still under apartheid. The North American Free
Trade Agreement was merely a promising idea. Almost nobody had
ever heard of the Internet.
A 10-year minimum, I believe, is more time than we need. In ad-
dition, extraneous events that no one can foresee, could too easily
derail or delay the process if we let it drag on for that long.
21
So I respectfully recommend that the transition period be short-
ened. Instead of a minimum of 10 years, let the transition period
be a maximum of 4 years.
That should be entirely sufficient to achieve the historic mission
that the Federal Government and the people of Puerto Rico will un-
dertake together through this inspired legislation.
Thank you very much for the privilege of the floor.
Mr. Young. Thank you, Governor.
[Applause. 1
Mr. Young. Thank you. Governor. And I have a couple short
questions or comments, and then we'll open it up to the other mem-
bers of the Committee. And this is the way we're going to do it, and
when we're finished you can sit in the audience and listen to the
other testimony.
Governor, I take with great seriousness your suggestion. I want
to stress though that the concept of Article 4, Section 3, Paragraph
2, that Congress will define Commonwealth. Yes. It will not be a
wish list, or pie in the sky, it will be a decision made by the Puerto
Rican people.
[Applause.]
Mr. Young. Including, including the status quo of the present
Commonwealth. Make that perfectly understood.
Secondly, the discussion about the minimum of 10-years, did I
hear you right, was it a maximum of 10-years, or did you say a
maximum of 4-years? I was just curious.
Governor ROSSELLO. A maximum of 4-years.
Mr. Young. A maximum of 4-years. I have great faith that the
Puerto Rican people could accomplish the goals. I'm not totally con-
fident the Congress can accomplish those goals knowing how we
operate.
We will be taking that into consideration as we mark up this bill.
And hopefully, as we continue to have input and testimony, we
will — and I want to stress this, because it was asked the day I in-
troduced this bill — in other words, this is just a step. I expect to
pursue this with your Congressmen and with yourself and with
other interested parties because the status quo is no longer accept-
able to this chairman.
Now I'll recognize the Congressman, Mr. Romero-Barcelo for any
questions.
Mr. Romero-Barcelo. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Governor, I want to congratulate you on your testimony. And
particularly in the generosity of your proposal which opens up the
process to the participation of the Commonwealth as it is, the sta-
tus quo, as we have indicated, that is precisely the problem. And
yet you are willing to have that option open so that the people of
Puerto Rico not only have a fair process, but remove any shadow
of a process that is not impartial.
But, Governor, I would like to ask you, for the record, was the
proposal that you have for the Commonwealth to be included, was
that — and you mentioned it briefly in your testimony and I would
like you expound on it — the Commonwealth as it is, was that in-
cluded in the 1993 plebiscite as an option?
Governor RosSELLO. The 1993 plebiscite option was an option
that was defined by the Popular party. There were no restrictions
22
to that definition. And I must say, and I have said it before, and
I will repeat it again, that in looking for a fair process, the 1993
plebiscite allowed — and this was a bill that I submitted to our Leg-
islature— allowed the political parties to define their own formulas,
different to what happened in the 1967, when the party in power
defined all the political formulas, all the options, even though they
did not represent their aspirations.
So, we were looking for fairness at that time. We allowed the po-
litical parties to define their own formulas. Unfortunately, we
found that that led to another major vulnerability.
The Commonwealth formula, as defined — and I have requested
Congress to respond specifically to that formula — is really, from my
perspective, something that is not consistent with the U.S. Con-
stitution. And, therefore, it is not obtainable within the U.S. sys-
tem.
It would be attainable outside the territorial clause, if that is
what the defenders of that formula want. But then it is clear that
Congress defines what the conditions would be for Commonwealth
outside.
I think, as a matter of fact, that when you look at the options
currently present in that project, free association is essentially the
concept of Commonwealth outside the territorial clause, where you
attain those conditions or those goals through a bilateral treaty be-
tween two equals, or two separate entities. And I think that option
is also presented here.
So, essentially, the 1993 definition, to me, is a nonviable defini-
tion, and is something that I wish I — it is not I who defined it, but
that the Congress define whether it is a true option or not an op-
tion. I feel it's certainly not consistent with the U.S. Constitution.
Mr. Romero-Barcelo. Are you aware. Governor, that now the
editorials that have been written regarding the fact that this might
not be a fair process, because it doesn't include Commonwealth,
and the statements that have been made by, over in Congress by
the people who represent Commonwealth, have been directed to-
ward the fact that the status quo is not being represented, that the
status quo is being denied an opportunity for expression.
When you gave the Popular party and the leadership the oppor-
tunity to include the status quo in the ballot in 1993, did they ask
for the status quo be included in the ballot?
Governor ROSSELLO. No, they didn't. They included a different
option.
Mr. Romero-Barcelo. The Cojnmonwealth option with a wish
list.
Governor RossELLO. Yes, sir.
Mr. Romero-Barcelo. Thank you very much. Governor.
Governor Rossello. Thank you.
Mr. Burton. Governor, I think I'm next in the questioning. I'll
just ask a couple of questions.
In retrospect, do you think it would have been better to have had
the Congress of the United States define Commonwealth status be-
fore it was put on the ballot in 1993?
Governor Rossello. Absolutely, I think, Mr. Chairman, we have
to look at this as a process. In the 1989 to 1991 period Congress
23
did engage in an effort to try to define for Puerto Rico, and to legis-
late a process for self determination. It ended in nothing.
We felt that Puerto Rico had to take the initiative.
We knew that it was not the total answer, but there had to be
a message to Congress that this is important to us, that we should
not allow time to go on, that as we are going to celebrate 100 years
under U.S. sovereignty, it is time that we make a decision.
I was cognizant — and we were cognizant — that an important ele-
ment was missing. But it was important in the face of that failed
effort from Congress in 1989 to 91' to send a message that Puerto
Rico had, indeed, not solved the status problem, and that we were
grasping for the process, for the way to do it. And I think, I ac-
knowledge that the best way — and that's why I so wholeheartedly
endorse H.R. 3024, because it precisely does that.
Congress assumes its responsibility under the territorial clause
and provides for Puerto Rico, respecting its wishes, but defining
those alternatives, so that the people of Puerto Rico can finally
choose an ultimate status.
Mr. Burton. I did not mean my question as a criticism.
Governor ROSSELLO. No, no, I did not take it as so.
Mr. Burton. But had it been a little bit more clear, it might
have eliminated a lot of this
Governor RosSELLO. Yes.
Mr. Burton. — misunderstanding.
Governor RosSELLO. Yes, sir.
Mr. Burton. One other thing I think that, I hope that all of po-
litical parties will make clear to the people of Puerto Rico is what
Mr. Kennedy said in his very eloquent opening remarks, and that
is that, with our budget constraints in the United States Congress,
there will be a reduction in discretionary spending, and the 936
program, I can tell you, is going to be reduced, and possibly phased
out over the next 6-7-years, which will have an impact on the econ-
omy of Puerto Rico, hopefully not in a negative sense, but it will
have an impact.
And that is one of the things that should be taken into consider-
ation when you talk about statehood status, because if statehood
status were to take place, there would be voting representation in
both the U.S. House and the Senate.
In the Senate, of course, there would be two votes from Puerto
Rico, which would give equal status as to the other 50 States. And
if there were economic problems created by the transition, from the
funding levels we have right now to a lower level, then they could
make a very strong case in the Congress for additional help, as Mr.
Kennedy pointed out in the mentioning of his State of Rhode Is-
land.
Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Chairman, could I just
Mr. Burton. I would be happy to yield to my colleague, Mr. Ken-
nedy.
Mr. Kennedy. It seems to me that the proponents of Common-
wealth status assume, or presume, that there is a bilateral pact be-
tween Puerto Rico and the United States that is unalterable. In
other words, that the United States cannot impose its view with
Puerto Rico's consent.
24
Would you tell us about what the real experience has been? Be-
cause as I've seen it, just as a member of the United States Con-
gress in my first term, we routinely change the relationship be-
tween the United States and Puerto Rico.
The latest example is the proposed elimination of 936, which is
one of the most fundamental elements of our relationship. And yet
the people of Puerto Rico do not have a say in the United States
Congress when it comes to these changes being made that directly
affect their way of life here in Puerto Rico.
Could you explain this a little further?
Governor ROSSELLO. Yes, Congressman Kennedy. I think you are
absolutely right.
I think we can go all the way back to 1952 to examine that par-
ticular issue.
The people of Puerto Rico adopted a constitution. It was sent to
Congress. Congress eliminated a section of that constitution clearly
establishing, clearly establishing its powers under the territorial
clause.
Since that first moment in the establishment of the Common-
wealth, Congress has continually — this is, the 936 issue is one area
which is currently demonstrative of that power of Congress over
Puerto Rico or any territory.
It is very clear. I do not see any space for interpretation, and,
as a matter of fact, as a matter of practicality, it is true what
you're saying. Almost every day, every year. Congress exerts its
powers over Puerto Rico with no real input from the people of
Puerto Rico.
Mr. Young. Mr. Abercrombie.
Mr. Kennedy. Thank you.
Mr. Abercrombie. Thank you very much, Mr. Burton.
Now, Governor, I'm finding all this very interesting, again from
my position as someone who comes from the last State to be admit-
ted to the union. We were originally a kingdom. Before that, the
different islands that make up Hawaii were separate entities.
Kamehameha the Great united the islands of Hawaii into a king-
dom.
We were subsequently then turned into a shotgun republic, if you
will, with the overthrow of the queen. And subsequently to that be-
came a territory, and now a State.
So, you can see we have been through the entire panoply of polit-
ical status.
The reason that I go through that brief history, for those who
may not be aware of it, is that in doing the reading in preparation
for this hearing, I went over in great detail the status definitions
of statehood, Commonwealth, and independence, as they appeared
in the referendum. And I am troubled by the definitions that we
have.
Is it a correct statement on my part that these definitions were
written by the parties themselves to mean what they wanted them
to mean? Is that a correct statement?
Governor RossELLO. That is a correct statement.
Mr. Abercrombie. OK, that's fair. I understand that. This is
what you would have, each party would have liked to have the sta-
tus be.
25
But I can tell you, and I would like your comment, I can tell you,
as a former territory, that you do not define for the Congress of the
United States what your status will be. The Congress defines it for
you.
Would you agree that what Congress defines today. Congress can
redefine tomorrow?
Governor ROSSELLO. Yes, sir. Under the territorial clause, or ter-
ritories of the United States, yes, yes, I agree to that.
Mr. Abercrombie. And so when you ask on page 4 of your testi-
mony that Congress— and I'm quoting in context
Governor RossELLO. Yes.
Mr. Abercrombie. — I trust you'll agree — that Congress will be
obliged to make absolutely clear to the people of Puerto Rico ex-
actly what is meant by the status quo option of Commonwealth,
Estado Libre Asociado.
Governor RosSELLO. Yes.
Mr. Abercrombie. That also is a request, right? You cannot
make such a demand.
Governor Rossello. We request that in the search for fairness
and a well informed decision, that instead of each political party
or movement in Puerto Rico making an idealized laundry list, we
are requesting, yes, and I would say, we are demanding that Con-
gress assumes its responsibility, under the territorial clause, its
power to dispose of the territories by defining explicitly what each
option is all about.
Mr. Abercrombie. Very good. So what you're suggesting then to
Chairman Young is that should this bill be modified to include a
Commonwealth option, that a definition be provided in that bill as
to what is meant in terms of the consequences of the bill, should
it be passed.
Governor RosSELLO. Absolutely correct. In the same sense that
the bill does it for independence, for free association, and for state-
hood.
Mr. Abercrombie. But is it also understood that regardless of
that, a future Congress could change that?
Governor RosSELLO. Well
Mr. Abercrombie. Not that necessarily — I'm not speaking about
being capricious. But rather
Governor ROSSELLO. Well, if we embark in this process, the same
as Hawaii at one point had to embark on the process to be admit-
ted to the union, I would suspect that once this process is started
that the sense of Congress would be to continue it.
And in that sense I would imagine that as Hawaii struggled to
be recognized as an equal partner in the union, there could have
been that possibility, that what the intention of Congress was could
have been changed by another.
Mr. Abercrombie. So your suggestion is that we make a good
faith attempt to do that.
The reason I bring that up is in reading the status definition of
Commonwealth, as it appeared in the last referendum, I can say
almost to a certainty that there is no way that such a definition
will appear in the legislation that Mr. Young would formulate in
its final version.
26
Not because he wishes to impose his own will or anj^hing. But
how can anyone say, for example, to reformulate Section 936 insur-
ing the creation of more and better jobs?
I mean, there's no way you're going to have the Congress of the
United States do that at this time, in this legislation.
So, would you agree that some of the conditions, if you will, while
they may be interesting as proposals, are unlikely to appear in a
definition of Commonwealth?
Governor ROSSELLO. Absolutely. I think that definition in 1993
is absolutely untenable. I agree with that. And that's precisely the
value of what we are discussing here.
The value is that Congress says precisely that. I mean, is it fair
to tell the people of Puerto Rico that if they vote for this formula
they would attain that?
Now Congress has the ability to say, this is what we would be
willing to work with and on, so that the people of Puerto Rico have
an informed, a chance for an informed decision.
So I agree totally with you in terms of that particular definition.
I think it was a dishonest definition of what Commonwealth can
be.
Mr. Abercrombie. Well, I wouldn't — yes, I understand. My time
is up, and I appreciate your response to my questions.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Young. Thank you, Mr. Abercrombie. Mr. Roth.
[Applause.]
Mr. Roth. Thank you, thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Governor, I very much respect your office and you as a person,
but obviously this panel here is pretty well stacked in your favor.
So I am obligated
Governor RosSELLO. Well, it's stacked in favor of the people of
Puerto Rico.
Mr. Roth. Yeah, I am
[Applause.]
Mr. Roth. You appear like an honest and fair man to me. Let
me ask you: if statehood had won the 93' plebiscite would you be
here today telling us that the referendum was a mistake?
Governor Rossello. I am not saying that the referendum was a
mistake. I just define, in the process for self determination, what
that step was. It was a step to inform Congress that this was a
vital issue for Puerto Rico. And as I explained to you, subsequent
steps have gone to ask Congress to respond. I think this is a re-
sponse to the referendum in 1993.
Mr. Roth. Yes, but in all honesty, your party was in charge. You
were in charge, and you held the referendum, and your party lost
the referendum.
Governor RosSELLO. No, I'm sorry. I think you are confused, Mr.
Congressman. You are absolutely confused.
This was not about political parties.
Mr. Roth. Well ;
Governor RosSELLO. You are absolutely confused.
Mr. Roth. Well, what percentage of the vote did your party get?
Governor ROSSELLO. My party was not on the ballot, sir.
Mr. Roth. Well, what percentage of the vote did statehood get?
Governor ROSSELLO. Forty-six percent.
27
Mr. Roth. How much did Commonwealth get?
Governor ROSSELLO. Forty-eight percent.
Mr. Roth. Well, then, it seems to me they won the election.
Governor RosSELLO. Alright, well, what we're saying is that you
respond to that, you respond and you say, if you're willing
Mr. Roth. Right.
Governor RosSELLO. — to give the definition that Commonwealth
had, under that plebiscite, that's what we're saying.
Mr. Roth. Right.
Governor ROSSELLO. And I want you to answer that now.
[Applause.]
Mr. Roth. Well, let me ask you about your definition. Now, you
were in charge. And, again, I want to be very deferential to you.
I respect you.
Governor ROSSELLO. I respect you.
Mr. Roth. I am saying, I am asking these questions in the great-
est of respect.
Governor Rossello. I do too.
Mr. Roth. Was your definition the correct one?
Governor ROSSELLO. Yes, sir.
Mr. Roth. Well, did you say that if you became a State you
would have your own National anthem, your own Olympic commit-
tee? Did you say that?
Governor ROSSELLO. Does Wisconsin have an anthem?
Mr. Roth. No, it does not.
Governor ROSSELLO. I know Texas does.
Mr. Roth. When Puerto Rico comes in
Governor ROSSELLO. I know Texas does.
Mr. Roth. I'm sorry, Governor, but when Puerto Rico comes in
they have to come in like Indiana came in
Governor Rossello. Wait a moment, sir.
Mr. Roth. — like Hawaii came in, like every other State comes in.
[Applause.]
Governor ROSSELLO. I, I
Mr. Roth. And — just let me finish here, Governor.
Governor ROSSELLO. Alright.
Mr. Roth. I was respectful to you.
Governor ROSSELLO. I am respectful to you.
Mr. Roth. And I will continue to be, but you have to give me a
chance to respond to your charges.
Governor ROSSELLO. It's your time, Congressman.
Mr. Roth. You said that the Commonwealth had their own defi-
nition. Well, you've rnisled the people with your definition.
Governor Rossello. No, sir.
Mr. Roth. You said that you were going to have an Olympic com-
mittee. If Puerto Rico comes in you are not going to have an Olym-
pic committee. That's not fair.
Governor RosSELLO. OK. Can I respond to that now?
Mr. Roth. Yes.
Governor ROSSELLO. Alright. I don't think it is in the purview of
this committee to define what private organizations do or don't do.
The Olympic committee is a private organization. I do not think it
is within the purview of this committee to define
Mr. Roth. Yeah, but that's not the point.
28
Governor ROSSELLO. Can I finish, sir? Can I finish?
[Applause.]
Mr. Roth. Let him answer the question, let him answer the
question.
Governor RossELLO. I demand the same respect that you de-
manded before. So let me finish.
It is not in the purview of this Committee to define religious af-
filiations or not. If Puerto Rico becomes a State, it is not in the ju-
risdiction to define what the Catholic church relation to the Vati-
can is.
And so it is beyond the scope of what you can define for Puerto
Rico.
Mr. Roth. Well, that is pretty far afield, but OK. Let me ask you
this.
Chairman Young, Mr. Burton, good friends of mine, we have a
saying in the United States now up in the mainland, promises
made, promises kept. Because after 40 years for the first time we
took over.
So, when we make a commitment, we always say we have got to
live according to that commitment.
Now, as I understand it, before the Plebiscite was held in 93',
you said that you would favor an allocation of government funds
to facilitate the implementation of the
Governor RossELLO. Yes.
Mr. Roth. — plebiscite results.
And I was just wondering how much money has been afforded,
has been afforded to the people who won the plebiscite in 93'?
Governor ROSSELLO. Mr. Roth, that particular provision in the
bill that I submitted to the legislature was removed by your allies
of the Popular Democratic party, yes, sir, that is correct. I can pro-
vide you
[Applause.]
Governor ROSSELLO. I can provide you with the original bill, and
then you would have to ask that question, not of me
Mr. Roth. But
Governor ROSSELLO. — but of the leaders of the Popular party.
Mr. Roth. But, Governor, they didn't make the commitment, you
made the commitment.
Governor RossELLO. I made the commitment in the same way
that you make commitments, but they have to be approved by the
Congress. I submitted the bill that had that. There was my com-
mitment.
I made a commitment that the people of Puerto Rico have a
chance to express themselves in a plebiscite. I complied with that
commitment. It is the other people that have not complied with
their commitment.
Mr. Roth. Yeah, you know, I'm, I'm
[Applause.]
Mr. Roth. I just have one follow up question, and that is, why
was Commonwealth — I just believe — I don't care who wins an elec-
tion, but I feel that it should be a fair election. When this bill was
introduced Commonwealth was eliminated. The people would not
be allowed to vote for Commonwealth.
29
Now all of a sudden, hey, we have got to bring Commonwealth
to the fore, we have got to make it part of this bill. Why is that?
Governor ROSSELLO. Well, do you want it to be or not?
Mr. Roth. Of course I do. But I want it to be a fair fight.
Governor RosSELLO. Well, then we don't have any argument, Mr.
Roth; we have no argument.
Mr. Roth. I want it to be a fair fight.
Governor RossELLO. That's right.
Mr. Young. Gentlemen, time has expired — and may I suggest I
think the Governor and myself have said very clearly we are seri-
ously looking at the inclusion. The hearing process is the demo-
cratic process and I hate to use that term democratic. With all due
respect to may friend, it is a democratic process and we have input;
we are looking and we will solve the problem.
Unkown. Let's put a small team together
Mr. Young. Who has not asked any questions?
Mr. Romero-Barcelo. Mr. Chairman, can I just make a state-
ment for clarification purposes?
Mr. Young. Just a moment. Mr. Underwood, have you asked?
Mr. Underwood. No I haven't.
Mr. Young. But I will yield just for a brief rejoinder to my fellow
islander.
Mr. Kennedy. I think the process, as they say, Mr. Chairman,
equals what is the outcome. If you have a purely political process,
you have a purely political outcome. I think it's Mr. Roth is confus-
ing what could be compared as the nomination process for our pri-
maries with the true election process for our president.
When you have a plebiscite type of election, it was not a viable
election because the outcome did not dictate what the people
thought the outcome would dictate.
[Applause.]
Mr. Romero-Barcelo. Mr. Chairman, I just want to make a
clarification.
Mr. Young. We recognize the gentleman from Puerto Rico for a
short comment.
Mr. Romero-Barcelo. Mr. Roth, I think that perhaps we should
have distributed the status definitions as they appeared in the bal-
lot, and put in the record. Because when you mentioned that the
statehood proposal included something about the Olympics, the
statehood proposal on the ballot does not include anything about
the Olympics.
When we made those statements about what was included in the
Commonwealth option, it is what was included in the ballot. What-
ever was said in the campaign, campaigns always say a lot of
things, but we're talking about what was included in the ballot
that the people saw when they went to vote.
There is nothing about the Olympics in the ballot, in the defini-
tion of statehood.
Mr. Roth. I understand that. I'm just going to suggest that's the
path we have to look for in the future.
Mr. Underwood. Could I reclaim my time?
Mr. Young. Yes, go ahead.
Mr. Underwood. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
?4-q?fi - Qfi - ?
30
Much has been made about the way the statuses were defined
in the 93' election. If the status of Commonwealth were simply de-
fined as status quo, and had it still prevailed by the same numbers,
do you think we would be here today?
Governor ROSSELLO. Yes.
Mr. Underwood, ^yell, why, why?
Governor RossELLO. Because we have to place before the people
of Puerto Rico a real option of attaining full self government with
a commitment from Congress, who has the powers under the Con-
stitution, under the territorial clause. That has not happened. That
has not happened.
And so, ask yourself — nand I think maybe you have a very spe-
cial understanding of this, from the perspective of Guam — ask
yourself can we afford to keep this process going for 98 more years
or 100 more years?
I think the importance of this, if we grasp anything, is that this
provides a guide well defined for Congress discharging its respon-
sibilities for the people of Puerto Rico so that a decision is made.
If those requirements are met, then we don't have to talk about
this anymore.
Mr. Underwood. OK. Well, what I would assume then, based
upon your reply, Governor, is that had the definition simply been
for Commonwealth status quo, that would not resolve the issue in
your mind.
So the issue of how it is defined is really not pertinent to how
you see the issue.
Governor RosSELLO. No, the issue of how it is defined by Con-
gress is the central part. Because who has, who has the power?
Can we have a plebiscite or a referendum tomorrow and automati-
cally, under our authority, implement it? Do we have that power?
Mr. Underwood. No, absolutely not.
Governor Rossello. OK, fine.
Mr. Underwood. I fully understand and appreciate the role of
Congress in resolving the issue. I was heartened by your comments
that you wanted to include Commonwealth as an option. But I'm
still trying to figure out that if in fact Commonwealth were the op-
tion that were voted for, would that end the process in your mind?
And basically a lot of attention has been given to the way it has
been defined, as if somehow the people who were supporting Com-
monwealth were being devious, or perhaps over reaching in their
definition of Commonwealth, and that led to its victory.
Now, had Commonwealth simply been defined as what exists
today, and that still prevailed, would, in your mind, would that end
the process?
And I think you've answered that it hasn't.
Governor Rossello. Right.
Mr. Underwood. OK. The other issue that I wanted to raise was
the issue of language and culture, which — and the identity that
comes from that — which is very important. And I think it's impor-
tant to the Puerto Rican people. And it's something that I admire
them for.
Now, it doesn't necessarily have to be politicized.
Governor ROSSELLO. Yes.
31
Mr. Underwood. But you well appreciate that that is an impor-
tant consideration, and that if it is an important enough consider-
ation in your mind to the Puerto Rican people, and I know it is im-
portant to some, and a matter of some consequence to Members of
Congress, how would you proceed with that issue, and would you
make it a part of any statehood admissions act? Or would you sim-
ply ignore it?
Governor ROSSELLO. I aspire for Puerto Rico as a State nothing
more, but certainly nothing less than any of the States of the
union. The same that applies to Puerto Rico as a State, as it ap-
plies to Wisconsin as a State. The same powers that under the
Constitution belong to the States or to its people, that have not
been delegated to the Federal Government, those are the same
powers that I aspire for Puerto Rico. No more. But certainly no
less.
[Applause.]
Mr. Underwood. I would assume that under your response that
the underlying assumption is that the State of Puerto Rico could
include Spanish as an official language.
Governor RossELLO. The State of Wisconsin has right now, as a
matter of fact, 18-19 States have exercised the right to define their
own official language. The State of Puerto Rico would have the
same power, the same power of defining its State official lan-
guages. And we have done that; it is both English and Spanish.
[Applause.]
Mr. Underwood. OK.
Mr. Abercrombie. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Underwood has yielded to
me for 10 seconds.
Mr. Young. The gentleman is recognized.
Mr. Abercrombie. Governor, Governor
Governor RosSELLO. Yes.
Mr. Abercrombie. For your information the State of Hawaii has
two official languages, English and Hawaiian.
Governor RosSELLO. There you go. There you go.
[Applause.]
Mr. Abercrombie. Thank you.
Mr. Underwood. While I still have some time left, just briefly,
even though I respect the fact that Hawaiian is an official language
of Hawaii, it is in large measure symbolic. And I don't know wheth-
er— it's an issue that is of serious concern to me because I want
to protect languages as well.
And I'm just concerned that if someone makes it a part of the
admissions act, in the other direction, not coming from Puerto Rico,
but in the other direction.
Governor ROSSELLO. Well, again, I must emphasize that Puerto
Rico would come in as a State on an equal footing. And I must con-
trast that with what Congressman Kennedy said, that now, now
under Commonwealth Congress has the power to say that Puerto
Rico's language is English or French or Russian. It has the power
now. And it would not have that power of Puerto Rico as a State
and that is very clear.
[Applause.]
Mr. Young. The gentleman from Rhode Island, have you been
recognized already?
32
I want to thank the Governor for being able to sit there through
a long period of time. And for the audience I want you to under-
stand, we are going to go through the hearing until we finish. Keep
that in mind. We don't have any race.
Governor, thanks, thank you very much for being with us.
Governor ROSSELLO. Thank you.
[Applause.]
Mr. Young. We now have the honor of calling the Honorable
Hector Luis Acevedo, President of the Popular Democrat party.
[Applause.]
STATEMENT OF HECTOR LUIS ACEVEDO, PRESIDENT,
POPULAR DEMOCRATIC PARTY
IMr. Acevedo. Good morning, Mr. President. You have-
Mr. Young. Just a moment, just a second, I will recognize you
officially. Just a moment, I'm trying to get everybody quiet.
OK, Hector, you're on. Go ahead.
Mr. Acevedo. Thank you, Mr. President, and welcome to San
Juan. As you have on your own initiative provided for a simulta-
neous translation, I am going to speak my, I am going to present
my statement in the language of my people. I have submitted
[Applause.]
Mr. Acevedo. I have submitted the translation, so I will proceed
if you may allow.
Mr. Young. Go ahead. One thing I don't quite understand, who
is running these mics here. I'm having a hard time hearing you.
Maybe back a way, just a little bit. Yeah, try that. Try that. Go
ahead.
Mr. Acevedo. Hoy vengo a hablarles de nuestra nacion, de la
democracia que iguala a los debiles con los poderosos. El sentido es-
pecial de los seres humanos que nos hace entender que en esta vida
ningun hombre es mas ni menos que otro.
La lucha del pueblo puertorriqueno tan pronto toma consciencia
de su ser colectivo ha sido de afirmar sus valores a traves de la
accion politica. Laetica de mi pueblo no es de guerra civil, ni de
confrontaciones, ni de sangre derramada, esetica de igualdad en la
esperanza y en el respeto que cada ser humano se merece.
Donde se juzgan las personas, no por el puesto que ostentan o
las riquezas que acumulan, si no por su aportacion ante los retos
de las vidas y las causas que defienden. En esa gestion historica,
nuestro pueblo ha enmarcado su lucha centenaria en que se respete
su identidad propia y el justo valor de sus votos.
Bajo esas premisas de respeto propio, de compromise con el
bienestar de nuestro pueblo y del reconocimiento de que debemos
liberarnos de la emboscada de las formas tradicionales en que se
han guiado las relaciones entre Puerto Rico y los Estados Unidos.
Parte principalisima de esa relacion es el respeto a la libre
determinacion del pueblo de Puerto Rico. Evidenciado por las
acciones, por la palabra comprometida del Presidente Truman,
Einsenhower y Kennedy. Porque no se puede decir que se esta a
favor de la libertad y la libre determinacion y no estar dispuesto
a respetar su ejercicio.
Por eso es que este proyecto de ley no encuentra razon en la
democracia puertorriqueha, ni en la americana. Porque es producto
33
de actuaciones a las espaldas de nuestro electorado. Y aquellos que
no respetan la voluntad del pueblo de Puerto Rico segiin fuera
expresada libremente en las urnas, es producto de aquellos que
solamente respetan la democracia cuando ganan.
Y hoy aquellos que no pudieron convencer a nuestro pueblo
despues de imponerle un plesbicito bajo sus propias reglas, le piden
a ustedes que impongan soluciones que fueron derrotadas en
nuestras urnas. Este proceso no se trata de formulas de estatus, se
trata del respeto a la dignidad democratica de Puerto Rico y la
dignidad democratica de los Estados Unidos.
Aqui ya se contaron los votos. . . aqui ya se contaron los votos,
ahora en la explicacion de los resultados se quiere alterar su
voluntad. Esa actitud es ofensiva a nuestro pueblo. El voto
constituye uno de los valores mas preciados del pueblo
puertorriqueno. Asi lo ha demostrado nuestra gente una y otra vez.
Y por eso es que tenemos una de las mas altas tasas de
participacion electoral del mundo. Ciertamente uno . . . mucho mas
alta que la de los propios Estados Unidos. Aqui el promedio de
votacion son ochenta y cinco porciento. En los Estados Unidos,
cincuenta porciento, con suerte. Por eso nuestra democracia es
vigorosa y merece el mayor respeto.
Por esa razon es que exigimos respeto para el Estado Libre
Asociado. Porque al hacerlo estamos exigiendo respeto para la
voluntad democratica de los puertorriquefios. El Estado Libre
Asociado gano el plesbicito de 1967, gano el plesbicito de 1993. Los
que perdieron vienen obligados a reconocer, a aceptar y a respetar
esa decision de nuestro pueblo.
Abusan del poder y ofenden la dignidad de los puertorriquefios
cuando por la fuerza del dinero y el poder politico pretenden lograr
por medios ilegitimos lo que no pudieron alcanzar en nuestras
urnas. Quienes hace otras semanas atras proclamaban la perdida
de la ciudadania americana y amenazaban con ella para empujar
su ideal politico por encima de la voluntad de nuestro pueblo, hoy
despues de ver la reaccion de nuestro pueblo indignado se retractan
oportuniticamente mereciendo tambien nuestro repudio.
Quienes han perdido una eleccion frente al Estado Libre
Asociado y tienen que recurrir a pedir otro plesbicito comoiinico
recurso para derrotarlo, le faltan el respeto a este pais.
Corresponde tambien al Congreso de los Estados Unidos respetar
y trabajar constructivamente en dialogo con los que ganaron, no
con los que perdieron para hacer efectivo . . . (aplausos).
No puede cumplirse con ese cometido si no se entiende que en
virtud de la Ley 600 aprobada por el Congreso, Puerto Rico y los
Estados Unidos efectuaron un convenio entre ambos pueblos. Si no
se entiende que en el ano 52' se aprobo la Ley 4448 por este
Congreso, dando virtud a la Constitucion del Estado Libre Asociado
de Puerto Rico y respetando la Constitucion y el gobierno propio de
nuestra gente.
Si no se entiende que en el ano 1953 fueron los Estados Unidos
los que presentaron la Constitucion del Estado Libre Asociado y el
convenio concertado ante las Naciones Unidas para justificar la
solicitud de que se eliminara a Puerto Rico de la lista de territorios
coloniales, alii el Presidente de los Estados Unidos, Dwight David
Einsenhower, cuya palabra y honorabilidad nosotros respetamos, y
34
su Embajador Henry Cabot Lodge informo que el convenio
concertado entre el pueblo de los Estados Unidos y el pueblo de
Puerto Rico era unilateralmente inviolable.
Fue en virtud de esa representacion que las Naciones Unidas
eliminaron a Puerto Rico de la lista de territorios coloniales.
Reconociendo que Puerto Rico habia ejercido su derecho a la libre
determinacion y habia alcanzado una forma legitima de gobierno
propio.
El proyecto objeto de esta vista declara que el Congreso tiene
poderes plenarios sobre Puerto Rico. Que el establecimiento del
Estado Libre Asociado no cambio en nada la relacion existente
entre Puerto Rico y los Estados Unidos. Que no existe acuerdo
ninguno y que es constitucionalmente imposible lograrlo.
Esas mismas exactas acusaciones fueron elevadas ante las
Naciones Unidas en contra de los Estados Unidos por los
principales enemigos de la democracia de aquel entonces, Cuba y
la Union Sovietica. En todas las ocasiones los embajadores de los
Estados Unidos ante ese foro, incluyendo al ex Presidente Bush,
rechazaron con vehemencia esas alegaciones.
Y reiteraron que desde el 3 de noviembre de 1953, contrario a lo
que se dispone en este proyecto, Puerto Rico habia ejercido su libre
determinacion y abandono la categoria de territorio colonial.
Ustedes estan de acuerdo ahora con la posicion oficial ... no
estan de acuerdo con la posicion oficial de los Estados Unidos.
Entonces tienen que notificarle a las Naciones Unidas que
cometieron un fraude monumental.
No siendoesta la realidad, los fundamentos de este proyecto y la
informacion que se ha traido ante ustedes, entonces representan un
resultado profundamente colonial que es totalmente incorrecto.
Este proyecto no le hace justicia al buen nombre de los Estados
Unidos. Es mezquino en quererle restar voluntad a lo que el pueblo
de Puerto Rico ha expresado libremente por casi medio siglo en
apoyo al Estado Libre Asociado.
Este proyecto presenta un gran pais, al cual admiramos y
respetamos, titubeante en la biisqueda de respuestas que son
fundamentalmente faciles y le respeta la igualdad de los pueblos y
su autodeterminacion. El Partido Popular Democratico rechaza este
proyecto por anti democratico y en la eventualidad de que pudiera
ser aprobado, no participaria en un plesbicito amafiado como el que
se trata de imponer a nuestro pueblo.
No me pidan sugerir enmiendas a este proyecto, sus defectos no
son salvables porque surgen de su intencion. Cuando alguien que
dispara, importante no es la marca del revolver ni el calibre de la
bala. Sepan ustedes Congresistas que este pueblo nuestro se le
respeta. Que nuestra dignidad no esta a la venta ni mucho menos
esta dispuesto a . . .
[Applause.]
Mr. ACEVEDO. Aqui estamos todos, sefiores Congresistas, este
pueblo nuestro siempre respetuoso de los demas mira con igualdad
en el mismo nivel a los hombres en la astas de la libertad. Sepan
ustedes sean6ores Congresistas que Puerto Rico ni se rinde, ni se
vende. Muchas gracias.
[Applause.]
35
[The prepared statement of Hector Luis Acevedo may be found
at the end of hearing.]
Mr. Young. I thank you, Hector, for your testimony. Unfortu-
nately I don't know whether it's your supporters or other support-
ers that are playing great music outside and I'm about ready to
dance.
I don't have any questions at this time. I'm going to ask in that
respect, because he has another appointment, the gentleman from
Hawaii to have the first round of questions. Mr. Abercrombie,
please?
Mr. Abercrombie. No, its not me, I think ...
Mr. Young. Oh, I'm sorry, I'm sorry. I take that back. You hand-
ed me the note. OK, Mr. Kennedy, would you do it, please?
Mr. Kennedy. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
I really feel that we share the same goals. We both want self de-
termination for the people. It's a democratic goal that I think both
sides of this issue share. Both want the dignity that comes from
self determination.
Where we differ is the manner and process through which we
achieve this goal. We believe that this goal can only truly be
achieved when you are a co-equal of the United States of America,
and that is through as a State.
It is difficult to think that under the current territorial relation-
ship that you now have under our Constitution, that your power
of self determination is fully realized under this territorial relation-
ship.
So let me first pay you the respect that you are due because I
respect what you're trying to do very much. And let me just say
in conclusion that I have been so enormously impressed with the
fact that there is such a thirst for democracy here in Puerto Rico.
That the people of Puerto Rico feel strongly about the issues of self
determination.
And you make a very excellent point.
I only wish that in more places in the United States of America
people felt as strongly about the issues as the people of Puerto Rico
feel, whether on one side or the other.
[Applause.]
Mr. Acevedo. Muchas Gracias.
Mr. Kennedy. Let me just say, I think this is a healthy exchange
here today, and I appreciate your positions, and I thank the Chair-
man for having this testimony because I think this is a very impor-
tant issue to be discussed.
Mr. Acevedo. Muchas Gracias por sus expresiones.
Mr. Kennedy. Y tambien muchas gracias pero no — necesita
practicar mi espaiiol para mejorar mi espahol. Cuando voy a fijar
toda la Puerto Rico, voy a aprender mas de la lengua.
[Applause.]
Mr. Acevedo. Muchas gracias. Quisiera hacer unos comentarios
al distinguido Congresista. En primer lugar, el Presidente Kennedy
fue muy respetuoso . . . muy respetuoso de la voluntad del pueblo
de Puerto Rico. Entendio que habia un convenio y que habia que
respetar ese convenio.
Y sobre todo. . . asi lo expreso en el 1961, el 25 de julio y el 24
de julio de 1962. Porque entendia que ese convenio se basa en dos
36
fundamentos. Primero, en el respeto a la libre voluntad de nuestra
gente. Porque no se puede decir que se cree en la determinacion y
quererle imponer formulas contra la voluntad de nuestro pueblo. El
Presidente Kennedy respeto esa voluntad y yo lo invito a que siga
esa tradicion de la familia Kennedy.
[Applause.]
Mr. ACEVEDO. Y en segundo lugar, yo quiero que me entienda
porque entiendo profundamente que usted esta de buena fe
tratando de entender al pueblo de Puerto Rico. Puerto Rico es un
pueblo, un pueblo cuyo idioma en las escuelas es el espanol. Y lo
es por votacion unanime de nuestra Legislatura, se enseiia en
espanol por votacion unanime.
Y es un pueblo que no es asimilable y que no quiere ser minoria
de nadie pudiendo ser mayoria y defender su cultura en nuestra
propia tierra. Como no quiere asimilarse, por eso han objetado esta
vista.
Mr. Kennedy. Under your territorial status, we have the power
to regulate your immigration. We have the power in the United
States Congress, to t^Il you that it is going to be English only. And
as a territory you have to adhere to that.
[Applause.]
Mr. Kennedy. I would rather let you decide to have Spanish
along with English, or whatever other language you'd like, but
under the current territorial system, it is very difficult for you to
do that. I would only respect that in this current Congress, and you
only need to turn on C-Span to find out what's going on, that it
is very important now that people hold on to their power because
they need all the power they can get.
Mr. ACEVEDO. Eso es lo que estamos haciendo.
Mr. Kennedy. And that's why I'm for the position that I've
taken. But I respect the way you've come about doing this.
Mr. ACEVEDO. Lo que le quiero explicar es que en el Estado Libre
Asociado, nosotros . . . parte del convenio es el respeto a la cultura
de Puerto Rico. Esa fue la representacion que los Estados Unidos
bajo presidentes democratas y republicanos le han hecho al mundo.
Nuestra cultura, nuestro idioma espanol es propiedad del pueblo
de Puerto Rico y no puede ... no puede el Congreso de Estados
Unidos quitarnos el idioma que nuestro pais pago en la.
[Applause.]
Mr. Kennedy. Let me just say, when President Kennedy was
President, he respected that. Unfortunately, under Commonwealth
status, that is not determined by the law it's determined by the
person.
And I respect the fact that President Kennedy respected that
through his many actions, and his friendship with Muiioz-Marin. I
thought that was very — Munoz-Marin was a very good friend of
President Kennedy's.
But times are changing and . . .
[Applause.]
Mr. Kennedy. Not the friendship from President Kennedy. But
these are now constitutional challenges. It's not simply persons,
people themselves, personalities. We are now talking about the fun-
damentals.
37
So, I agree with you. President Kennedy felt that way, and I ad-
mire what he stood for, and I hope to carry on his legacy. And,
again, but I respect what you say, and I think this is the healthy
debate that should take place in a democratic process.
Mr. ACEVEDO. No hubo cambios para los principios y los valores,
someternos
[Applause.]
Mr. ACEVEDO. — de que los tiempos cambian pero los valores y los
principios que animan el respeto entre los seres humanos se
mantienen a traves del tiempo. Y esa es mi invitacion a ustedes.
Mr. Kennedy. The final point I want to make is that times
change but we live under a law. And that's what we need to
change, because we cannot depend on people, we must depend on
the law.
Mr. Acevedo. Yo le invito a que lea la Ley 4448 y la Ley 600,
son leyes hoy, el estado vigente del Derecho. Y la Resolucion 748,
que es la ley internacional hoy. Y esa es la ley que yo invito a que
se respete, la ley vigente.
Mr. Kennedy. And, unfortunately, the Congress, through it's
many changes to the laws of our bilateral relationship, has not re-
spected that bilateral contract under Commonwealth status. And
that is the point, but
[Applause.]
Mr. Acevedo. Si alguien no lo respeta, pues hay que ir a los
tribunales que son los que determinan
[Applause and booing.]
Mr. Kennedy. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Burton. First of all, Mr. Mayor, you are a consummate poli-
tician. And I have to give you credit for that. But I must say that
some of the remarks that you have made recently are quite inflam-
matory and I don't think it serves you well.
For instance, when you likened Congressman Young and his leg-
islation to Hitler's move back in the thirties, I think you do your-
self a disservice. And I don't think it serves your cause well.
In addition to that, the last part of your opening remarks are
quite inflammatory, I think, because it says, "Please be aware.
Members of Congress, that the people of Puerto Rico must be re-
spected."
That's why we're here. We're here because we respect the people
of Puerto Rico and we want to do the right thing.
[Applause.]
Mr. Burton. You say "Our dignity is not for sale, nor is it willing
to be humiliated." We are not here in any way to try to humiliate
the people of Puerto Rico. We want to do what's right for Puerto
Rico, and that's why this hearing is being held.
In the last sentence you say, "Please be aware. Members of Con-
gress, that Puerto Rico shall never be bought and shall never sur-
render." That sounds like a declaration of war. We are not here to
declare war, we are here to work things out.
[Applause.]
Mr. Burton. Now, let me say, Mr. Mayor, that in your advertise-
ment, which is in the paper today, you talk about the memoran-
dum by the Government of the United States to the U.N. And in
that it says very clearly, "Congress has agreed that Puerto Rico
38
shall have, under the Constitution, freedom from control or inter-
ference by the Congress in respect of internal government and ad-
ministration, subject only to compliance with applicable provisions
of the Federal Constitution, the Puerto Rican Federal Relations
Act, and the acts of Congress authorizing and approving the Con-
stitution as may be interpreted by judicial decision.
Those laws which directed or authorized interference with mat-
ters of local government by the Federal Government have been re-
pealed."
So then we look into the law. And in the case of Harris v.
Rosario, 446 U.S. 651 in 1980, and in the case of Puerto Rico v.
Branstedt on June 23, 1987, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled — the
U.S. Supreme Court, which is in your advertisement — the U.S. Su-
preme Court ruled that Puerto Rico never ceased to be a territory
under U.S. sovereignty, and that Congress could treat Puerto Rico
differently from the States of the Union provided there is a reason-
able basis to do so.
Then we'll go back to the testimony, back in March of 1950, of
then Governor Muhoz when he said, "This project does not change
the fundamental condition of Puerto Rico of non-incorporation, and
only permits Puerto Rico to develop its own self government."
Testifying at a subsequent hearing in the committee the same
year, then Resident Commissioner, Antonio Fernos-Insern said,
"The project will not alter the sovereign powers of Congress over
Puerto Rico under the Treaty of Paris."
Now, in a newspaper column you said, talking about my views
of Puerto Rico, and bilateral pact, you said, "Well, Congressman
Burton must read the laws of the United States. It is in 48 U.S.
Code Annotated."
So let me go on and read what that says. I have the annotated
law here.
"Fully recognizing the principle of government by consent. Sec-
tion 731(b) and 731(e) of this title are now adopted in the nature
of a compact so the people of Puerto Rico may organize a govern-
ment pursuant to a constitution of their own adoption."
But then you go into what the Congress said this meant. And if
you look on page 48/73 Kb) it says, "It is important that the nature
and general scope of S. 3336 be made absolutely clear. The bill
under consideration would not change Puerto Rico's fundamental
political, social, and economic relationship to the United States."
It further says, " — and other matters of purely local concern over
which you have control."
But it is very, very clear that we do not cede constitutional au-
thority to Puerto Rico on a bilateral basis. That's just not done.
Now, I had another question. I had a question to ask you here.
Mr. ACEVEDO. May I comment on that, on your remarks, sir?
Mr. Burton. Now you said, I think, that because of this admoni-
tion, or remarks we made to the United Nations, that we were
ceding control or authority to Puerto Rico, at least on a bilateral
basis.
Let me get my question. One second.
If the U.S. went back to the United Nations, and informed that
body that it turns out that Puerto Rico has not become fully self
39
governing as we had hoped and expected in 1952, what do you
think the United Nations would do if we ceded that to them?
Would you think that they would give you the options of either
statehood or independence? They certainly couldn't give you Com-
monwealth status. They would have to give you one or the other,
would they not?
Mr. ACEVEDO. No, no, no.
Mr. Burton. How could the United Nations overrule the Con-
stitution of the United States?
Mr. ACEVEDO. No, si es que lo que sucede . . . lo que sucede es
que la Ley 600 ... y si usted lee la Ley 4448, que fue la que
aprobo la Constitucion de Puerto Rico en el afio 52', se refiere por
nombre y apellido a la palabra, "Commonwealth". Esa no me la
invente yo, esa fue la aprobacion del Congreso.
Y las palabras antes las Naciones Unidas no son palabras que
me invente yo, fueron las palabras del Presidente Eisenhower, del
Secretario. . . del Embajador Cabot Lodge y de la representacion
de los Estados Unidos ante las Naciones Unidas.
Y si ahora alguien aqui opina lo contrario, estaria diciendo que
se cometio un fraude monumental por los propios Estados Unidos,
donde la palabra, la honorabilidad y el
[Applause.]
Mr. ACEVEDO. Asi que las Naciones Unidas no tienen nada que
disponer porque ya dispusieron.
Si solamente quiero hacer un comentario si me permite el
distinguido amigo, en cuyo distrito vivi un tiempo, en Indiana. Yo
considero que el proyecto que usted. . . y por razones que yo no
quiero catalogar, atenta contra el basico respeto a los votos en
Puerto Rico. Contra lo que nosotros entendemos que son los
fundamentos de los principios americanos, que es el respeto a la
urna electoral.
Por eso nos ofendio en lo masintimo de nuestro ser que personas
que nos respetamos con su profunda vocacion democratica,
quisieran invalidar e impugnar la voluntad expresada por nuestro
pueblo. Es una voluntad que corresponde a la aprobacion por
unanimidad en mayo de 1990 del Proyecto De Lugo y del proyecto
firmado tambien por el Representante Young que disponia para la
celebracion de un plesbicito en Puerto Rico y recoge las formulas
del Estado Libre Asociado, la Estadidad y la Independencia.
Y ese proyecto disponia casi junto a las palabras que se
incluyeron en el 93', los mismos conceptos basicos del Estado Libre
Asociado. Bajo esa confianza, bajo esa palabra continuada del 50'
del Congreso de los Estados Unidos, del 52', del 53' de su gobierno
ante las Naciones Unidas, de la palabra de ustedes en el 90', fue
que nosotros fuimos al plesbicito en el 1993.
Y ese respeto a la urna electoral, a la democracia es lo que yo
vengo a pedir aqui. Yo no quiero ofender a nadie que no ofenda al
pueblo de Puerto Rico. Pero quien no respete el valor de igualdad
ante los seres humanos, entonces necesita ser confrontado con sus
propios hechos de su propia historia.
[Applause.]
Mr. Burton. Let me conclude because I see my time has expired.
But I would like to read this real briefly.
40
The U.S. told the U.N. in 1953, very clearly, the U.S. Constitu-
tion would still apply, and judicial rulings would apply, and the au-
thority of Commonwealth was limited to local affairs. That is very
clear.
The Young bill is based on the Supreme Court ruling saying that
Puerto Rico is still under the territorial clause, and we are trying
to complete the decolonization process.
And I go back to citing what was said in 1953, the case Harris
V. Rosario, U.S. Supreme Court, on June 23, 1987 — and this is the
law — ruled that Puerto Rico never ceased to be a territory under
U.S. sovereignty and that Congress could treat Puerto Rico dif-
ferently from other states of the Union provided there is a reason-
able basis to do so.
Finally, the letter which we sent down, requested by your legisla-
ture, clearly defines what Commonwealth status is. And if the
Young bill is passed, that definition should be the definition that
is on the ballot, so the people of Puerto Rico clearly understand
what Commonwealth status really means, instead of what your def-
inition is.
[Applause.]
Mr. ACEVEDO. La designacion de . . . ime permite contestar? La
definicion que nosotros pusimos en la papeleta es la misma
definicion que Estados Unidos presento ante las Naciones Unidas,
la que ustedes aprobaron en el 50', la que ustedes aprobaron en el
52', la que la Comision de Estatus referendo en el 65'. Y todos y
cada uno . . . todos y cada uno de los desarroUos propuestos tiene
un precedente exacto en acciones previas del Congreso.
Y si usted busca la Resolucion de mayo de 1990, aprobada por
unanimidad por todos los que estan aqui, con excepcion del que no
estaba alli, especificamente se refiere a los mismos conceptos que
pusimos en la papeleta.
Y esos conceptos refrendados, no por un plesbicito que nosotros
propusimos, si no que nos impusieron y que entonces a solicitud de
los que lo propusieron fuimos al mismo, ahora merece ese respeto
de implementarse de buena fe y de manera constructiva los
resultados de la urna electoral de Puerto Rico. Ese es el reclamo
del respeto de nuestro pueblo.
[Applause.]
Mr. Young. Mr. Abercrombie.
Mr. Abercrombie. Mayor Acevedo, aloha. Thank you for having
us here in Puerto Rico.
Mr. Mayor, I'm interested in the question — I'm interested in ex-
pressing to you a question that comes from your testimony, that oc-
curred to me in the course of reading your testimony and listening.
One of the points you make — you say, "Here in Puerto Rico the
votes were already counted. In explaining those results some wish
to now rewrite history, and alter the will of the people. That behav-
ior constitutes an offense to the Puerto Rican people."
I won't dispute that that is your view. But the very fact that we
are having a hearing and having a bill, to which you have to re-
spond, and which causes you pain and difficulty, indicates to me
that this Commonwealth status is always subject to reinterpreta-
tion by the Congress.
41
So while I comprehend and fully understand and respect your
point of view, is it not the case that you may be facing this situa-
tion over and over and over again if the Congress chooses to rede-
fine Commonwealth?
Mr. ACEVEDO. En la politica, distinguido Congresista, no hay vic-
torias finales. Y lo que a nosotros nos ofende es que aqui hubo un
plesbicito y que aqui este proyecto es producto de la negociacion,
no por los que ganaron el plesbicito, sino es producto de la
iniciativa y de la negociacion con los que perdieron el plesbicito. Y
esa es una falta de respeto a la dignidad de la dignidad de los
puertorriqueiios.
A nosotros nos impusieron ese plesbicito. En el 1989 a 1991, se
establecio un procedimiento de dialogo con las tres formulas en
Puerto Rico. De hecho, si usted revisa en el 90' se aprobo una
resolucion por unanimidad por la Camara acogiendo las mismas
definiciones sustancialmente que nosotros propusimos en la
papeleta. Y que ahora luego que ganamos, vengan a excluirse las
propias definiciones resulta en algo que no sigue la tradicion
democratica de ese Congreso.
Mr. Abercrombie. Yes, that's my point, Mr. Mayor. Are you not
making then a case for independence for Puerto Rico?
Mr. ACEVEDO. No, yo no . . .
Mr. Abercrombie. Because if you were independent, then this
wouldn't, couldn't occur over and over again. It would seem to me
an argument could be made both against Commonwealth and
statehood, and then you would seem to be making an argument for
independence with the last statement.
Mr. ACEVEDO. No mire, yo represento aqui la voluntad de mi
pueblo. Y afirmar su identidad puertorriqueiia en una relacion es-
pecial de mucha afirmacion puertorriqueiia y de mucho respeto y
responsabilidad a la ciudadania de los Estados Unidos.
La ciudadania, como alguien dijo aqui, hemos defendido desde mi
padre y mi tios en el uniforme hasta este servidor. Y que yo cumplo
mi responsabilidades con esa ciudadania al maximo. Pero mi
responsabilidad con esa ciudadania no puede conllevar la disolucion
y la asimilacion de mi pueblo y la falta de respeto a su democracia,
de eso es que se trata.
[Applause.]
Mr. Abercrombie. Mr. Mayor, Chairman Young has indicated
that he is not unwilling, but looking with great interest at the idea
of modifying this bill to include the concept of Commonwealth. But
he, at the same time, has said that he believes that an accurate
definition of Commonwealth should be included.
Are you opposed to the bill if the Commonwealth concept was
added to it with a definition which would incorporate some of the
points that you just mentioned?
Mr. ACEVEDO. Yo le explico al distinguido Congresista que aqui
un hubo plesbicito. El Congreso. . . ustedes expresaron en el
1990. . . la Camara por unanimidad los parametros de las
diferentes formulas. Y que si uno revisa lo que este proyecto trae,
este es un proyecto de imposicion para la estadidad. Para que
aquellos que quieran. . . que tengan algiin temor a la
independencia, tengan que votar por la estadidad.
Si ustedes quisieran . . .
42
Mr. Abercrombie. Mr. Mayor, por favor. . .
Mr. ACEVEDO. . . . y respetar el plesbicito, podemos dialogar
sobre eso, lo cual no ha sucedido al dia de hoy. Las puertas estan
abiertas para dialogar sobre el resultado del plesbicito.
Mr. Abercrombie. Well, may I take it
[Applause.]
Mr. Abercrombie. I'm asking that. . . I'm asking the question
in good faith. May I take it that your answer is that if Common-
wealth was added to the bill, with a definition that incorporated
some of the ideas you were speaking about, that you would be will-
ing to at least look at that, should Chairman Young put it forward?
Mr. ACEVEDO. Lo que yo he expresado es que estoy dispuesto al
dialogo sobre la implementacion y el respeto a la voluntad
expresada por nuestro pueblo, cosa que no ha sucedido. Aqui este
proyecto desde sus primeros capitulos a terminar, van en una
diatriva contra el Estado Libre Asociado, contra los compromisos
contraidos de los Estados Unidos, yo no veo que se ha enmendado.
Y si queremos empezar un proceso de buena fe, de dialogo y de
respeto, las puertas estan abiertas.
Mr. Abercrombie. Let me finish. . . let me finish by saying
then that this is a legislative process, as the Chairman indicated,
and legislation is all subject to modification. And I've known Mr.
Young for a number years, both in the majority and now in the mi-
nority, and I've never found him to be anything less than totally
fair.
So I can assure you that he will take into consideration, as a re-
sult of this hearing, every point of view that has been put forward.
Mr. Young. I thank you, gentlemen. The gentleman from Wis-
consin, have you asked questions already? The gentleman is recog-
nized for five minutes.
Mr. Roth. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Mayor, I must say that I'm impressed with your courage.
You are quite a fighter. You've been taking a lot of hits here, and
you seem to give it back as well as you receive. And I respect that
in a man.
I want to say this, I feel that people are going to be treated fair-
ly, because I know the Chairman of this Committee. I know Don
Young, he is a neighbor of mine, and I've been serving with him
for eighteen years, and he is a man of high integrity and that's why
I feel you are going to have a fair hearing.
[Applause.]
Mr. Roth. Let me you ask you a brief question. In the last elec-
tion Commonwealth won the election. You got more votes than any-
one else.
Was your party consulted about the wording of the context of
this legislation? The reason I ask that is because when the mayor,
I mean, when the Governor sat in you chair, Mr. Mayor, he said
that he was involved in the drafting, or he came up to Capitol Hill
and wanted to change some of the legislation, and so on.
Now you won the election. I would like to ask you, were you in-
volved in writing of this legislation?
Mr. AcEVEDO. No hemos sido consultados, ni hemos participado
en forma alguna en la redaccion, ni en la implementacion de este
43
proyecto. Por el contrario, aqui han participado y han venido a
redactar este proyecto los que perdieron en el plesbicito.
Esto uno. . . es, Senor Congresista, como si nosotros fueramos
ahora a negociar con los que perdieron en su distritos respectivos,
en el estado suyo. Como si los que perdieron fueran a negociar con
los que ganaron. Y eso es lo que ha sucedido con este proyecto. Y
por eso desde sus inicios hemos tenido que compartirlo
geneticamente.
Mr. Roth. Let me ask you this, because like the other members
of this panel, or like most of them, I am, you know, just coming
in from the outside. I do not know all the nuances here.
Do you feel that the current governing arrangement between the
United States and Puerto Rico is not consistent with the wishes of
the Puerto Rican people, or the concept of Puerto Rican self govern-
ment?
Mr. ACEVEDO. Yo entiendo que el Estado Libre Asociado es
producto de la voluntad compartida entre el gobierno de los
Estados Unidos y el pueblo de Puerto Rico. Y que el fundamento
de esa voluntad lo es la democracia y la voluntad libre ejecutada
en ese momento. Y yo por ello entiendo que mientras hay un
fundamento de democracia, ese es el fundamento basico de una
relacion legitima entre comuno.
Mr. Roth. Well, let me ask you this question. Like I said to the
Governor, I respect him very much, and I am just looking for a fair
and honest answer.
I respect you very much, Mr. Mayor. You strike me as a man of
high integrity, and you certainly are a man that — you are really
composed. I mean, I don't think you've got a nerve in your body.
Let me ask you this. It seems to me that after the 93' election
the people who lost were upset with losing, and now they want to
nullify the election, and they are looking for ways to do it. Is that
a fair analysis? Am I wrong?
Mr. ACEVEDO. Esta estrictamente correcto. Los que ganaron aqui
las elecciones del 92' en su perfecto derecho han reclamado respeto
para su mandato electoral. Ese mismo respeto en la democracia lo
tienen que tener cuando pierden como perdieron el plesbicito.
Aqui ese respeto se requiere para el triunfo del Estado Libre
Asociado. El mismo respeto que cuando se pierden o se ganan unas
elecciones. No se puede creer en la democracia solamente cuando
se gana.
[Applause.]
Mr. Roth. I have no further questions, Mr. Chairman, and I ap-
preciate you yielding this time, and I appreciate the mayor for giv-
ing me those answers.
Mr. Young. I thank the gentleman from Wisconsin. The gen-
tleman from Guam, Mr. Underwood.
Mr. Underwood. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I assume that, based on your testimony, that you accept Com-
monwealth as a form of self determination, as being truly an ex-
pression of self determination.
Up on the wall here there is a series of territories, such terri-
tories in which it was described that these were, that they were
under U.S. tutelage, as it were, and eventually achieved a self de-
termination.
44
And one of those is Palau. And in the case of Palau they had 6-
7 elections before it was finally accepted. And in that process, or
rather, you know, it wasn't best 4 out of 7, it was, people kept hold-
ing elections until they got the decision they wanted, and then they
stopped holding elections.
And my question to you is, if you accept Commonwealth as a
form of self determination, wouldn't it be logical that you would not
have any more elections?
Or under what conditions do you think that there should con-
tinue to be plebiscites in the case of Puerto Rico?
Mr. ACEVEDO. No, el pueblo de Puerto Rico. . . el Estado Libre
Asociado no es un estatus que encadena la voluntad del pueblo de
Puerto Rico. Es un estatus tan permanente como lo quiera nuestra
gente porque se va a hacer en su libre determinacion.
Y por eso hemos participado en un plesbicito en el 1967 y el
1993. Lo que no podemos tener, distinguido amigo, es plesbicitos
aqui continuamente que dividan la familia puertorriqueha.
[Applause.]
Mr. ACEVEDO. Ya el pueblo decidio ... el pueblo decidio, ya
nosotros necesitamos a todos los puertorriquehos trabajando unidos
por nuestro pueblo. Y no manteniendo continuas divisiones en
nuestra gente.
El futuro del pueblo de Puerto Rico siempre esta abierto a
consultas democraticas porque el Estado Libre Asociado no cierra
puertas a ninguna forma politica. Pero requiere del pleno ejercicio
de la voluntad cuando tambien se decide a favor del Estado Libre
Asociado.
[Applause.]
Mr. Underwood. Then clearly under your definition and expla-
nation of Commonwealth, it is conceivable to be continually in-
volved in this process of confrontation. There was one point, and
maybe it was the translator who interpreted this remark, but there
was one point in which you said — and I'm trying to remember —
that it was a free expression of the Puerto Rican people, and it was
their determination, and that that is what is being respected in
this process.
It seems . . . am I misstating it?
Mr. Acevedo. <i,En cual proceso? In which process?
Mr. Underwood. The process of political status, the process of
determining the political status.
Mr. Acevedo. O sea, el pueblo de Puerto Rico se ha manifestado
con libertad en la expresion de sus plesbicitos, de sus referendums.
Y eso es el ejercicio de nuestra libre determinacion que merece
respeto.
Cuando vimos este proyecto que definitivamente denegaba . . .
denegaba la historia del desarrollo de esta relacion e imponia una
vision sobre nuestro pueblo dirigiendo el resultado antes de
consultarnos, era algo que no respondia ni a la democracia, ni a la
mejor tradicion americana, ni a la libre determinacion de nuestro
pueblo.
Mr. Underwood. OK. Aside from the issues that pertain to this
particular bill, you said that the Commonwealth decision is the free
determination of the Puerto Rican people.
Mr. Acevedo. Si sehor.
45
Mr. Underwood. Yet, in the explanation of Commonwealth
clearly we are talking about something that is either mutual or bi-
lateral in tone. And I would submit that there is some disjuncture,
or some disconnect between saying that it is the free determina-
tion, when it is not possible to make that determination entirely on
your own, because after all it is a bilateral or a joint arrangement,
is it not?
Mr. ACEVEDO. No, pero lo que sucede es lo siguiente, por
determinacion de nuestro pueblo, nosotros queremos una union
permanente con los Estados Unidos que nos permita mantener
nuestra identidad, que nos permita una cultura de trabajo en Puer-
to Rico.
Y eso requiere un compromiso con los Estados Unidos, un
convenio como el que se nos ofrecio en el 50', que fue aceptado
directamente por nuestra gente en las urnas. El Congreso no
legislo e impuso la Constitucion de Puerto Rico. El Congreso le
permitio a Puerto Rico votar si queria forjar su propia constitucion.
Y luego, con las urnas de Puerto Rico aprobo eso.
Ese respeto a la democracia, a la forma constitucional de Puerto
Rico, a establecer dos esferas de soberania, la Federal y la de Puer-
to Rico en asuntos locales es lo que avalo nuestro pueblo en las
urnas y aprobo el Congreso.
Y ese acuerdo es lo que legitima la relacion de Puerto Rico y el
ejercicio de su libre determinacion.
Mr. Underwood. Thank you very much.
Mr. Young. Thank you to the gentleman from Guam. The Gov-
ernor, the delegate, Mr. Romero-Barcelo, is recognized.
Mr. Romero-Barcelo. Thank you Mr. Chairman. Mr. Mayor, it's
a pleasure to have you here and I think it's a wonderful oppor-
tunity that we have to discuss
Mr. Young. Point of order . . .
Mr. Romero-Barcelo. It's a wonderful opportunity we have here
to discuss publicly an issue which is very dear to our hearts, and
very important to Puerto Rico. And I think this is the stuff that
democracy is made out of.
Mr. Mayor, I just want to make sure for the record, you are here
not as Mayor but as the President of the Popular party, am I cor-
rect?
Mr. AcEVEDO. Si senor.
Mr. Romero-Barcelo. And the Popular party is a party that es-
tablished, thought up the concept of Commonwealth as we know it
in Puerto Rico, and has defended it, and defends the concept, the
status of Commonwealth, is that correct?
Mr. ACEVEDO. Correct.
Mr. Romero-Barcelo. And you are the spokesman for that, and
the Commonwealth people here today also, am I correct?
Mr. ACEVEDO. Es correcto.
Mr. Romero-Barcelo. And, Mayor, as a spokesman for the Com-
monwealth supporters — and I know that you have been vacillating
and refusing to answer this question, I'm going to try to make it
as simple as possible, and not for my sake, not for my sake please,
but for the sake of the people of Puerto Rico, I wish you that you
would answer. The question is going to be very simple. You would
answer with a yes or no because I think it can be.
46
If the proposal that has been made by the Governor, that Com-
monwealth be included in the ballot, and if the Commonwealth as
it is, is included in the ballot, would you participate in the referen-
dum then? Yes or no.
If you want to go on a political speech again, go ahead, we you
cannot stop you, but I wish, for the sake of the people of Puerto
Rico, that you would answer yes or no.
Mr. ACEVEDO. Yo entiendo que usted cada vez que yo contesto y
no le gusta la contestacion, dice que es un discurso politico y esa
es su prerrogativa.
Pero lo que yo voy a decir es lo siguiente
[Applause.]
Mr. ACEVEDO. — si usted tiene una diferencia con el Sr.
Gobernador de su partido, ustedes la pueden dilucidar. Nosotros
queremos que se respete la voluntad del pueblo de Puerto Rico. Y
en esa voluntad del pueblo de Puerto Rico, usted participo del
plesbicito y lo perdio.
[Applause.]
Mr. AcEVEDO. Y no tiene mandato ninguno para ir al Congreso
a tratar de diluir o impedir el ejercicio de esa voluntad, que es el
Estado Libre Asociado.
Y en segundo lugar, defmir el Estado Libre Asociado bajo las
premisas de ese proyecto no es una forma respetable para nosotros.
Nosotros queremos que se implementen los resultados del plesbicito
del 1993. Y a base de eso es que deben comenzar los procesos de
conversaciones.
Mr. Romero-Barcelo. In other words, your answer is no.
[Applause.]
Mr. Acevedo. Yo nunca lo autorice a usted a traducirme a mi.
Mr. Burton. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Mayor, sometimes I feel like we're going around in circles.
The fact is, the fact is, Mr. Mayor, the state legislature down
here, the Legislature of Puerto Rico asked the Congress for a defin-
itive answer on what Commonwealth status meant.
We went through the legal process, not one, not two, but four
Committee Chairmen . . . four chairmen, and we had our legal
staffs go through all of the documents concerning that plebiscite,
and the definition of Commonwealth status.
We sent a very definitive letter to the Legislature explaining
what Commonwealth status is, and it did not coincide with what
you put on the ballot.
And so what was on the ballot in 1993 was a bogus Common-
wealth argument. And until you put the correct language on the
ballot the people of Puerto Rico will not be voting on what truly
is Commonwealth status, according to the United States Constitu-
tion and the Congress of the United States.
That is the problem.
[Applause.]
Mr. Acevedo. . . . eso fue lo que ustedes pidieron . . .
[Applause.]
Mr. Roth. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Chairman, would the gentleman
yield? Before the Mayor answers I would like to ask the Chairman
if the gentleman would yield for just a short question?
Mr. Romero-Barcelo. I'm running out of time, but I will.
47
Mr. Roth. Well, I thank you for yielding. The question I have of
Mr. Burton is this: when did the Congress of the United States
vote on that definition?
Mr. Young. Gentlemen, gentlemen, please. You and I and Mr.
Burton can discuss this issue between ourselves. We have a wit-
ness before us right now who has been answering questions by Mr.
Romero.
Mr. Roth. Well, Mr. Chairman, I just had a question of you, Mr.
Chairman.
Mr. Young. You can have a question of the witness, please. Or
make a statement, if you want.
Mr. Roth. Mr. Mayor, the question I would have, my dear friend
and colleague, Mr. Burton, said that Congress gave you the defini-
tion. The question I ask — I know you are involved in this — I am a
member of Congress, and I never remember voting on that. I don't
know that Congress ever expressed in a vote — I know some com-
mittee chairmen may have said something — but I never remember
the Congress voting on that.
Mr. Romero-Barcelo. Let me reclaim my time, please. I just
want to ask one question before my time is over.
Mr. ACEVEDO. May I answer, may I answer the question of Mr.
Burton?
Mr. Romero-Barcelo. Excuse me. Let me, let me ask a question
before my time is over.
Let me just ask my question, let me ask my question before my
time is up.
I just want to say, to ask you: you were very concerned about the
voting that constitutes one of the most precious values of our peo-
ple, and that's correct.
And you're concern about the fact that you are not being, you
say, you're not being given an opportunity to vote.
Now, if you're so concerned about not being given an opportunity
to vote, Mr. Mayor, please explain. Are you not concerned about the
fact that you and your party have been denied, and pretend to deny
to the people of Puerto Rico, all of the 3,700,000 citizens, not just
the minority but all of us, the right to vote, and the right to be rep-
resented in the Nation that we are citizens of? Doesn't that concern
you, Mr. Mayor?
[Applause.!
Mr. Romero-Barcelo. You can answer.
Mr. Acevedo. Tengo que contestar las dos preguntas. La del Sr.
Burton para decir que todo lo que puso en esa papeleta es la
expresion aprobada por el Congreso en el 1950, 52' y la posicion
oficial de los Estados Unidos en el 1953 ante las Naciones Unidas.
Y que no ha habido ninguna expresion del Congreso, aparte de
una carta de algunos miembros del Congreso lo cual tienen su dere-
cho, revocando . . . revocando la expresion y la ley vigente en el dia
de hoy.
Y en cuanto a la preocupacion del companero y distinguido
miembro, Comisionado Residente, lo que quiero expresar es lo
siguiente, no se puede hablar de democracia si no se estan
dispuestos a respetar los resultados. La estadidad perdio el
plesbicito
[Applause.]
48
Mr. ACEVEDO. — no se hablar de democracia y no se respetan los
resultados aversos cuando aun pierde las elecciones.
Mr. Young. Thank you, Mr. Mayor, thank you for being here as
a witness.
Mr. ACEVEDO. Thank you.
Mr. Young. The next witness.
[Applause.]
Mr. Young. Will the remaining audience please take their seats.
Now we have the Honorable Ruben Berrios-Martinez, President of
the Puerto Rico Independence party.
Welcome. Thank you for being before us today, and thank you for
coming to see me in Washington, D.C. You're on. And let's keep it
quiet, please, in the back, until we hear this witness.
STATEMENT OF RUBEN BERRIOS MARTINEZ, PRESIDENT,
PUERTO RICAN INDEPENDENCE PARTY
Mr. Berrios Martinez. Sehores Congresistas, despues de
escuchar a los Presidentes del Partido Nuevo Progresista y del
Partido Popular, me imagino que ustedes deben estar pensando que
las perspectivas de que se logre un proyecto que cuente con un
apoyo amplio en el pais son bastantes limitadas. Pero muchas veces
el desafio produce las respuestas.
Traigo ante ustedes una propuesta dirigida a lograr el mas
amplio apoyo posible sin que nadie tenga que rendir sus principios
fundamentals. Este proyecto bajo consideraciiin aunque tiene
graves deficiencias que deben corregirse, tambien tiene grandes
meritos. Y constituye un paso importante en el proceso de
descolonizacion de Puerto Rico.
El proyecto reinvindica la posicion historica del independentismo.
Reconoce la existencia del cononialismo y propone que nuestro
pueblo pueda escoger entre alternativas desconolizadoras.
Por eso el proyecto perderia su gran medida si como propone el
Gobernador incluyera como alternativa una opcion como la del
estatus actual que el propio proyecto impugna como territorial y
por ende, colonial. Ya no seria entonces un proyecto descolonizador.
,i,Desde cuando existe en la democracia un derecho adquirido a
optar por el colonialismo, una institucion de servidumbre, que al
igual el "apartheid" y la esclavitud ha sido proscrita del mundo
civilizado?
Por su parte, el liderato del Partido Popular considera, como ya
ha expresado aqui el Alcalde Acevedo, que el proyecto es uno de
imposicion unilateral y antidemocratica y una trampa electoral. Es
necesario por lo tanto, una propuesta que acople los legitimos
intereses de los diversos sectores. Que mantenga el caracter
desconolizador del proyecto y que garantice un proceso democratico
y bilateral.
Para lograr esos objetivos, propongo que el proyecto se enmiende,
primero para establecer un procedimiento que garantice que sea el
pueblo puertorriqueno quien democraticamente autorice el proceso
de descolonizacion. Y segundo, para asegurar que las alternativas
descolonizadoras se defman de forma justa y balanceada.
Para que el pueblo autorice democraticamente el proceso de
descolonizacion, propongo el siguiente mecanismo. Que el proyecto,
luego de ser aprobado por el Congreso y firmado por el Presidente,
49
no entre en vigor hasta que el pueblo puertorriqueno le de su
consentimiento mediante un referendum, Ley Young, si o no. A
celebrarse en Puerto Rico con posterioridad a las elecciones del
1996.
Si lo que queremos es democratizar este proceso, esto no se logra
trayendo una alternativa colonial como sugiere el Gobernador. Si
no sometiendo la Ley Young despues de aprobada por el Congreso
y el Presidente a la ratificacion del pueblo como condicion previa
para que entre en vigor.
Ademas mi propuesta deslinda el proceso de estatus de las
elecciones generates pues el referendum se celebraria con
posterioridad a las elecciones.
Finalmente, se facilitaria la aprobacion del proyecto en el
Congreso de los Estados Unidos, pues los enemigos de la
descolonizacion no podran argumentar que el mismo es anti
democratico. Si lo anterior fuera poco, Seno/es Congresistas, todos,
ustedes y nosotros, nos evitamos la vergiienza de que el coloniaje
se ofrezca como alternativa a los puertorriquenos.
Debo aiiadir que el metodo que propongo tiene precedentes. Un
procedimiento similar fue utilizado por el Congreso aqui en Puerto
Rico para la aprobacion de la Ley 600 en el 1950. En aquella
ocasion se utilizo para consolidar el colonialismo excluyendo las
formulas descolonizadoras.
En esta ocasion se utilizaria para promover la descolonizacion.
En aquella ocasion se desvirtuo el consentimiento utilizandolo para
colonizar. Y en esta se utilizaria el consentimiento para
descolonizarla.
Pero no basta con incluir en el proyecto el metodo de
consentimiento previo que acabo de proponer. Tambien es preciso
que se corrijan otras deficiencias que tiene la medida para
garantizar su equidad y balance y para que Uegue a ser aprobada
por el pueblo.
Un defecto fundamental del proyecto es que esta a cargado a
favor de la estadidad. El proyecto pinta esa alternativa en colores
brillantes e irreales. Al mismo tiempo que pinta la alternativa de
soberania separada de manera opaca, esquematica e injusta.
Para corregir ese desbalance, sugiero que ustedes soliciten a los
diversos sectores que sometan sus propias defmiciones. Pero de
alternativas descolonizadoras para la consideracion de este comite.
Pero en todo caso, hay que enmendar este proyecto para que diga
toda la verdad respecto a la estadidad.
Este proyecto deja la impresion de que Puerto Rico puede
convertirse en estado, mantener el idioma espaiiol como idioma
primario y conservar su identidad nacional como pueblo distinto y
separado de los Estados Unidos.
Sobre estos temas pocos han hablado con mayor claridad que el
Presidente de la Camara, Newt Gingrich, co-autor de este proyecto.
Recientemente luego de aseverarlo respecto a la nacion americana
que, y cito, "La asimilacion es nuestra meta, el sinecuanon de
nuestra supervivencia", cierro la cita.
Concluyo que sin ingles como idioma comiin, cito, "No hay
civilizacihn americana", cierro la cita. Sefialo ademas y cito, "El
concepto mismo de los derechos de grupos contradice la naturaleza
de America", cierro la cita.
50
Me refiero tambien a las palabras del Senador Democrata, Moy-
nihan cuando planted ante el Senado y cito, " ,i,Quieren los
puertorriquenos convertirse en americanos? Porque es lo que
implica ineludiblemente la estadidad, eso es lo que trae la
estadidad. lO quieren preservar su identidad separada"? y cierro la
cita.
Ese es el claro concenso bipartista. Deberia bastar para Uevarlos
a ustedes a enmendar el proyecto para dejar claramente establecido
que la estadidad implica una ruta de asimilacion cultural y
lingiiistica. Debe por lo tanto enmendarse la seccion que se refiere
al idioma para dejar claro lo absurdo que seria concebir la
estadidad para Puerto Rico sin el ingles como el idioma principal
en las escuelas publicas y en la rama judicial, legislativa y
ejecutiva.
No aclarar este asunto que es crucial, seria perpetuar falsas y
peligrosas divisiones entre cientos de miles de buenos
puertorriqueiios.
Es necesario ademas, que el Congreso entienda que mientras la
nuestra constituya una nacionalidad diferente a la americana, el
pueblo de Puerto Rico tendra el derecho inalienable para la libre
determinacion e independencia. Es decir, tendra el derecho a la
cesacion.
En cuanto al caracter supuestamente descolonizante de la
estadidad, debo seiialar que cuando se trata de nacionalidades
distintas, la extension de la franquicia electoral Federal de por si
no tiene el efecto de hacer realidad para el pueblo colonial su dere-
cho a la plenitud de gobierno propio.
Pero como sehale con anterioridad, el proyecto esta
desbalanceado no solo porque no dice la verdad respecto a la
estadidad, si no por la manera en que describe la alternativa de
soberania separada. El proyecto debe ser enmendado para corregir
esa deficiencia.
Por ejemplo, el trato que se da en el proyecto al problema de la
ciudadania bajo la libre asociacion, al igual que la forma en que se
trata el asunto del comercio entre Estados Unidos y Puerto Rico,
para mencionar solo dos areas importantes, constituye una grave
injusticia. Ya que en estos aspectos la propuesta ni guarda relacion
con el estado de Derecho actual, ni recoge los reclames legitimes de
los promotores de la libre de asociacion.
Respecto a la independencia, basta decir que la descripcion
escueta y rigida que de ella se hace es correcta en cuanto a sus
elementos basicos. Pero incompleta en cuanto a su potencial de
flexibilidad y dinamismo.
Mas aiin, con respecto a la alternativa de soberania separada
propongo que se enmiende para el poder que de optarse por esa
alternativa, se convoque al pueblo puertorriqueho a una Asamblea
Constituyente depositaria de nuestra soberania naciente. Que entre
otras funciones, decidira la forma de soberania propia, libre
asociacion o independencia que habra de negociarse con los Estados
Unidos.
Por ultimo, quiero confinarles porque yo promuevo con tanto
entusiasmo un proceso de definicion del estatus mejorado ahi, que
podri'a desembocar inicialmente en un triunfo electoral para una
opcion que no sea la independencia.
51
El Partido Independentista esta firmemente convencido de que
bajo las actuales y predicibles circunstancias, la ruta de la
independencia es la ruta de la definicion. La que anticipo Don
Pedro cuando hablo de la suprema definicion, o "yankees" o
puertorriquefios. Y la que supone un proceso que involucre y
confronte al Congreso por la necesidad de ponerle fin a la situacion
colonial.
Este proyecto si se enmienda, puede ser un importante agente
catalitico de este proceso. Siempre esta por otro lado sentarse a
esperar el proyecto perfecto o alegar que esta es una trampa. Pero
no hay que olvidar que en los procesos politicos lo valioso se
encuentra bien entrelazado con lo mezquino.
Hay que aprovechar lo bueno y mejorar lo malo. Mai le
serviriamos a nuestra causa si permitieramos que lo perfecto se
convirtiera en enemigo de lo necesario. Y lo necesario es echar
adelante el proceso de descolonizacion. Mas temprano que mas
tarde, yo estoy convencido, Puerto Rico se encaminara hacia su
propia soberania.
Ya sea porque el Congreso responda a un reclamo de soberania
separada o porque tenga que enfrentar respecto a Puerto Rico su
propia suprema decision. <i,Estara el Congreso dispuesto a
renunciar el principio de muchos unos de "E pluribus Unum?" en
que se fundamenta la union norteamericana aceptando a otra
nacion distinta como Puerto Rico como estado de la union? No
tengo duda de que el Congreso reafirmara que los Estados Unidos
es y continuara siendo una nacion unitaria.
En el 1898, finalmente para concluir, el padre de nuestra patria,
Betances, ante la enorme desproporcion de fuerzas existentes nos
senalo el camino que estaria cerrado por tantos aiios. Cito a
Betances, "Tratar pacificamente con los americanos para obtener
una independencia. Es claro que esta es la solucion salvadora.",
cierro la cita.
Betances se adelanto un siglo, esa era la solucion salvadora que
no se pudo hacer realidad entonces. Y esa es la solucion salvadora,
tanto para Puerto Rico como para los Estados Unidos que como
consecuencia de la nuevas circunstancias, se hace posible ahora.
Muchas gracias.
[Applause.]
[The prepared statement of Ruben Berrios Martinez may be
found at the of hearing.]
Mr. Young. Mr. Berrios Martinez, on page 2 of your testimony,
you criticized the legislation for the proposals, if we were to include
Commonwealth in the legislation.
And then on Page 3 you actually, page. . . it could be page 3.
You say that the bill is a booby trap. I will commend you for offer-
ing us some suggestions. But just answer my question. They don't
coincide? is my question.
Mr. Berrios IMartinez. Lo que digo es que otros alegan ... no
que yo alego, que otros alegan que es una trampa. Yo lo que digo
es que el proyecto es defectuoso, que necesita mejorarse de la forma
a la que me refer! aqui en mi ponencia. Y que se necesita un
mecanismo de consentimiento previo y no el mecanismo de incluir
una alternativa colonial.
Mr. Young. The gentleman from Puerto Rico.
52
Mr. Romero-Barcelo. Mr. Berrios-Martinez, I understand the
differences between you and I, and I don't think there's any point
in discussing them, our differences are just differences of where we
see our final path going, but we agree definitely in the fact that
we are convinced Puerto Rico is a colony, and we have to decolonize
it, and we have to start a process. And in that we agree with you.
And I must say also that you are in agreement for the amend-
ment of the bill, in respect to whether you would accept or not the
referendum, once the bill is adopted in Congress, before we had the
referendum which path to choose. It seems like a very interesting
idea, which will be considered by the committee on this, as regards
to that. I'm sure that the Chairman will see to it also.
But we will give that very serious consideration. It's an interest-
ing idea, to say the least, I'm not prepared to say anything else
today, but ...
Mr. Berrios-Martinez. La ventaja es, si me permite el Sehor
Representante, la ventaja es. . . o mejor dicho, el Senor
Comisionado Residente, la ventaja es que ya tiene un precedente
en la historia politica puertorriquefia. Y que es el precedente que
no pueden encontrar algunas personas que hoy en dia alegan que
se les esta escondiendo de este proceso. Pero que en el 1950 y 52'
excluyeron a los independentistas y a los estadistas.
Mr. Romero-Barcelo. Efectivamente, los que hoy se quejan de
estar excluidos, no nos incluyeron nunca en el proceso del 52', eso
que quede bien claro. Y hemos visto tambien que hoy el no quiso
contestar la pregunta de si participaria o no. Una pregunta tan
facil como esa porque quieren seguir jugando el juego de la
indecision y de confundir la opinion publica, confundir al
Congreso . . .
[Applause.]
Mr. Berrios-Martinez. Yo creo que hay muchisimas personas en
Puerto Rico que creen en la autonomia y que deben tener su dere-
cho mediante una enmienda a este proyecto para que se defina la
alternativa de libre asociacion, consona con sus legitimos reclamos.
Lo que no podemos hacer ahora es asumir la actitud de aquellos
profesores del siglo XV en Espana, que cuatro o cinco ahos despues
de Colon haber descubierto a America, todavia daban conferencias
en la universidad de porque el mundo era piano y no era redondo.
Eso no se puede aceptar, seguir a la altura de casi el Siglo XXI
argumentando que Puerto Rico no es una colonia y traer como
argumento que en el 1950 con la oposicion de la Union Sovietica
se aprobo para traer la guerra fria nuevamente a vigencia un
proyecto que decia que Puerto Rico no tenia que someter
informacion, no que no lo era colonia, es darse cuenta . . . es no
darse cuenta que el mundo (inintiligible) totalmente en
(initiligible).
La Union Sovietica ni existe hoy en dia. Y el que esta diciendo
que Puerto Rico es una colonia, son cuarenta y un Congresistas
americanos, no es la Union Sovietica que no existe, son cuarenta
y un Congresistas americanos. Y debo yo decir que la minoria del
pueblo puertorriqueiio es la que no acepta eso porque yo estoy
seguro que entre los votantes del Estado Libre Asociado hay
muchisimos votantes que aspiran a una autonomia plena sin
ningiin rezago colonial.
53
Mr. Romero-Barcelo. Con el permiso, queria sin enbargo
senalar algo tambien, que al igual que esta cambiando el mundo
como bien explica en cuanto los concepto de independencia, unos
pudieran variarse. Tambien tengo que senalarle que tambien en
cuanto a la union tambien esta cambiando el mundo. Y sobre todo
los Estados Unidos, para el afio ya 2010 al 2020 la mayoria. . . la
minoria mas grande en todos los Estados Unidos va a ser la
Hispana.
Y no hay a lugar a duda de que el idioma espanol va a jugar un
papel mucho mas importante en la nacion americana, sobre todo
ahora que . . .
[Applause.]
Mr. Romero-Barcelo. . . . que estamos comerciando . . . se esta
comerciando con America Latina. La importancia del espanol
en . . . dentro de la Nacion, va adquiriendo cada vez mas impulse.
Mr. Berrios-Martinez. El Senor Comisionado Residente sabe
que el y o discrepamos. Al primero que tiene que convencer de lo
que acaba de decir es a Newt Gingrich, el Presidente de la Camara
que no cree como usted.
Y despues de eso, explicarle a los Estados Unidos como tener una
nacionalidad distinta, no ya un grupo de personas que hable
espanol como una minoria, si no una nacionalidad indistinta, no
pone en peligro la fibra de la esencia del federalismo
norteamericano.
For eso el Sr. Roth, que no esta muy lejos de Canada le tiene
tanto miedo al proyecto. No es que le tema al proyecto, el a lo que
le tiene miedo es a que pidan la estadidad. <i,Sabe por que?, porque
el esta al lado de Quebec y obviamente sabe que si la estadidad
alguna dia se pide, pues el Congreso norteamericano haria lo
mismo que yo haria si fuera ellos y es votarle en contra.
Mr. Romero-Barcelo. Yo se que ...... "I'm never going to
convince you, you're never going to convince me. So, "muchas
gracias".
Mr. Young. And the twain shall never meet. The gentleman
from Indiana, Mr. Burton.
Mr. Burton. I don't have any questions for this witness.
Mr. Young. Thank you, Mr. Burton. The gentleman from Guam,
Mr. Underwood.
Mr. Underwood. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I find your suggestion about the, I find your suggestion about
holding a referendum on a past Young bill a very interesting one,
and I hope that it is entertained.
But I do find part of your testimony very interesting. Earlier, in
Governor Rossello's testimony, he had indicated in response to a
question I had asked, that even the definition of Commonwealth
were "status quo", that he would still be here asking for essentially
the same thing.
Mayor Acevedo kind of waffled on the issue of whether or not he
would participate in any kind of process authorized by this legisla-
tion.
And in your testimony you say that you would never, you would
accept the process but that if you, if the vote was for statehood you
would maintain that you'd continue to have right to secede.
54
It seems to me that we are really in a fix here, Mr. Chairman.
Nobody here is willing to concede anything.
Mr. Young. Would the gentleman yield in that line?
Mr. Underwood. Thank you.
Mr. Young. That's not a new idea. In my great state we have
twenty-nine percent of people who would like to secede from the
union. So it is something that still is there. I went through this
battle once before, and it never really goes away. It will always be
there.
The gentlemen from
Mr. Berrios-Martinez. La diferencia alia es que alia son
americanos y aqui somos puertorriquehos, esa es la diferencia. Que
en Alaska eso es un problema politico, aqui esto es un problema
sociologico, politico, cultural, lingiiistico e idiomatico. Es un
problema de una nacionalidad distinta.
Alaska en su mayoria no es una nacion distinta. Puerto Rico es
una nacion distinta y por tanto seria un problema de naturaleza
distinto.
Mr. Young. OK, the gentleman from Wisconsin, Mr. Roth.
Mr. Roth. Mr. Chairman I have no questions at this time.
Mr. Young. I thank you. And I do thank you for your presen-
tation, and being very sincere in your obligation to do what you
consider right for Puerto Rico. Thank you very much.
Mr. Berrios-Martinez. Gracias a ustedes.
Mr. Young. Next we will have the Honorable Luis A. Ferre rep-
resenting the New Progressive party.
[Applause.]
Mr. Young. Welcome, Governor, certainly glad to have you here
with us today. And you may proceed.
STATEMENT OF LUIS A. FERRE, FOUNDER AND REPRESENTA-
TIVE OF THE NEW PROGRESSIVE PARTY OF PUERTO RICO
Mr. Ferre. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the
Committee.
Mr. Young. Pull that, pull that mic a little closer to you, please.
Mr. Ferre. Yes, my name is Luis A. Ferre. I'm a very young man
who has been waiting for 92 years to see the Congress of the Unit-
ed States give Puerto Rico the opportunity to get rid of being a col-
ony, and becoming a State of the the Union.
[Applause.]
Mr. Ferre. So that is why we are here.
Now, I was rather amused to hear the mayor of San Juan saying
that he was in love with a young lady, but that he was going to
be the one that was going to determine how he is going to marry
the lady. She will have nothmg to do with it. She has nothing to
decide. He was the one who has to decide.
So the mayor of San Juan wants to decide Puerto Rico's self de-
termination only from the side of Puerto Rico, but he doesn't give
Congress or the United States any chance to say anything about
it.
And that is what I think has gone wrong.
Now, the New Progressive party stands firmly behind the Young
bill, entitled "The United States-Puerto Rico Political Status Bill."
55
We're very happy that you have defined very clearly what Con-
gress can do, and what Congress cannot do, in this bill.
And we are very happy indeed that you all subscribed H.R. 3024,
which finally opens the road for Puerto Rico to make a decision on
its ultimate political status in a dignified manner, that becomes the
United States Congress, and the people of the United States, in-
cluding statehood as an alternative which was the implicit under-
standing under which the people of Puerto Rico welcomed the
American forces of General Miles in 1898.
Upon landing, General Nelson Miles published a proclamation.
This proclamation was considered, by our political leaders, and the
Puerto Rican people, as a moral commitment by the United States
to accept Puerto Rico eventually as a State of the Union with full
U.S. citizenship.
Accordingly, both political parties that participated in the elec-
tions of 1900, under the leadership of the two most important and
respected leaders, Barbosa and Muhoz Rivera, included statehood
in their platforms.
Unfortunately, and to everybody's disappointment, Congress en-
acted the Foraker bill to establish the first civil government in
1900, which did not grant United States citizenship to Puerto
Ricans, acting in contradiction to the established policy of accepting
territories only to become States.
However, the people of Puerto Rico did not lose their confidence
in the ultimate spirit of justice of the United States, and persisted
in their demands for United States citizenship, as a step to ulti-
mate statehood.
We are now approaching 100 years from the date of the signa-
ture of the Treaty of Paris, which bestowed upon Congress the
power to determine the political destiny of Puerto Rico. It took Con-
gress 19 years to grant United States citizenship under the Jones
Act, and to establish an elected Senate. It took Congress 50 years
to provide for an elected governor.
It took an additional four years to allow us to draft and approve
our own State like Constitution in 1952, through an elected Con-
stitutional Convention to which I had the honor of being elected as
a statehood advocate and spokesman.
In 1950, Congress authorized the people of Puerto Rico to vote
in a referendum to accept or reject Law 600, which provided for the
adoption of the local Constitution, as well as the other amendments
to the Jones Act of 1917.
And this is what I want to point out.
This authorization was described as one adopted in "the nature
of a compact," in the nature, to make it clear that it did not con-
stitute a constitutionally binding compact on Congress, and be-
cause the voters in Puerto Rico were required to consent to or re-
ject said authorization.
The Federal Relations Act remained unchanged, maintaining
Puerto Rico as an unincorporated territory under the Territorial
Clause of the United States Constitution and the full sovereignty
of Congress.
It was under the clear understanding that the Commonwealth,
E.L.A., as defined by the constitution drafted by the convention,
was to be a transitory status that kept the way open for Puerto
56
Rico to achieve statehood, or independence, at a future date, if the
people so decided, that we gave our vote, as recorded in the min-
utes of the convention, and as confirmed by Luis Muhoz Marin,
chairman of the Popular Democratic party delegation, in its own
words, in the proceedings.
This was the position assumed by the P.P.D., when Luis Munoz
Marin was authorized to fmd new ways to achieve either statehood
or independence, the accepted fmal status solutions.
He was not authorized to create a new status when he was com-
missioned to ask Congress for the authority to draft a local Con-
stitution under Law 600.
In fact, Dr. Antonio Fernos, who chaired our Constitutional Con-
vention, and served as Resident Commissioner, acknowledged be-
fore Congressional committees that Puerto Rico's relation to the
United States had not been altered, and that in fact the sovereign
powers acquired by the United States over Puerto Rico in accord-
ance with the Treaty of Paris, remained unaltered.
To our surprise, shortly after the Commonwealth Constitution
was approved by Congress, and taking advantage of the phrase "in
the nature of a compact" out of context to mislead the people of
Puerto Rico, the pro-Commonwealth leaders asked for further
modifications which would establish Commonwealth as a final sta-
tus by subscribing the Aspinal bill in 1957.
But the bill was rejected by Congress, because it closed the door
to real alternatives of self determination.
Subsequently, they filed the Fernos-Murray bill in 1959, with the
same intentions, but we fought it out, and it was defeated.
In 1962, they attempted to obtain the same objective by asking
President Kennedy for a letter to clarify the concept of "permanent
union of Commonwealth," which failed again.
When all attempts failed to amend Law 600, through all these
devious ways to establish Commonwealth as a permanent status,
trying to commit Congress through a "fait accompli" strategy, it
was then decided to ask for the appointment of the United States-
Puerto Rico Status Commission, in 1964, to try to arrive at the
final definition of the Commonwealth status.
The pro-Commonwealthers had been trying to deceive the people
of Puerto Rico, claiming advantages for the Commonwealth status
that we knew were clearly unconstitutional, and of which Congress
was never made aware.
These are the advantages of Commonwealth that they offered in
the recent plebiscite of 1993. And I am speaking as a personal par-
ticipator.
At the same time they maintained that statehood was not attain-
able, and that it would be economically disastrous for Puerto Rico.
I was appointed member of the Status Commission, on behalf of
the statehood position, and argued against these misleading state-
ments.
I further requested on several occasions that the pro-Common-
wealth delegation spell out what they understood by "Culminated
Commonwealth," but was unable to obtain any clarifying answer.
Every time they insinuated that the Commonwealth status was
outside the Territorial Clause of the Constitution, Senator Jackson
57
and Senator Javits, as others did before and would do after, would
rebuke them.
Finally, the Status Commission Report came out with the follow-
ing conclusion, amongst others, and I quote:
"Economic studies indicate that sustained economic growth,
under the present status and continuation of the special arrange-
ments, will make statehood with adequate but not extraordinary or
unprecedented provisions for transition fully possible without se-
vere risks."
And further, "With respect to the nature of the compact agreed
upon under Law 600, the Supreme Court of the United States is
the fmal interpreter, and has not expressed itself, as yet, on these
matters." That is a quote from the report.
This was in 1966.
Since then it has expressed itself in several instances, in particu-
lar in 1980, in the case of Harris v. Rosario, in which it ruled that
Congress had the authority to discriminate against the United
States citizens of Puerto Rico, since Puerto Rico was held under the
Territorial Clause of the Constitution.
It is significant that this case was brought to the court by one
of the members of the United States-Puerto Rico Status Commis-
sion, Patricia Robert Harris.
The growth of the statehood party has been overwhelming since
1968. And by the way, the present Resident Commissioner Romero
Bareclo was present with me in the Status Commission during this
discussion. He will remember these things.
And going ahead. The growth of the statehood forces has been
overwhelming since 1968.
In 1964, the Pro-Commonwealth party had 487,280 votes, or 59.4
percent of the vote, and the Pro-statehood party had 284,627, or
34.6 percent.
In the last election of 1992, the statehood party had 49.33 per-
cent of the vote, and the Pro-Commonwealth had dropped down to
45.34 percent.
The Pro-Commonwealth party in Puerto Rich has been mislead-
ing the electorate in Puerto Rico by advocating a right to self deter-
mination that is based on the principle that Congress is under obli-
gation to grant whatever the people of Puerto Rico demand, wheth-
er they are privileges or advantages that Congress cannot grand
because of Constitutional constraints, such as permanent union, ir-
revocable U.S. citizenship, tax exemption. Federal advantages in
appropriations, transfer of power to control immigration, and so on.
On the basis of these misleading advantages, which they incor-
porated into their ballot in the last plebiscite, they have gained
votes of those who were not properly informed. For the Common-
wealth leaders, Congress does not have any right to exert its own
self determination.
For this reason we endorse H.R. 3024, which establishes clearly
that "Congress will continue to respect the principle of self deter-
mination in its exercise of Territorial Clause powers, but that au-
thority must be exercised within the framework of the United
States Constitution," so as to do away with all this wishful think-
ing of the leaders of the Popular Democratic party, and stop their
misleading arguments.
58
Furthermore, we oppose the inclusion of any formula of final sta-
tus that is not decolonizing as an alternative in the proposed plebi-
scite. And reject naming of any of the decolonizing alternatives
under prefix E.L.A., which because of its use in describing a false
decolonized status will be mislead the Puerto Rican voters.
Congress cannot
[Applause.l
Mr. Ferre. Congress cannot be a party to a hoax in which Unit-
ed States citizens of Puerto Rico will be offered the same colonial
alternative under the Territorial Clause of the Constitution as a
sovereign decolonizing solution.
And I think, of course, that the history of Puerto Rico has shown
that we have social forces bringing Puerto Rico to this decision.
There are two million and a half Puerto Ricans now living in the
United States. We feel that Puerto Rico is ripe to become a state
after almost a hundred years of apprenticeship, and to assume its
political rights and responsibilities.
During all this century more than 200,000 Puerto Ricans have
served with distinction in all the wars that the United States has
been involved, and in several cases with higher casualties than
some states.
More than 2,000 Puerto Rican soldiers served in the recent Gulf
War, amongst whom was a grandson of mine in the Armored Divi-
sion, the 1st Armored Division.
Several, such as Fernando Luis Garcia, who gave their lives, he-
roically, and have been awarded the Congressional Medal of Honor.
Amongst other distinguished leaders are Admiral Horacio Rivero,
in 1968, Commander in Chief of NATO Forces in Southern Europe,
and later Ambassador to Spain. And Admiral Diego Hernandez,
who was in command of the Mediterranean Fleet; Major General
Pedro del Valle, commanded the U.S. Marine Corps., First Division
in the Pacific; General William A. Navas, Jr., who is Deputy in
Command of the National Guard.
Dr. Antonia Novello served as U.S. Surgeon General; and Dr.
Enrique Mendez, Jr., as Deputy Surgeon General of the United
States.
Puerto Rico is participating successfully, and with distinction, in
Mainstream America to enrich its economy and its culture.
There are about 2,000,000 Puerto Ricans living throughout the
nation, doing constructive and creative work as factory workers,
and as professionals, in all fields of activity. Thousands of physi-
cians and engineers, thousands of teachers and professors in
schools and universities.
In the arts and humanities, our rhythms and melodies have con-
tributed to enrich American music. Our great actors, like Jose
Ferrer and Raul Julia, have been American favorites. Justino Diaz
and Pablo Rivera have been great voices of the Metropolitan Opera.
In the area of civil government, amongst many others, Judge
Juan Torruella, Chief Justice of the U.S. First Circuit Court of Ap-
peals; Judge Jose Cabranes is a member of the U.S. Second Court
of Appeals; and Maurice Ferre has served as Mayor of Miami.
In the area of sports, we have contributed with many baseball
players, amongst them Roberto Clemente who has been included in
the Hall of Fame. Charles Passarell was the number one tennis
59
player in the United States in 1969, and now, Gigi Fernandez, a
tennis champion, as well as Chi Chi Rodriguez, a golf professional.
And last but not least, to show how much Puerto Rico is
imbedded in American life, it was the Puerto Rican judge of the
Southern District of New York, Sonia Sotomayor, who as a fearless
jurist decided a few months ago to issue an injunction that could
break the deadlock in the baseball strike and, by doing so, sent the
baseball players back to give Americans, after more than a year,
the enjoyment of their favorite sport.
Nobody could be part of America more than this fearless and
competent jurist of 40 years of age. She was the true image of the
freedom and respect of law America stands for.
Mr. Chairman, I think the time has come for Congress to live up
to the commitment of equality under which we were brought into
its fold. It is time to do justice to more than 3.7 million
disenfranchised American citizens of Puerto Rico.
We congratulate you for taking the proper step with H.R. 3024
to comply with your moral duty as it becomes the United States
Congress and our fellow citizens of the United States.
Thank you very much.
Mr. Young. Thank you very much, Governor.
Mr. Ferre. Thank you.
[Applause.]
Mr. Young. You are an inspiration to the Puerto Rican people,
and the Congressman who stand at this table.
Mr. Ferre. Thank you, sir.
[Applause.]
Mr. Young. If I can do as well as you're doing when I reach
those golden years, I'll be extremely pleased. And I notice with
great interest you read your statement without any glasses.
Mr. Ferre. Yes, I forgot them.
Mr. Young. I loved it. He forgot it, but he has them.
But anyway. Governor, as an example of where I'm coming from,
this battle is a battle between the Puerto Rican people, but we play
a role in the United States Congress, and have to be part of the
solution.
And that's really what these hearings are all about.
I also noticed the contribution the Puerto Rican people made, you
mentioned in your statement, but one of those that got my atten-
tion the most, of course, is Chi Chi Rodriguez. I'm one that loves
to pursue that little white ball around, and I can't hit it worth a
darn, but I sure respect his capability.
Mr. Ferre. [Laughs.]
Mr. Young. The history of it is very clear. And I'm glad that you
bring the institutional memory of what was decided in the years
and the steps, and what was the Commonwealth definition, and
what it was meant to be at the time of identification.
And I think a lot of people have lost sight of that. It was an in-
terim definition, prior to another standard. And as we go through
these discussions I hope everybody keeps that in consideration.
Mr. Romero-Barcelo?
Mr. Romero-Barcelo. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I just want to congratulate you once again. Governor Ferre for
your excellent statement.
60
Mr. Ferre. Thank you.
Mr. Romero-Barcelo. And I just want to ask this one question
because you've been through this process for so many years, and
you know more than anybody else from first hand.
Governor, what has been the experience — every time they have
tried to get what they call enhancement or improvement for the
Commonwealth, what has been the result?
Mr. Ferre. They try to make Congress do things which are con-
trary to the constitution, and they can't do it.
Mr. Romero-Barcelo. So we're not going anywhere
Mr. Ferre. We haven't gone anywhere.
Mr. Romero-Barcelo. Thank you, thank you. Governor.
Mr. Young. The gentleman from Indiana.
Mr. BURT9N. First of all . . .
Mr. Ferre. Yes, Congressman Burton.
Mr. Burton. Governor, if I should live to be 92, and be as
healthy as you, I hope I can get rid of my glasses as well. They're
a big burden to me.
This is one of the best statements that I've read. And I want to
commend you.
Mr. Ferre. Thank you.
Mr. Burton. It's very well thought out.
There's one part of your statement on page 7 that I hope the
media will pick up, and it's the last paragraph on page 7. I'd like
to read it.
And I don't mean to take positions in the electoral process down
here, but I think this is a very salient point that needs to be made.
It says, "The Pro-Commonwealth party in Puerto Rico has been
misleading the electorate in Puerto Rico by advocating a right to
self determination that is based on the principle that Congress is
under obligation to grant whatever the people of Puerto Rico de-
mand, whether they are privileges or advantages, that Congress
cannot grant because of constitutional constraints. Such as perma-
nent union, irrevocable U.S. citizenship, tax exemption. Federal ad-
vantages in appropriations, transfer of power to control immigra-
tion, etcetera."
You're absolutely correct, and that's the point we've been trying
to make all day long, that the plebiscite that was held in 1993 did
not clearly delineate those issues.
And that's why we sent this letter down in answer to the legisla-
tive request to clarify those issues so that in 1998, if the Young bill
passes, and becomes law, that there will be a very clear definition
of Commonwealth should Mr. Young choose to put that in the bill.
And I think that your comments there are right on the money,
and I appreciate very much your intellectual attitude.
Mr. Ferre. Thank you, sir. I agree with you because we've had
too much of semantic playing. The Commonwealthers have been
just playing with words. But they haven't gone down to facts. And
the people of Puerto Rico are completely lost. And I think it's time
Congress says, no. This is as far as we can go, and no more.
Mr. Burton. Thank you, Governor.
Mr. Young. The gentleman from Wisconsin, Mr. Roth.
Mr. Ferre. Yes, Mr. Roth.
Mr. Roth. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
61
Governor, I want to associate myself with the comments of my
colleagues in the panel here today in complimenting you on your
excellent statement.
You have a real historic sense as to, you know, these issues.
I wonder, is there some way that we could take a very serious
issue like Commonwealth, statehood, independence, is there a way
we could debate this out of election time? It seems it comes up in
elections, and becomes part of an election.
Is there any where that you can see that this could be de-
bated
Mr. Ferre. No.
Mr. Roth. — away from an election?
Mr. Ferre. I think the only way you can do it is by a plebiscite,
a referendum. And that is why the Young bill is such a perfect oc-
casion. In 1967 when I really defeated the Commonwealthers, even
though I lost the referendum, because up to that time they had
held the power in Puerto Rico for almost 30 years, complete power.
But I broke that in 1967 with the elections of 1968.
I wasn't able to change that. Because they kept on talking about
Commonwealth, doing things that they couldn't do.
Now I think that the only way you can stop that is by having
a referendum in which you can define what are the alternatives
that clearly are obtainable.
It was an error, I think, for the government of Puerto Rico to ap-
prove a plebiscite in 1993 that gave every party the chance to de-
fine— it was wishful thinking, it was not a plebiscite.
I would like to be in heaven. Well, you can't be in heaven; that's
all there is to it.
But if we have a plebiscite in which Congress has the respon-
sibility— by the Treaty of Paris you are responsible for us. Now you
tell us, you can have this, or you can have that. And then we make
a decision on the basis of really obtainable solutions.
Mr. Roth. Thank you very much. Governor. Thank you, Mr.
Chairman.
Mr. Young. Thank you. Governor. I appreciate your testimony,
and have a ^ood day.
Mr. Ferre. Thank you.
[Applause.]
Mr. Young. I was thanking the staff. I was just wondering how
we were going to get three people over there in one chair. That
would have been an exciting moment in this hearing.
At this time I'd like to call Dr. Myriam Ramirez de Ferrer, presi-
dent of the Puerto Ricans of Civic Action; Mr. Juan Garcia; Mr.
Luis Vega Ramos. Please.
I want to thank, not only the audience, but also the panel or pan-
els for being so patient. This process which we go through called
democracy is sometimes very cumbersome, and very slow. But I be-
lieve it's the appropriate way to do it. And, as you've noticed, I've
been very lenient with the gavel when it comes to time, because
this is a very important issue.
I would like to say I'm going to be just as lenient with this group,
but bear in mind it's getting late in hour, so we will be as conven-
ient as I can for you.
And, Doctor, you're up first.
24-926 - 96 - 3
62
Ms. Ramirez de Ferrer. Thank you, Mr. Young.
And I would like to start my statement by asking that my testi-
mony be included for the record, my written testimony.
Mr. Young. Without objection, so ordered.
Ms. Ramirez de Ferrer. OK. I welcome you to Puerto Rico.
Mr. Young. It's great to be here.
Ms. Ramirez de Ferrer. You have no idea what a pleasure it
is to see you here. Our group has worked for this for many years,
and every time we see Congress interested in solving our issues,
it gives us hope, you know, for the future, and gives a lot of
strength to continue.
First thing, you might have noticed a lot of enthusiasm in the
people. This shows that the people of Puerto Rico want to solve
this.
You also might have noticed that it looks like we're divided. But
actually it is because when this issue is brought into the political
parties itself, elections, candidates, it becomes almost like a basket-
ball team against each other. But it really is not what the people
out there in Puerto Rico, in the majority feel.
And, you know, the worst thing of it is that even if you sound
confused by some of the different arguments that have been
brought here, particularly from the Commonwealth representative,
can you imagine what it's like out there, every day? We've living
this thing every day; debates; media; analysis.
I mean, we are subject to this every day of our lives, and have
been working on this very, very, very strongly since 1984/85 when
we delivered 350,000 petitions.
My organization sends people from both sides.
I don't think people are that confused. And I, you know, apolo-
gize for some of my fellow citizens here, who are nice people, and
they come here and speak in Spanish to you. I think they forget
what a hearing is; you're hearing us. They're talking for people out
there to hear them. And that's what they do every day of our lives.
Talk to these people out there; argument.
And you give us the opportunity to hear us. They both speak
wonderful English. One of them is a lieutenant colonel in the re-
serves. The other fellow? — I think he even studied in the States. He
speaks good English. Their children go to school in schools that
speak English, you know, that teach English.
So I apologize for having them, for having to use the little things.
Because they could understand what you were asking, but they
would answer in Spanish.
So mean it was really a waste of time.
Keep that bill the way it is. Don't touch it. You don't have to
touch it. As a matter of fact, you know, everybody knows that we
only have two ways to go: either we become closer to you, under
the U.S. Constitution that so many of us feel so proud about, and
support so strongly; or we move the other way, to become a sepa-
rate country.
There's no, there's no middle of the road to that.
If we can't make up our minds, you have a lot of provisions in
the bill for us to stay just the way we are.
63
And I have a little comment for Mr. Roth, and I'm pleased to see
you again. We saw each other a couple of weeks ago out there in
Congress.
I'm sure your constituents back home, even though you're not
running for office again, would love to vote for United States citi-
zenship, permanent union with the United States, they would love
to vote for not taxes. You know, to have a tax gimmick like 936.
Congress has already answered to that. They've given a sweat to
936. But even worse than that, since you agree that Common-
wealth is such a good option, you know, we really need $500 mil-
lion for Medicaid. Perhaps you can start moving the, you know, the
thing up there so we can get that money without paying taxes, be-
cause we really need that money.
The third thing I want to mention is the citizenship issue. The
citizenship issue has become, you know, a little funny thing hap-
pening down here. Well, we revised, you know, all our documents,
and we saw, in the Jones Act — and by the way, as you see my testi-
mony— you will be able to notice that we've put together documents
way back from the Treaty of Paris, that sort of defines what Com-
monwealth is or has been since this whole discussion began.
And we were particularly interested to see in the Jones Act — the
Jones Act mentions the fact that this citizenship that we're getting,
by a legitimate action of Congress, is a citizenship that cannot be
awarded to anybody from Puerto Rico who is already a citizen from
another country.
So if you were to give dual citizenship, or whatever somebody
wants down here, I think you would have to repeal the Jones Act.
Because the Jones Act that creates a different citizenship than that
from the other States, that Jones Act doesn't allow you to give citi-
zenship to anybody who is taking up another citizenship.
And then, why would anybody want to become an independent
country, and yet continue to be a U.S. citizen? I mean, it's mind
boggling. I just can't understand that.
Ajiother question I want to ask: why are they fighting for U.S.
citizenship? What comes with U.S. citizenship that they can't guar-
antee with Puerto Rico citizenship, or with Puerto Rico sov-
ereignty? Could it be money? Are they looking for more money, you
know? So that they can, you know, continue with the little game
of Federal funding.
How is anybody governing Puerto Rico with 3.8 million U.S. citi-
zens? Or are you planning to make two American citizen republics?
One big one, with 50 States? Or one little one, with 3.8 U.S. citi-
zens? How are you going to handle that?
I mean, how do we go and, you know, and work in the inter-
national community with a little, tiny country of U.S. citizens.
It's really absurd. You can't allow that to happen.
But I also wanted to say something. Don't be misled by those
who say that you are abusing your power, or that you have come
here to impose something on us. My God, everything that has been
Commonwealth has been basically imposed.
We cannot respect an option that's a fraud to start with. If you
take a look at our documents, I mean, do you know when Muhoz
Marin sent a telegram to the president of the United States to call
the U.N. we were something or the other, a couple of hours before
64
Eisenhower swore as president of the United States, have any of
you been in the middle of an inaugural, presidential inaugural and
see what goes on in the White House?
I have had the opportunity to do so, and nobody is there in
charge really. You can do a lot of little things during that time, but
we're stuck with those things.
The process was not done from the United States, it was right
from here. The misleading was from here. And we're stuck with the
problem that we are almost begging you to help us resolve.
Don't touch the bill. It's fine. We've got a lot of safety nets to
keep what we have.
[Applause.]
Mr. Young. Thank you, Doctor. I'm not going to say anything,
but we appreciate your testimony.
I believe the next one is Juan Garcia? Yes.
I see four witnesses. Are there four witnesses up here? No. One?
OK, Juan Garcia, you're up next. Esquire.
STATEMENT OF JUAN M. GARCIA-PASSALACQUA,
PRESIDENTE, ANALSIS INCORPORADO
Mr. Garcia-Passalacqua. My name is Juan Manuel Garcia-
Passalacqua. I am a political analyst for newsmedia in Puerto Rico
and the LFnited States, with 35 years experience in my profession.
I'm a professor of political history of Puerto Rico and the Carib-
bean at the Centro de Estudios Avancado de Puerto Rico del Caribe
in San Juan.
I appear before you today strictly in my personal capacity in sup-
port of the bill under your consideration.
I appear also to specify one of the key concepts of the bill, the
nature of the Free Associated State, in Spanish, Estado Libre
Asociado de Puerto Rico.
As defined in it, Estado Libre Asociado de Puerto Rico was cre-
ated in 1952/1953 by the administrations of the United States
Presidents, Harry S. Truman and Dwigbt D. Eisenhower, together
with Puerto Rican Governor Luis Mufioz Marin, for whom I worked
as a special assistant during the years 1958 and 1962/1964.
I would address the political and juridical intent of said creation.
Since Speaker of the House, Newt Gingrich, is a historian, I am
sure he will be interested in the historical intent of Luis Munoz
Marin, speaking on behalf of Puerto Rico, in creating Estado Libre
Asociado, that I must state at the outset is coincidental with a
clear and precise definition included in the bill for the formula of
free association.
A series of citations from official documents issued by the found-
er of Estado Libre Asociado, throughout his political life, will make
this evident for the record of this hearing, and for history.
Since some of these documents are still classified, or in
unpublished archives, if the Honorable Chairman or the members
so require at the end, I'm willing and able to be sworn.
Let us examine the historical record of the alternative of free as-
sociation for the people of Puerto Rico as defined by Luis Munoz
Marin.
In 1932 Luis Muiioz Marin forced the inclusion in the platform
of his Liberal party of the demand for "the immediate recognition
65
of the sovereignty of Puerto Rico", with a transition period as a
"Commonwealth", modeled on the Philippine Islands.
In 1934, Mufioz proposed, in an editorial in his newspaper writ-
ten in English a choice between only two options: "statehood on one
side, and independence or autonomy on the other", as the question
for the United States called to resolve in harmony with the people
of Puerto Rico.
Sixty years later Chairman Young has listened to Luis Mufioz
Marin.
In 1937, in a memorandum to the Secretary of Interior, Harold
Ickes, Murioz assured that under independence the United States
could have all the naval and military facilities that it may require
for its National defense.
In 1942, in his Historia del Partido Popular Democratico Mufioz
again recognized only two tendencies: equality or difference. Equal-
ity he defined as annexationism or statehood, and difference he de-
fined as autonomy, independence, free community, or Estado Libre
Asociado, in those same words.
In 1944, in a Committee created by Washington to discuss the
status issue, Mufioz demanded "sovereignty" for Puerto Rico, while
Abe Fortas, then in the Interior Department, insisted sovereignty
must remain in the hands of the United States.
In 1946, in three articles in the newspaper El Mundo, Mufioz
proposed the creation of the associated people of Puerto Rico as a
transitory measure until economic self-sufficiency is achieved, to
then opt between statehood and independence.
In 1952, the Popular Democratic party adopted unanimously a
platform for that year's election proposed by Mufioz that reads, "ob-
tain the development of the potentialities of the Commonwealth
through readjustments in the Federal relations that will be
achieved by a bilateral compact" between Puerto Rico and the Unit-
ed States.
At that moment, gentlemen — and this is the important part of
my statement — Dwight D. Eisenhower became President of the
United States, in the ticket of the Republican party.
Under his presidency, the United Nations began to consider the
matter of Estado Libre Asociado created in 1952.
Luis Mufioz Marin believed a "compact" had been established.
The Eisenhower administration believed otherwise. The State De-
partment favored that the issue "be determined ultimately by the
courts", and that was the basis of the Eisenhower policy before the
United Nations.
In the case decided during the consideration of the matter, the
United States District Court for Puerto Rico decided that a compact
existed, and was confirmed by the U.S. First Circuit Court in Mora
V. Mejias in 1953.
However, after all these years, in United States v. Sanchez, 1992
Federal 2nd 40 11th Circuit, 1993, the most adequate legal inter-
pretation to date has been that Puerto Rico remains a territory of
the United States.
The cabinet of President Dwight D. Eisenhower met on Novem-
ber 20th and discussed the matter of Puerto Rico.
In a breakfast that morning, the President proposed to United
Nations Ambassador Henry Cabot Lodge that, instead of going
66
with the statement by the Alternate Delegate, the Ambassador
himself offer independence for Puerto Rico.
Ambassador Henry Cabot Lodge made the announcement in the
United Nations on November 27, 1953, and it was a resounding
success.
In 1953 — and this is the crucial point here — in a handwritten re-
sponse to the offer of independence from President Dwight D. Ei-
senhower, Governor Luis Mufioz Marin stated, "We must eliminate
all functions that would not be exercised by an independent coun-
try and that are unnecessary to the concept of free association with
common citizenship," exactly the definition of free association that
is included by Chairman Don Young in his bill.
In 1954, Muhoz repeated that definition, stating that the United
States would abandon their sovereign rights over Puerto Rico, exer-
cising from then on only the powers delegated by Puerto Rico.
On March 26, 1956, Ambassador of the United Nations, Henry
Cabot Lodge wrote a letter to Chairman Adams, chief of staff in the
White House, proposing that "Congress adopt a resolution offering
independence to Puerto Rico."
The documents of the exchange of letters — since my time is fin-
ished— are accompanying my memorandum. They include the clas-
sified, secret, and top secret documents that have the initials of
Dwight D. Eisenhower here, on the top, right. It says "Secret D.E."
that's Dwight D. Eisenhower.
And in that particular top secret memorandum, Eisenhower ap-
proved the following: page two of the top secret memorandum, it
would also do no harm to hint at the almost certain honor which
would attach itself to Governor Mufioz should he become the first
president of Puerto Rico.
That was the intent of the Eisenhower administration. Because
of that, gentlemen, I wholly support the definition of free associa-
tion as contained in this bill.
[The prepared statement of Juan M. Garcia-Passalacqua may be
found at the end of hearing.!
Mr. Young. Thank you, sir. That was very good. I mean, I hope
the rest of the members who follow this chronological, historical as-
pect of what is before Puerto Rico.
The next witness is Mr. Ramos, I believe.
STATEMENT OF LUIS VEGA-RAMOS, PRESIDENT, PROELA
Mr. Vega-Ramos. Mr. Vega-Ramos for the record.
So that the Chairman be clear, I am joined today by Raul
Mariani, Esq., who is the vice president of PROELA which is an
organization that for 20 years has advocated for the development
of the current status within the context of our lateral association.
I will speak today to you in English so that you, our foreign visi-
tors, understand me.
Today, we speak on behalf of the hundreds of thousands of Puer-
to Ricans who in 1993 voted in favor of the Estado Libre Asociado.
The U.S. acquired Puerto Rico as a war booty in 1898. Since Con-
gress approved the last Puerto Rican status act in 1952, we have
constantly struggled to attain a larger degree of self government,
and full self determination.
67
In 1993 over 800,000 Puerto Ricans petitioned the United States
to adopt — and I quote from the winning definition — "a bilateral
compact that can only be amended by mutual consent."
The people of Puerto Rico have pushed the envelope as far as we
can. Now it is time for the United States to act rationally, fairly,
and honestly to solve our mutual dilemma.
It is your duty to act now.
The U.S. has expressed its commitment to the most basic prin-
ciples of democracy and self determination. Government should
work by the consent of the governed.
We believe that the best response to the 1993 plebiscite would
be to present to Puerto Rico a bilateral compact act.
Last October we urged you to do this. We do the same today.
However, you have chosen to call for a new plebiscite between
that of assimilation, and I mean assimilation, and sovereignty.
Since this is truly a process of mutual determination, we are will
to consider your proposal if, if you are willing to consider our
amendments.
In any attempt to structure a plebiscite Congress has to follow
two important principles: fair play and good will.
Fair play means that all three options are presented on the bal-
lot on an equal footing.
Good will requires that all the status options have the same
guarantees in terms of access to the ballot, and that they are im-
mune to demagogic manipulations that adversely affect them.
If Congress acts with good will, and provides for fair play, you
will have the support of everyone in Puerto Rico.
If you don't, you not only miss another chance to break the sta-
tus impasse, but you will also make the situation worse.
H.R. 3024 does not need to discuss the legal nature of the cur-
rent relationship. By adopting a position on that debate, one way
or the other, you would alienate hundreds of thousands of Puerto
Ricans.
This is totally unnecessary.
The House adopted unanimously in 1990 a plebiscite bill that did
not dwell on this debate. Everyone here in Puerto Rico agrees that
Congress has the authority to mandate a status plebiscite.
To ascertain whether it is in light of the Treaty of Paris, the ter-
ritorial clause, or Section 9 of the Federal Relations Act is irrele-
vant and diverting.
Just legislate a plebiscite and let the scholars and analysts de-
bate the issue.
Civic groups, such as PROELA must have the same rights that
political parties to represent the various status options. We are as
active on this issue as the political parties, as you well know from
this hearing, so the law should grant us similar rights to the politi-
cal parties.
We now direct our attention to how H.R. 3024's offer for a bilat-
eral pact should be improved to comply with international law,
U.S. constitutional law, and the aspirations of Puerto Rico as ex-
pressed in 1993.
First, the options of a free associated State, in Spanish, Estado
Libre Asociado. And independence should be separated. Inter-
68
national law recognizes them as separate options, and so should
the bill.
Not to do so would be against the principles of fair play and good
will.
Second, the language concerning the U.S. citizenship of Puerto
Ricans living on the island, under the bilateral compact, should be
identical to the section by section analysis of Section 172 of the
compacts included in the Compact of Free Association Act of 1985.
And that quote is in my written statement.
We also submit a legal paper of citizenship issues prepared by
PROELA vice president, the gentleman at my right, Raul Mariani-
Franco.
Regarding other aspects of the Estado Libre Asociado offer, we
are filing a ballot text to be included in the law. We are ready to
discuss that text in detail.
But let us be totally clear. Estado Libre Asociado has to be one
of the options of the Puerto Rican people, but not as it is today.
Instead, it must be included as it should be, sovereign, clearly out-
side the territorial clause powers, and associated to the United
States by means of a bilateral compact.
Your willingness to include this legitimate option would be the
clearest indicator of the seriousness of your offer.
The Congress is now considering H.R. 3024. The administration
has expressed a clear position with regards to the inclusion of the
1993 plebiscite's winning option, and the guarantee of Puerto
Ricans' U.S. citizenship.
We agree with the administration on both counts.
You should revise H.R. 3024 to accommodate the present views
to remove unnecessary diversions and to provide for a fair and just
process that commits Congress irrevocably to a resolve of the plebi-
scite.
If you are not willing to do so, in a plebiscite that includes as
statehood offers, then bite the bullet. Say so, say so to the leader-
ships of the statehood party, say so to the Puerto Rican people, and
be willing to remove statehood from the list of options.
For almost 100 years the Puerto Rican nation has waited for
Congress to fill its obligation, and provide us with a process that
ensures final disposition of the political status issue.
We have been ready for all these years. Now it is time to show
that you in Congress, and in the United States, are ready too.
Las generaciones pasadas, presentes y futuras de
Puertorriquenos esperan por ustedes. El pueblo de Puerto Rico
hablo y continua hablando hoy. La bola Senoras del Congreso, esta
en su cancha.
Muchas gracias.
[The prepared statement of Luis Vega-Ramos may be found at
the end of hearing.]
Mr. Young. I thank you, Luis, for your testimony.
Does anyone — Yes, go ahead. The gentleman from Hawaii.
Mr. Abercrombie. Sr. Ramos
Mr. Vega-Ramos. Mr. Vega would be the correct Spanish way of
arranging names. It's that the first last name is the correct one. So
I would be Mr. Vega.
Mr. Abercrombie. I beg your pardon.
69
Mr. Vega-Ramos. No problem.
Mr. Abercrombie. Sr. Vega, excuse me. What would you say
then if Mr. Young submits the result of the plebiscite with the sta-
tus definitions, as they were presented to the people of Puerto Rico
in this plebiscite, to the Congress with the sense of the Congress'
resolution to be voted up or down?
Mr. Vega-Ramos. That could be a way to go. But I think that
would be unnecessarily diverting. There is a core element on that
definition that is a bilateral compact that can only be amended by
mutual consent.
We are asking, in our amendment, that if you are willing to offer
a free association alternative, you incorporate the concept of Estado
Libre Asociado into that alternative, and separate it from the op-
tion of independence.
If you would do so, and would do it in a fair process that guaran-
tees equal access to all the options in the ballot, I would think that
would be a fair response to the 93' plebiscite.
Mr. Abercrombie. But that's not the question I asked. I asked
a very simple question.
You cite this plebiscite, the plebiscite came out with 48 point
something, 46 point something. The claim by the Commonwealth
people is that this constitutes the will of the people. Therefore, it
could be put forward to the Congress. By resolution by Mr. Young,
very simply a sense of the Congress resolution as to whether we
accept it or not in the Congress.
Mr. Vega-Ramos. I was very clear on my oral statement that I
thought that the correct way to answer to the plebiscite results was
to file a bilateral compact act.
However, you have chosen a different path.
Mr. Abercrombie. That's right.
Mr. Vega-Ramos. I would love to see a bilateral compact act
come before Congress and be considered.
Mr. Abercrombie. I'm trying to explain something
Mr. Vega-Ramos. Go ahead.
Mr. Abercrombie. — in my question.
What you think, and we should do, and what we're going to do
may be two different things.
Mr. Vega-Ramos. I grant you that.
Mr. Abercrombie. Now, in terms of the Commonwealth, believe
me, I've been through this before, you don't have anything to say
about it.
I'm asking you, if the argument is — and I came down with no
preconceptions, but I'm learning a lot at this hearing, I'll tell you —
if the argument is that the vote taken previously in the plebiscite
is the will of the people, then should we or should we not submit
that to the Congress for its approval or disapproval?
Mr. Vega-Ramos. The thing I think it should be done is that
Congress should structure a response, and then vote on whether
it
Mr. Abercrombie. You can't have it both ways.
Mr. Vega-Ramos. No.
Mr. Abercrombie. On the one hand I'm being told that I have
to accept the results of this plebiscite. And now you're telling me
I should restructure the results of the plebiscite.
70
Mr. Vega-Ramos. And the results of this plebiscite was to legis-
late a bilateral compact for Puerto Rico. And you can do that out-
side the territorial
Mr. Abercrombie. That's not what it says in this definition.
Because I can tell you right now, I believe if we submit this —
and I'm becoming more and more to this conclusion — if we just sub-
mit this as a sense of the Congress resolution, and vote on it, I'll
bet the vote is 435 to nothing.
Mr. Vega-Ramos. Yes.
Mr. Abercrombie. And then you're going to have to start all over
again anyway. But maybe that's the cleanest way to do it.
Because if the end result of this hearing is an endless debate
over what the results of the plebiscite was previously, then it
seems to me that we need to take then what was on the plebiscite,
what people understood to be the status definitions, and submit it
to the Congress.
Because Mr. Burton, Mr. Young, and the others, Mr. Gallegly
and Mr. Oilman have stated correctly — and I believe the quotation
comes in Senator Berrios' statement, I believe he quotes the let-
ter— it indicates very clearly that Congress defines the nature of
the relationship.
And so if this is, if this is the position of the people of Puerto
Rico at the time the plebiscite was taken, then it seems to me that
we should put it before the Congress and see whether it's accept-
able.
My guess is that it will not be. That's why I'm bringing it to your
attention. That doesn't please me, and it's not something forward
to, believe me.
But — So I'm asking the question as to whether or not this would
at least clear the decks for another attempt at trying to discern
what should be done.
Mr. Vega-Ramos. Can I clear an aspect of what you've been ar-
guing?
Mr. Abercrombie. Yes, of course.
Mr. Vega-Ramos. I believe that the people of Puerto Rico voted
in 1993, and it was the definition adopted in 1990, that the Com-
monwealth had to be developed outside the territorial clause, and
let me explain this to you.
This international law is free association. We recognize that in
Congressman's Young bill there is an offer for free association. We
think it has to be clarified and it has to be worked on so that it
reflects the proper parameters of the free association, in terms of
international law, tl.S. constitutional law, and the aspirations of
Puerto Rico for a bilateral relationship.
Mr. Abercrombie. OK.
Mr. Vega-Ramos. If you want to go that way, then work within
the bill, show good faith, and have an option that can be defended
here.
But I think that the offer of association, as presented right now,
needs to be worked, and that's we are suggesting amendments the
way that we did. It's up to you.
Mr. Abercrombie. I appreciate that.
Mr. Vega-Ramos. It's up to you to decide
Mr. Abercrombie. Thank you very much.
71
Mr. Vega-Ramos. — if you are willing to structure the process
that way or not.
Mr. Abercrombie. Thank you.
Mr. Young. I thank the gentleman from Hawaii. The gentleman
from Indiana, Mr. Burton.
Mr. Burton. Real briefly. The bottom line is what we covered be-
fore, and that is the Congress of the United States, from a fiscal
standpoint, is going to start making cuts in spending.
The 936 program, I think, is in peril. It think it is going to be
reduced and phased out over a period of seven years.
I think the welfare benefits and other benefits that are received
by Puerto Rican citizens, for which, much of which they're not
taxed, are going to be reduced as time goes by as well.
And benefits without taxation, I think, is going to be gradually
phased out.
I think this will provide a hardship on Puerto Rico unless they
have some kind of really, truly elected representation in Congress.
And the thing I'd like to get across today is, if you had two United
States senators, one senator can tie up the Senate, if you've ever
watched the U.S. Senate.
If you had two elected senators, and six or seven congressmen,
you would have a real voice in explaining to the people of the main-
land, and the rest of the United States, the needs of Puerto Rico,
and why certain things should be done.
As it is right now you have one delegate who really doesn't even
get to vote on the floor.
And these programs as they are phased out, and they will be
phased out many of them because of fiscal constraints in the Con-
gress, when these programs are phased out, I think it will prove
a hardship for Puerto Rico.
So it seems to me if logic dictates that the best course of action,
at least from my perspective, and I'm not getting into the internal
politics of the island, it seems to me that logic would dictate at
some point that statehood would be the logical alternative, because
you would have elected representation that would lead to a real ful-
fillment of the dreams and aspirations of the Puerto Rican people.
Mr. Young. I thank the gentleman. The gentleman from Guam,
Mr. Underwood.
Mr. Underwood. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I would like to ask Mr. Garcia a question.
A lot of — there's been a great deal of discussion about the nature
of the Commonwealth, and its removal, the removal of Puerto Rico
from the list of non-self-governing territories at the United Na-
tions.
And the legislation being proposed has a very unique dimension
in it in that it recognizes the U.N. definitions of what constitutes
ultimately the fulfillment of self determination.
The creation of the Commonwealth actually occurred in the early
fifties, and predated the definition that is made by the United Na-
tions, which came in the succeeding decade.
The question I have for you is if in fact it is your belief — and I
assume it is — that Puerto Rico is non-self-governing, and that the
Commonwealth arrangement is not a self governing form of govern-
ment or relationship with the United States, would you seek to be
72
placed back on the list of non-self-governing territories? And why,
or why not?
Mr. Garcia-Passalacqua. Well, I think it's very clear that Puer-
to Rico is not self governing. And I think it's very clear that Puerto
Rico is a colony of the United States. And I think it's very clear
also that the intention of the United States when it appeared be-
fore the United Nations was to let the judiciary decide a point in
which there was very strong disagreement between Secretary of
State Dean Atchison, and Governor of Puerto Rico, Luis Muhoz
Marin.
Governor Luis Muiioz Marin thought that he had established a
bilateral compact of free association with the United States. The
Secretary of State, Dean Atchison said, no, this is not what hap-
pened. They settled their disagreement by saying we will abide by
what the courts say.
On that issue, Congressman, I am offering to the staff of this
committee, and I leave it with you, 65 secret documents of the
United States Government that I am filing as part of my testi-
mony, so that you can see all these letters between State and Jus-
tice and Muhoz and everybody else, so that you will be — if the
chairman agrees — that you will be, I'm sorry to say, educated on
the question.
Mr. Burton. Yeah, but in order to validate your point wouldn't
it make sense to
Mr. Garcia-Passalacqua. Could I have a ruling from the chair,
first?
Mr. Young. Yes, you may submit it for the record, absolutely.
Mr. Garcia-Passalacqua. Thank you very much.
Mr. Burton. But in order to validate your point wouldn't it make
sense to seek restoring the status of Puerto Rico as a non-self-gov-
erning territory, given that the fact that you endorsed the United
Nations' definitions of what constitutes self determination, and
that none of those have been met?
Mr. Garcia-Passalacqua. The question is if the United States of
American should notify the United Nations that it is not in agree-
ment with the resolution adopted in 52', that the United States has
changed its mind?
I think it's perfectly feasible for the United States to apologize
to the United Nations and say, we had a disagreement then, we
didn't bring it into the open, the documents are here, they have
been declassified. Now we can explain to you what happened.
Governor Luis Muhoz Marin, and President Dwight D. Eisen-
hower had to different theories, and we opted not to bring that dif-
ference open to the United Nations.
Therefore, for that reason, we are hereby apologizing to the Unit-
ed Nations, and asking that Puerto Rico be installed in the list of
colonies again. No problem.
Mr. Burton. OK.
Mr. Young. Dr. Ramirez, do you want to comment, please?
Ms. Ramirez de Ferrer. Yes, I do.
I don't think they have to clarify anything. Our documents — be-
cause we have our own little share of documents as well^and our
documents say that the United States definitely told the U.N. that
we continue to be an unincorporated territory.
73
So we don't need to do anything. That was — and that's going to
be included in my testimony, and you have it right here. Foreign
relations with the United States, years 1952 to 54'. And it says
very, very, very clearly that the people of Puerto Rico have attained
a full measure of self government consistent with Puerto Rico's sta-
tus as a territory of the United States.
So, what needs to be clarified?
The documents are clear. It's the interpretation and what has
been done with them that has caused this confusion.
Mr. Underwood. Well, I think what needs to be clarified is we
have a definition of what constitutes self determination that came
years after the creation of the Commonwealth, and what is happen-
ing is that there is a great disjuncture here between how, whether
people are maintaining that Puerto Rico is non-self-governing and
it should be on the non-self-governing list, given the fact that this
legislation proposes to accept that committee's definition of what
constitutes self governing.
Mr. Garcia-Passalacqua. Congressman, my written testimony
proves unquestionably, with at least 15 official quotes, in official
memorandums from Luis Muhoz Marin, that the option that he fa-
vored is the one defined by the United Nations in 1960.
He foresaw that. That's what he wanted. A sovereign free associ-
ated State of Puerto Rico with dual citizenship. So there is no prob-
lem. I mean, the intent of Luis Muhoz Marin is exactly what Reso-
lution 1541 Roman 15 says, free association.
Mr. Underwood. But that isn't what he got. Is that what he got?
Mr. Garcia-Passalacqua. That's not what he got because there
was a difference between Dwight D. Eisenhower and Luis Muhoz
Marin. That's the record.
Mr. Underwood. OK, thank you.
Mr. Young. This is a learning process, believe me.
The gentleman from Wisconsin, Mr. Roth.
Mr. Roth. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have no questions other
than to say that I appreciate the testimony of our witnesses today.
I paid attention, and I appreciate the comments they made.
I would like to ask Dr. Myriam, however. She is pro-statehood,
and I know she studied this issue of statehood in great detail, I'm
sure.
Ms. Ramirez de Ferrer. Yes, I definitely have, Mr. Roth.
Mr. Roth. Let me ask you this. There is another area in the
United States that has applied for statehood, and that is the Dis-
trict of Columbia. Would you be in favor of statehood for the Dis-
trict of Columbia?
Ms. Ramirez de Ferrer. Well, no, I'm not, because I see that the
constitution decided to take away some land from all the States,
and make the District of Columbia, and I have heard that these
States are very willing to receive that land back, and give them full
representation in Congress.
It's not the same situation as Puerto Rico, sir.
Mr. Roth. So you would not be in favor of statehood for the Dis-
trict of Columbia.
Ms. Ramirez de Ferrer. I would not be in favor of statehood for
Washington, D.C.
Mr. Roth. Thank you very much.
74
Ms. Ramirez de Ferrer. OK.
Mr. Roth. One thing, Dr. Myriam, or Myriam, or Juan — I love
your name, Garcia
Mr. Garcia-Passalacqua. Passalacqua. It's a Corsican name,
Congressman.
Mr. Roth. Passalacqua, Esquire.
Mr. Garcia-Passalacqua. It's a tough one.
Mr. Roth. I love it. I mean . . .
Mr. Garcia-Passalacqua. Thank you very much.
Mr. Young. If the questions aren't asked, don't take offense. I
happen to think that all the testimony, especially the indepth his-
tory and the background is extremely important for the committee.
Again, I want to stress to the panel, and those remaining in the
audience on the media, that this is a process that takes a consider-
able length of time. And every time we get some historical back-
ground, what was intended, where we're going, the one thing I
want to stress again and again, I expect to get us off the dime.
We must do something. And I have not particularly decided what
it would be, but we cannot have the status quo as we are being rec-
ognized and talk about other countries and democracy and the
right to vote, and all the other good things right next door.
I do thank these witnesses, and I appreciate it very much.
The next panel. Panel Two. We have a senator, Antonio Fas-
Alzamora, Roberto Buso-Aboy, and Herbert Brown III; three peo-
ple.
Again, to the panel I apologize. Our audiences are dwindling
quite rapidly. But it makes little difference because your testimony
carries just as much weight as you give it orally.
And those that were unable to give it orally, their testimony will
be sent in also as part of the record, and will be analyzed to the
best of our ability to come to a sound solution.
Senator, in deference, you're up.
STATEMENT OF ANTONIO J. FAS ALZAMORA, ESQ.
Mr. Fas Alzamora. Good afternoon.
Mr. Young. I like your pin, by the way. I had one the other day
that looked similar to that. Go ahead.
Mr. Fas-Alzamora. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and Con-
gressman. I am going to deliver my statement in Spanish.
Mr. Young. Yes. Without objection, so ordered.
Mr. Fas-Alzamora. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and Con-
gressmen. I am going to deliver my statement in Spanish.
Mr. Young. If there is no objection. Approved.
Mr. Fas Alzamora. Sehores Congresistas, soy legislador del
Estado Libre Asociado de Puerto Rico desde hace veinte anos y
ocupo la posicion de portavoz alterno del Partido Popular
Democratico en el Senado.
Quiero dejar consignado en este distinguido foro mi firme
oposicion al proyecto del Congresista Don Young por entender que
atenta contra la libre determinacion de los puertorriquenos
expresada en la consulta plesbicitaria del 1993 por ser un proyecto
de estadidad.
Ese plesbicito fue un proceso limpio, legitimado por el voto de
uno punto siete millones de compatriotas que fieles a su tradicion
75
de pueblo, amante de la democracia decidio continuar siendo un
Estado Libre Asociado y rechazo categoricamente la estadidad y la
independencia.
No hay nada mas anti democratico y anti norteamericano que no
respetar la voluntad mayoritaria de un pueblo. Pretender Uevar a
cabo otra consulta de estatus, irrespectivamente de las opciones
incluidas en la papeleta electoral y de las defmiciones de cada
formula, es un golpe bajo a la democracia puertorriqueiia.
Estados Unidos se vanagloria como cuna de la democracia y como
salvaguarda de los procesos y las decisiones de los pueblos. Asi lo
ha hecho en los cinco continentes. ^Por que entonces no hace lo
propio en Puerto Rico, por que un grupo de congresistas
norteamericanos insisten en validar un proceso democratico
convocando a otro ejercicio electoral para satisfacer el interes
revanchista del gobierno pro estadista de Puerto Rico?
Este ultimo es como volver a poner en practica la vieja filosofia
del imperialismo. De aceptar un resultado electoral unicamente
cuando le es favorable al gobierno y a sus aliados y desvalidarlo,
anularlo o destruirlo cuando no le favorece.
El tratar de imponernos el proyecto en cuestion del distinguido
Congresista Young es una actuacion anti democratica de parte de
quienes lo patrocinan. Estados Unidos como nacion y el Congreso
como institucion respeta la democracia norteamericana. Debe
tambien por tanto, respetar la democracia de la nacion
puertorriqueiia.
Nuestra condicion juridica fue (inintiligible) desde el 1952. Fue
el gobierno de ustedes en el 1953 por voz del propio Presidente
Einsenhower que defendio ante el mundo a traves del foro de las
Naciones Unidas que Puerto Rico habia alcanzado su gobierno
propio bajo el Estado Libre Asociado.
Le pregunto, lie consta a ustedes que ha cambiado esas
condiciones desde entonces para que concluyan como imperativo la
necesidad de un cambio en nuestro sistema de gobernar la nacion
puertorriqueha?
Uno de los principales conceptos de la Constitucion del Estado
Libre Asociado que entra en vigor precisamente con la aprobacion
del Congreso de los Estados Unidos, establece que su poder politico
emana del pueblo y que sera ejercido de conformidad con su
voluntad.
Este proyecto Young pretende convertir en retorica hueca la
legitimidad internacional que ha dado el propio gobierno de los
Estados Unidos al Estado Libre Asociado, tanto en la declaracion
de las Naciones Unidas como en subsiguientes declaraciones ante
la comunidad mundial.
Es un tremendo contrasentido el proyecto pues esta opuesto a
nuestra condicion juridica por considerarla inferior y colonial. Y
busca cambiarla por otra, como la estadidad que representa la
negacion total de lo que hemos alcanzado los puertorriqueiios como
pueblo, como nacion caribeiia.
Recordemos que la estadidad es sinonimo de anexion,
incorporacion e integracion. Seria sin duda alguna, diluir nuestra
nacion en la nacion norteamericana y como resultado, nuestra
desaparicion como nacion del mundo. Pues una vez asimilados
como estados de la union, no habria forma de dar marcha atras
76
convirtiendonos en colonia permanente de Estados Unidos y
minoria en nuestra propia patria.
Esto que promueve el proyecto si es inferioridad. Puerto Rico es
una nacion con su particular y comun raza, historia, idioma
espanol, literatura, cultura, territorio, valores y costumbres y
tradiciones. Cualquier asunto entre el continente y la isla debe
estar enmarcado en el contexto de que somos dos naciones distintas
aunque asociadas mediante un pacto bilateral en la busqueda de
un proposito comiin.
Los puertorriquenos hemos contribuido durante los pasados
noventa y ocho ailos al que ustedes puedan estar disfrutando del
sueno americano. Ustedes por la forma en que comenzo nuestra
relacion hace ese mismo numero de aiios, tienen la obligacion legal
y moral de contribuir a que sigamos desarrollando el suefio
puertorriqueno expresado democraticamente por la mayoria de
nuestro pueblo.
Atendiendo afirmativamente el resultado del plesbicito de 1993 y
continuar desarrollando al Estado Libre Asociado al maximo de su
autonomia compatible con nuestra relacion permanente con
Estados Unidos.
Asi ambas naciones podran seguir conviviendo con la misma
dignidad, tal y como se acompaiian en la actualidad en igualdad de
condiciones nuestra bandera puertorriquena y la bandera
norteamericana.
Las pretensiones del proyecto Young de desnacionalizar a Puerto
Rico a traves de la estadidad es como lanzarle piedras a la luna.
Ya el pueblo de Puerto Rico ha sido decidido en tres ocasiones
cuando se ha enfrentado a la disyuntiva de dejar de ser lo que
somos para convertirnos en otra cosa.
Por lo tanto, no insistan distinguidos Sehores Congresistas, pues
el verdadero y linico poder digno para la mayoria de los
puertorriquefios es aquel que nace y se forja de nuestras propias
entrahas. Muchas gracias.
[The prepared statement of Antonio J. Fas Alzamora may be
found at the end of hearing.]
Mr. Young. Thank you, Senator. I don't know who is next in
order. Let's go with Mr. Brown, let's start with Mr. Brown.
STATEMENT OF HERBERT W. BROWN, III, CHAIRMAN,
CITIZENS EDUCATIONAL FOUNDATION
Mr. Brown. Mr. Chairman, I have a statement which I have sub-
mitted. I would like to have it incorporated as part of the record.
Mr. Young. Without objection, we'll put your whole statement in
the record.
Mr. Brown. I also have a brief statement that I would like to
read. I have additional copies I'd like also to have included in the
record.
Mr. Young. Proceed.
Mr. Brown. Thank you.
Good afternoon, and welcome to Puerto Rico. My name is Herb
Brown. I am a second generation Puerto Rican. My father was born
here of American parents, and my mother, a Californian by birth,
carre to Puerto Rico to teach in the public school system, prior to
the outbreak of World War IL
77
My U.S. citizenship then, like that of many of us here in Puerto
Rico, will be subject to statutory change in the event Congress de-
termines to change Puerto Rico's current status from an unincor-
porated territory to an independent Nation.
For that, and for many other reasons, I have led the Citizens
Educational Foundation's efforts to permanently secure U.S. citi-
zenship for Puerto Ricans through statehood, which will also erase
our current status as second class citizens, a status that denies us
representation in Congress and the presidential vote, and, at its
most insidious, allows the United States Government to legally dis-
criminate against American citizens residing here. A situation that
will continue if we don't embrace the historic opportunity presented
by H.R. 3024 to attain first class U.S. citizenship through state-
hood, or in the alternative, by choosing independence to replace it
with Puerto Rican citizenship.
In connection with these thoughts, I want to make three points
today that are pivotal to these hearings.
First, at the risk of respectfully disagreeing with you, I want to
say that the 1993 plebiscite, far from being inconclusive, was defin-
itive on at least one issue. That issue, which brings us together
today, was that the present status quo must be changed.
Second, that regardless of what
Mr. Abercrombie. Mr. Chairman — Excuse me, Mr. Brown.
Mr. BRO^VN. Yes.
Mr. Abercrombie. Mr. Chairman, is there a copy of this testi-
mony that you're reading in our files? I can't find it.
Mr. Brown. It's contained — this is a summary of my statement.
Mr. Young. It's probably in your packet. I mean, we'll get it —
Go ahead.
Mr. Roth. He submitted his full statement for the record. We let
him give an abbreviated version.
Mr. Abercrombie. Go ahead, sir.
Mr. Brown. Thank you.
Second, that regardless what some may say, Congress, through
this proposed legislation, and the letter of February 29, 1996 to the
leaders of the Puerto Rico Legislature, has addressed the results of
the 1993 plebiscite and set in motion a process through which the
Puerto Rican people can exercise their right to full self determina-
tion.
Third, that unless we take action, as outlined by this bill, to de-
termine our destiny, then we will continue to run the risk that
Congress, exercising its authority under the Constitution, will set-
tle once and for all the status issue in a way that may further
erode or end our rights as U.S. citizens and, most likely, create an
independent Puerto Rico.
Contrary to what some may argue. Congress did, indeed, address
the 1993 plebiscite results.
The response signed by the four chairmen of the committees and
subcommittees responsible for Puerto Rico carefully analyzed the
plebiscite results and the testimony given at hearings on the ballot
on October 17th, 1996. The result was the bill now before us.
Showing a keen knowledge of history and constitutional law, you
have correctly concluded that the winning formula, enhanced Com-
monwealth, was legally defective in that Congress was constitu-
78
tionally barred from implementing any of its provisions, including
the guarantee of U.S. citizenship and permanent ties with the
United States, provisions that can only be realized through state-
hood.
Having shown in 1993 that Commonwealth, or the status quo, is
but an impermanent state of affairs, the people of Puerto Rico have
the opportunity to determine the future status of the island, and
its relationship, if any, with the United States.
Congress has it in its power, constitutionally, to determine our
status and our citizenship. The territorial clause specifically confers
these powers on Congress, and it is within its authority, even its
duty, to exercise them.
We have it within our power to choose to retain our U.S. citizen-
ship, and forever cement our ties to the United States, in whose de-
fense of democracy we have made the supreme sacrifice since the
First World War. This statehood offers.
We also have it within our power to choose to become an inde-
pendent nation, and exchange our U.S. citizenship for a Puerto
Rican citizenship. A painful decision, yet one in keeping with inter-
national norms.
Finally, we have it within our power to abdicate our responsibil-
ities and cede control to those who profit from the status quo by
killing this bill, or failing to choose one of the two paths to full self
government this legislation offers.
These, then, are the choices available: statehood and U.S. citizen-
ship, and the right to participate as equals in the American proc-
ess; independence, and Puerto Rican Nationality and citizenship;
the status quo, with its impermanence both as to political status
and citizenship.
And, if we choose the latter, then those who have been singularly
unsuccessful in extending, enhancing, culminating, and perfecting
our status will have been successful only in transferring back to
Congress Puerto Rico's future.
Are we finally open to the challenge that this bill hands us, or
are we destined to allow political opportunism and short sighted
economic interests to defeat our right to self government?
For one, I believe that we are up to task Congress has laid out
for Puerto Rico. In this belief I ask all Puerto Ricans to support
this legislation, and then join together and exercise our right to full
self determination.
Thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of Herbert W. Brown III may be found
at the end of hearing.]
Mr. Young. Next is Mr. Roberto Buso Aboy of the Puerto Rican
Bar Association. You're not a trial lawyer, are you?
Mr. Buso-Aboy. I am.
Mr. Young. Oh, boy. Go ahead.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Young. I say that in jest, so don't take me too seriously.
STATEMENT OF ROBERTO BUSO ABOY, BAR ASSOCIATION OF
PUERTO RICO
Mr. Buso-Aboy. I answered in jest also.
79
Mr. Chairman and distinguished members, my name is Roberto
Buso-Aboy
Mr. Young. Roberto, could you pull the mic a little closer so we
can hear you clearly?
Mr. Buso-Aboy. My name is Roberto Buso-Aboy, chairman of the
Puerto Rico Bar Associations's Commission for the Study of the
Constitutional Development of Puerto Rico.
With me in the audience is Attorney Angelita Rieckehoff, Execu-
tive Director of the Bar.
We appear before you in representation of the oldest professional
institution in Puerto Rico, serving the country since 1840.
The Colegio de Abogados, as it is known in Spanish, is unified
and a compulsory Bar, with 9,600 members who are representative
of all the ideological currents in Puerto Rico.
The Bar Association has served as a forum for the multi partisan
dialog on the legal and constitutional aspects of Puerto Rico's rela-
tionship with the United States.
It maintains a permanent and long standing commission for the
Study of the Constitutional Development of Puerto Rico, composed
of lawyers of all political persuasions, and we make sure that we
do have lawyers of all political persuasions every time that we
meet.
The Commission, the Governing Board and/or the General As-
sembly of the Bar have adopted important reports and resolutions
on this issue.
I am submitting as an addendum to this statement that I am
reading to you copies of some of those reports and pronouncements
which are adopted by consensus, and unanimous vote, in the cer-
tainty that they will be very valuable to the study of the Congres-
sional committee.
As a matter of fact, I understand that you have been supplied
with a booklet which includes all the different resolutions since
1944.
In the past half century our institution has approved and issued
more than 18 reports on this issue. I'm not going to read the names
of them, because they are included in the booklet that has been
supplied to all the members of the committee.
Our Bar Association has appeared repeatedly before the United
Nations since 1972, where it has proclaimed the right of self deter-
mination of the people of Puerto Rico.
As we have said before, that forum, and we reiterate in this
forum right now, it is not the role of our Bar Association to deter-
mine which of the formulas of self government recognized by the
international community should be preferred by the people of Puer-
to Rico.
That decision rests with the people, and it should be followed
once they vote on it through a free and democratic expression of
their will.
We believe, notwithstanding, that it is the historic role of the Bar
Association to assist in our people's constitutional process by point-
ing out those minimum requirements that must be met in any of
the formulas that could be preferred by them.
80
For that reason, since 1963, we have pointed out the minimum
substantive requirements essential to each of the three formulas to
establish a political system of self government in our country.
After reiterating the requirement of sovereignty, and I make a
point of sovereignty, necessary to all the status formulas, we have
emphasized the minimum requirements that must exist in each of
the formulas of association, integration into the United States, or
outright independence.
We have also affirmed the minimum procedural requirements es-
sential to achieve full decolonization. And, of course, that's what
this is all about. And that's why we're here today.
The process of decolonization of Puerto Rico has been very slow
and traumatic.
In 1953, more than 44 years ago, based upon the fact that our
country had become a Commonwealth, and that such a develop-
ment had allegedly ended the colonial regime, the United States
was relieved from delivering the annual reports to the respective
organism of the United Nations about its administration of Puerto
Rico.
In spite of those commitments, after 44 years, there still exists
the same restrictions to the freedoms of the people of Puerto Rico,
as a consequence of our relationship with the United States.
Puerto Rico lacks sovereignty and control over its own affairs.
And as Mr. Brown so eloquently put it before, if anything the
1993 plebiscite shows that everyone in Puerto Rico, at least all the
voters that went to the polls, want change, some type of change.
As the decisions of the United States Supreme Court, and the
conduct of Congress attests, Puerto Rico is subject, for all practical
purposes, to the quasi absolute power of the territorial clause of the
United States Constitution which vests upon Congress, and to the
anarchic and accidental constraints of Federal administrative agen-
cies, which are not of Congress's doing, but they happen against us
anyway.
It is imperative to renegotiate the relationship between the Unit-
ed States and Puerto Rico.
The Bar Association has urged the Legislative Assembly of Puer-
to Rico to consult voters, through a referendum, to determine if
they wish a Constitutional Convention, that can actually bring
forth a proposal for anew status, and to revise the terms of the ex-
isting relationship between Puerto Rico and the United States.
The Bar Association, looking at H.R. 3024, respectfully rec-
ommends the following to the committee.
First, it should reaffirm the inalienable right to self determina-
tion of the people of Puerto Rico. In the manner it is stated right
now, we understand it is not sufficiently strong, and I really think
that the committee believes in self determination for Puerto Rico,
and we are asking that it be reaffirmed clearly, without any doubts
as to our rights.
Second, reaffirm that for any form of free association between
Puerto Rico and the United States to be acceptable, it must be at-
tained in conditions of political equality and respecting inter-
national law, recognizing once again the sovereignty of the people
of Puerto Rico.
81
I may draw your attention to one of the documents in the booklet
that we gave you with was approved in 1977, and it's a statement
for the process of decolonization, which includes what should be in-
cluded specifically with regard to each one of the different for-
mulas.
Fourth, we call for a decolonization process involving a transi-
tional period that would guarantee the effective functioning of a
constituent assembly.
I know there is a minimum 10-year requirement, and contrary
to what Dr. Rossello said this morning, 4 years is certainly not
quite enough.
I mean, if it were my own decision, I would have my new status
right away. But we understand that politics and political processes
do take time if they are going to be made conscientiously and cor-
rectly.
So the Bar Association calls for this proceeding to take place for
a period long enough to have a functioning constituent assembly
set up in Puerto Rico to try to build up the new status that will
finally be adopted.
Fifth, we think that H.R. 3024 should be amended so that it ad-
heres faithfully to the minimum substantive and procedural re-
quirements which the Bar Association has suggested. As I told you,
there are 18 of them specifically set out in the adjoining document.
We make these recommendations in our role as the traditional
forum for the creative discussion by all political and ideological sec-
tors in Puerto Rico, and I am sure that by this time today you real-
ize that we are probably the only ones that have come forth with
some sort of a consensus feeling of anything regarding the process
of decolonization.
And we understand that that process should be acceptable to the
international community, because whether we like it or not, Puerto
Rico is still a colony, Puerto Rico should be and is subject to the
United Nations charter, and the United States, as the main signa-
tory and actual safe guarder of the United Nations should abide by
it.
Actually everyone in Puerto Rico of the different political persua-
sions has gone to the United Nations, and that includes all the po-
litical persuasions on the Island.
We commend this committee of the Congress for initiating an ef-
fort to help solve the colonial problem of our country. We like that.
I think it's late in coming, but it's here. I mean, maybe under the
Treaty of Paris it should have been done 80 years ago. It wasn't.
But it should start, and it should go forth from now on.
We strongly support and commend its initiative to open a dialog
that will protect the interests of both the United States and Puerto
Rico.
We are not a territory, except in legal terms, but we are a people,
somos un pueblo, a people with our very own Hispanic and African
culture, and that is the reality, the sociological reality of Puerto
Rico, and that's the way we like it. We have our own Spanish lan-
guage, traditions, and values. Among our values, we cherish our
democratic tradition, and for the sake of the people, the people of
Puerto Rico, the Bar Association of Puerto Rico invites this commit-
tee to carefully consider the reports we are hereby submitting.
82
Most particularly, we ask that you study the substantive require-
ments that our multi partisan membership has established four our
Nation's self determination.
We invite you to amend the current bill so as to clarify the terms
under which the Congress of the United States is willing to initiate
negotiations with the people of Puerto Rico on their political future.
In the event that the final version of the bill is congruent with
the traditional, long standing position of the Bar Association on
this issue, we will support it.
On the contrary, if the fmal version does not comply with the so
stated minimum requirements, the Bar Association will reject the
process.
In the hope that everything will work out for the better future
of both Puerto Rico and the United States, and with our sincerest
offer of cooperation in your endeavor, we thank you.
[The prepared statement of Roberto Buso-Aboy may be found at
the end of hearing.]
Mr. Young. Thank you, sir.
The gentleman from Puerto Rico, Romero, do you have any ques-
tions?
Mr. Romero-Barcelo. No, I have no questions.
Mr. Young. No questions. The gentleman from Hawaii?
Mr. Abercrombie. Yes.
Mr. Fas, I'm a little bit at a loss to understand the rationale of
your statement. If I did not know — you favor the Commonwealth,
correct?
Mr. Fas-Alzamora. Si, senor.
Mr. Abercrombie. Commonwealth status.
Mr. Fas-Alzamora. Si, senor.
Mr. Abercrombie. But if I didn't know that, and I was looking
at your testimony, it would seem to me you are favoring independ-
ence.
Mr. Fas-Alzamora. No.
Mr. Abercrombie. No?
Mr. Fas-Alzamora. No, lo digo claro en mi testimonio, Senor
Congresista. Lo que sucede es que la estadidad en mi concepto
disminuiria, por ser una condicion de anexion, disminuiria nuestra
nacion. Por eso parto de la primer pregunta que hay que hacerse.
<i,Que es Estados Unidos y que es Puerto Rico?
Los dos somos dos naciones, Puerto Rico fue una nacion colonia
de Espaiia, luego con la guerra Hispanoamericana pasamos a ser
colonia de Estados Unidos en el 1898. Conforme a nuestra teoria,
la teoria de ustedes que esbozaron ante las Naciones Unidas en el
'52, dejamos de ser colonia y nos convertimos en un Estado Libre
Asociado.
La estadidad para mi no es una opcion digna para Puerto Rico,
con el respeto de los companeros que la puedan respetar, <i,por que?
porque al ser. . ., la estadidad, para mi no es una solucion digna
al problema de estatus para los puertorriquehos porque
conlleva . . .
Mr. Abercrombie. No, I didn't. . . excuse me. . . excuse me. I
didn't say statehood, I said independence . . .
Mr. Fas-Alzamora. Por eso le digo. . ..
Mr. Abercrombie. You state . . .
83
Mr. Fas-Alzamora. O sea, si me explico . . .
Mr. Abercrombie. You state, for example, that the United States
is a nation with its own history, language, literature, territory, val-
ues and traditions. Puerto Rico is exactly the same, a nation with
it's own particular characteristics. Doesn't that mean that —
wouldn't I conclude from that that you wish Puerto Rico to be inde-
pendent?
Mr. Fas-Alzamora. No, no. Yo me explicaba que cualquier
solucion al estatus de Puerto Rico tiene que partir de la premisa,
que es Puerto Rico y que es Estados Unidos. Puerto Rico es una
nacion distinta a la nacion de Estados Unidos.
La diferencia es que estamos dos naciones unidas en un pacto bi-
lateral desde del 1952 tal y como ustedes mismos lo han dicho ante
las Naciones Unidas consecuentemente a la comunidad
internacional.
Mr. Abercrombie. Alright.
Mr. Fas-Alzamora. Yo no respaldo la independencia, no respaldo
la estadidad. Creo que las unicas dos opciones dignas que hay,
es . . .
Mr. Abercrombie. I accept that.
Mr. Fas-Alzamora. r. .el desarrollo del Estado Libre Asociado,
que conservaria la nacionalidad del pueblo puertorriqueno o la
independencia, que los separaria. La estadidad disolveria la nacion
puertorriqueha, seria la muerte de nuestra nacion. Por
consiguiente la desaparicion de Puerto Rico de las esferas
mundiales como nacion existente actual, por su cultura, por su
territorio, por su raza, por sus costumbres, con todo lo que pueda
ser las caracteristicas de una nacion.
Mr. Abercrombie. Thank you. If that's the case ... if that's the
case then, I will ask you the question I asked to Sr. Vega pre-
viously.
What if the suggestion was made to Chairman Young, because
you also indicate in your testimony that Governor Rossello has not
committed himself to accept the results of the 1993 plebiscite, and
defend them before the United States Congress, on behalf of the
people.
What if. . .if Congressman Young then took the plebescite re-
sults, with the definitions that appeared in the plebescite, and then
presented that to the Congress of the United States in a resolution
to see whether the Congress would approve or disapprove, would
that be acceptable to you?
Mr. Fas-Alzamora. Ese es precisamente debio haber sido el
primer paso, no a medidas del Congresista Young. El primer
paso. . . lo mismo que esta haciendo un comite en Casablanca,
haber establecido unos comites para defender en el Congreso el
resultado del plesbicito que entonces era responsivo a la voluntad
mayoritaria de la democracia puertorriquefia.
Cada uno de esos puntos son . . . pueden ser negociables. Porque
ahora mismo ustedes estan discutiendo la Seccion 936. El cafe tiene
una proteccion, ,j,por que no extenderlo a otros productos agricolas
puertorriquehos? Y asi cada una de las cosas podia discutirse.
Mr. Abercrombie. No, no, no, excuse me. No, I'm not going to
discuss everything. The testimony here today is that the plebescite
which took place in 1993, regardless of the closeness of the vote.
84
nonetheless, the pluraUty of people spoke for the Commonwealth as
defined in the plebiscite. That's true, is it not?
Mr. Fas-Alzamora. Eso es asi y lo que nosotros alegamos es que
este proyecto esta demas. Y si se impulsa, le estaria faltando a la
democracia puertorriqueha porque hubo un mandato. Lo correcto es
comenzar con ese mandato, con . . .
Mr. Abercrombie. Alright.
Mr. Fas-Alzamora. r. . rabajarlo en el Congreso y no imponer
un plesbicito hasta que no se le de contestacion al resultado del
1993. De ahi adelante, empezariam
Mr. Abercrombie. So the answer is. . .so the answer is that
you would be favorable for Chairman Young presenting the results
of the plebescite to the Congress to say yes or no as to whether we
would be in agreement.
Mr. Fas-Alzamora. No creo que sea tan simplista poder llevar
eso al Congreso para contestar si o no. Porque esto requiere
conversacion y porque tal como esta . . . tal como esta pues es muy
facil uno poder llegar a la conclusion, donde hemos podido notar y
por lo inicios de este mismo proyecto que hay unos miembros del
Congreso favorecedores de la estadidad. Y nadie que favorezca la
estadidad o pudiera favorecer la independencia van a favorecer
estas cosas. Seria una cuestion de dialogo.
Yo le diria una cosa con mucho respeto a ustedes miembros del
Congreso. El pueblo puertorriqueiio debe tener la libertad de
decidir cualquier asunto que tenga que ver con su estatus. La
situacion actual es, en el Congreso de los Estados Unidos pues hay
Congresistas que ya se han manifestado a favor de determinada
formula. Entonces, causa cierta preocupacion y hasta cierto
punto . . .
Mr. Abercrombie. I have not stated that.
Mr. Fas-Alzamora. No estoy diciendo usted obviamente. Causa
preocupacion y tiende a causar hasta indignacion de que si los
asuntos de Puerto Rico como termine yo mi mensaje, deben
resuelto por iniciativa de los puertorriquehos, entonces sea en la
direccion contraria.
Y eso hay que impugnarlo, por lo menos desde mi punto de vista.
Los asuntos de Puerto Rico deben ser iniciados por los
puertorriquehos y no por el Congreso. Y sobre todo cuando la
iniciativa del Congreso es contraria a la voluntad democratica del
pueblo como ha sido la iniciativa del distinguido Congresista
Young.
Mr. Abercrombie. I appreciate that, "muchas gracias".
Mr. Young. The gentleman from Indiana, do you have any ques-
tions?
Mr. Burton. I have no questions.
Mr. Young. The gentleman from Wisconsin, do you have any
questions?
Mr. Roth. I just appreciate the excellent testimony, Mr. Chair-
man, and I have no further questions.
Mr. Young. The gentleman from Guam, Mr. Underwood?
Mr. Underwood. I have no questions.
Mr. Young. No questions? The gentleman from Puerto Rico.
Mr. Romero-Barcelo. Una sola pregunta. Entonces, Senador
Faz-Alzamora, ,i,usted no esta de acuerdo con se le someta al
85
Congreso una propuesta de que si acepta o no lo que se pone que
es el Estado Libre Asociado en la papeleta del 93' para que vote
SI 0 no, si lo acepta o no lo acepta, usted no esta de acuerdo con
eso?
Mr. Fas-Alzamora. No, yo no he dicho eso, Senor Comisionado
Residente. Yo lo que he dicho . . .
Mr. Romero-Barcelo. ^Pues entonces esta de acuerdo?
Mr. Fas-Alzamora. Pero estaba en mi contestacion.
Mr. Romero-Barcelo. No, lo que quiero saber es
unicamente . . . para que el pueblo de Puerto Rico entienda
claramente si es que esta de acuerdo o no.
Mr. Fas-Alzamora. Pues fijese . . .
Mr. Romero-Barcelo. Es que me parece que podriamos hablar
claro si esta de acuerdo o no esta de acuerdo.
Mr. Fas-Alzamora. Para estar claro, yo le voy a dar mi
contestacion. Yo estoy de acuerdo tal y como dice la formula que
nosotros los de Puerto Rico, de que se haran gestiones en el
Congreso. No es de la forma que usted dice que voten si o no
porque esto no es un referendum.
Es que se haran gestiones en el Congreso y esas gestiones
conllevan dialogo, conversaciones, estudios economicos, viabilidad
de la responsabilidad que tiene el gobierno de Estados Unidos para
con Puerto Rico y su democracia, no se contempla con un simple
si 0 no.
Eso es lo que ustedes quisieran porque obviamente bajo esas
alternativas, pues usted tiene muy buenos amigos, los que no tengo
yo que podrian favorecer su formula rechazando unos pedidos
justos que hay de un pueblo puertorriqueiio como ciudadanos
norteamericanos que somos.
Mr. Romero-Barcelo. Para el record, estoy leyendo ahora de la
misma papeleta. Dice, "Un voto por el Estado Libre Asociado es un
mandato a favor de le garantizara si . . .
Mr. Fas-Alzamora. Siga leyendo . . .
Mr. Romero-Barcelo. r. . al proponerse, etcetera, etcetera. Asi
que, uso es lo que esta agui, tu no esta de acuerdo con esto..
Mr. Fas-Alzamora. Lease las minutas . . .
Mr. Romero-Barcelo. No hay problema, no hay problema. No
esta de acuerdo.
Mr. Fas-Alzamora. Yo le pido al Seiior Congresista. . . al Sr.
Comisionado Residente que siga leyendo y dice, "un mandato para
gestionar en el Congreso. . .". Nosotros no podemos fomentarlo
porque si nosotros fueramos los que tuvieramos la decision aca,
pues no habia que ir a solicitar nada al Congreso.
Se trata de solicitudes de legislacion Federal que no estan
incluidas en el pacto del Estado Libre Asociado y que el
Congreso . . . por el convenio propio se le delego al Congreso sobre
ese tipo de legislacion. Como es la 936, que no tienen que ver nada
necesariamente con el Estado Libre Asociado y su pacto pero que
no podrian existir bajo la estadidad del Comisionado Residente
defiende.
Mr. Young. I want to thank you for your testimony and your
strong beliefs and your positions. And I also want to thank the au-
dience again and all those participants. I want to thank the press.
86
For the first time I feel a little bit kinder to you because it's been
hotter than the devil down here. You're all fanning yourselves.
But as of now, this hearing is adjourned, and we will continue
this later on down the road, and hopefully will arrive at a solution
for the people of Puerto Rico.
The hearing is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 2:50 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
87
104th congress
2d Session
H. R. 3024
To provide a process leading to full self-government for Puerto Rieo.
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
March 6, 1996
Mr. Young of Alaska (for himself, Mr. Gallegly, Mr. Gingrich, Mr.
Serrano, Mr. Kennedy of Rhode Island, Mr. Rahall, Mr. Romero-
Barcelo, Mr. GiLMAN, Mr. BURTON of Indiana, Mr. UNDERWOOD, Mr.
Calvert, Mr. Longley, Mr. Gene Green of Texas, Mr. Deutsch, and
Mr. Klink) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Com-
mittee on Resources, and in addition to the Committee on Rules, for a
period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for
consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the com-
mittee concerned
A BILL
To provide a process leading to fiiU self-government for
Puerto Rieo.
1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa-
2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.
4 (a) Short Title. — This Act may be cited as the
5 "United States-Puerto Rico Political Status Act".
6 (b) Table op Contents. — The table of contents for
7 this Act is as follows:
88
Sec. 1. Short title.
Sec. 2. Findings.
Sec. 3. Policy.
Sec. 4. Process for Puerto Rican fiill self-government, including the initial deci-
sion stage, transition stage, and implementation stage.
Sec. 5. Requirements relating to referenda, including inconclusive referendum
and applicable laws.
Sec. 6. Congressional procedures for consideration of legislation.
Sec. 7. Availability of fluids for the referenda.
1 SEC. 2. FINDINGS.
2 The Congress finds the following:
3 (1) Puerto Rico is an unincorporated and lo-
4 cally self-governing territory of the United States,
5 ceded to the United States and under this Nation's
6 sovereignty pursuant to the Treaty of Paris ending
7 the Spanish-American War in 1898. Article EX of
8 the Treaty of Paris expressly recognizes the author-
9 ity of Congress to provide for the political status of
10 the inhabitants of the territory.
11 (2) United States citizenship was extended to
12 Puerto Rico in 1917, as well as partial application
13 of the United States Constitution.
14 (3) In the period 1950-1952, Congress author-
15 ized, amended, and then approved a constitution for
16 Puerto Rico's local government, which is now called
17 the "Commonwealth of Puerto Rico", without alter-
18 ing the territory's fimdamental economic, political,
19 and legal relationship with the United States.
20 (4) In the 1989 State of the Union Message,
21 President George Bush urged the Congress to take
•HK S024 IH
89
3
1 the necessary steps to authorize a federally reeog-
2 nized process allowing the people of Puerto Rico, for
3 the first time since the Treaty of Paris entered into
4 force, to freely express their wishes regarding their
5 future political status in a congressionally recognized
6 referendum, a step in the process of self-determina-
7 tion which the Congress has yet to authorize.
8 (5) In November of 1993, the Government of
9 Puerto Rico conducted a plebiscite initiated under
10 local law on Puerto Rico's political status. In that
1 1 vote none of the three status propositions received a
12 majority of the votes cast. The results of that vote
13 were: 48.6 percent commonwealth, 46.3 percent
14 statehood, and 4.4 percent independence.
15 (6) In 1994, President William Jefferson Clin-
16 ton established the Executive Branch Interagency
17 Working Group on Puerto Rico to coordinate the re-
18 view, development, and implementation of executive
19 branch administrative policy concerning Puerto Rico
20 in hght of the November 1993 plebiscite in the is-
21 lands.
22 (7) There have been inconsistent and conflicting
23 interpretations of the 1993 plebiscite results, and
24 under the Territorial Clause of the Constitution (ar-
25 tide IV, section 3, clause 2), Congress has the au-
•HR 3024 IH
90
4
1 thority and responsibility to determine Federal pol-
2 icy and clarify status issues in order to advance the
3 self-determination process in Puerto Rico.
4 (8) On December 14, 1994, the Puerto Rico
5 Legislature enacted Concurrent Resolution 62, which
6 requested the 104th Congress to respond to the re-
7 suits of the 1993 Puerto Rico Status Plebiscite and
8 to indicate the next steps in resolving Puerto Rico's
9 political status.
10 (9) Nearly 4,000,000 United States citizens live
11 in the islands of Puerto Rico, which have been with-
12 in the American political system and the United
13 States customs territory for almost 100 years, mak-
14 ing Puerto Rico the oldest, largest, and most popu-
15 lous United States island territory at the southeast-
16 ern-most boundary of our Nation, located astride the
17 strategic shipping lanes of the Atlantic Ocean and
18 Caribbean Sea.
19 (10) Pull self-government for Puerto Rico is at-
20 tainable only through establishment of a political
21 status either without or within United States sov-
22 ereignty, under which Puerto Rico is no longer an
23 unincorporated territory subject to the plenary au-
24 thority of Congress arising from the Territorial
25 Clause.
•HR 3024 m
91
5
1 SEC. 3. POLICY.
2 In recognition of the significant level of local self-gov-
3 ernment which has been attained by Puerto Rico, and the
4 desire by both the United States and Puerto Rico to en-
5 able the people of the territory to achieve full self-govem-
6 ment through a self-determination process consistent with
7 United States and internationally recognized standards,
8 this Act is adopted with a commitment to encourage the
9 mutual development and implementation of procedures to
10 determine the political status of Puerto Rico.
1 1 SEC. 4. PROCESS FOR PUERTO RICAN FULL SELF-GOVERN-
12 MENT, INCLUDING THE INITIAL DECISION
13 STAGE, TRANSITION STAGE, AND IMPLEMEN-
14 TATION STAGE.
15 (a) Initial Decision Stage. — ^A referendum on
16 Puerto Rico's political status shall be held not later than
17 December 31, 1998. The referendum shall be held in ac-
18 cordance with the applicable provisions of Puerto Rico's
19 electoral law and other relevant statutes, and approval
20 must be by a majority of the valid votes cast. The referen-
21 dum shall be on the following question:
22 "Which path leading to full self-government for Puer-
23 to Rico do you prefer to be developed through a transition
24 plan enacted by the Congress and approved by the people
25 of Puerto Rico?
•HR 3024 IH
92
6
1 "(1) A path of separate Puerto Riean sov-
2 ereignty leading to independence or free association,
3 in which —
4 "(A) Puerto Rico is a sovereign nation
5 with full authority and responsibility for its in-
6 ternal and external affairs, exercising in its own
7 name and right the powers of government with
8 respect to its territory and population, lauguage
9 and culture, and determining its own relations
10 and participation in the community of nations;
11 "(B) a negotiated treaty of friendship and
12 cooperation or an international bilateral pact of
13 free association terminable at will by either
14 Puerto Rico or the United States, defii^s fu-
15 ture relations between Puerto Rico and the
16 United States, providing for cooperation and
17 assistance in matters of shared interest as
18 agreed and approved by Puerto Rico and the
19 United States pursuant to this Act and their re-
20 spective coiistitutional processes;
21 "(C) a constitution democratically insti-
22 tuted by the people of Puerto Rico, estai)lishing
23 a republican form of full self-government and
24 se<'uring the rights of citizens of the Puerto
25 Rican natimi, is the supreme law, and ti*e Con-
•HR 3024 IH
93
7
1 stitution and laws of the United States no
2 longer apply in Puerto Rico;
3 "(D) Puerto Rico exercises the sovereign
4 power to determine and control its own nation-
5 ality and citizenship, and United States nation-
6 ality and citizenship conferred on the people of
7 Puerto Rico based upon birth in the territory
8 during the period in which the United States
9 exercised sovereignty and jurisdiction over
10 Puerto Rico is withdrawn in favor of Puerto
1 1 Rican nationality and citizenship, and the Unit-
12 ed States Congress has authority to prescribe
13 criteria for affected individuals to establish eli-
14 gibility for retention of United States national-
15 ity and citizenship or naturalization in the
16 United States on a basis which does not create
17 an exception to the establishment and preserva-
18 tion of separate United States and Puerto
19 Rican nationality and citizenship;
20 "(E) upon recognition of Puerto Rico by
21 the United States as a sovereign nation and es-
22 tablishment of government-to-government rela-
23 tions on the basis of comity and reciprocity,
24 Puerto Rico's representation to the United
25 States is accorded full diplomatic status;
•HR 3024 IH
24-926 - 96 - 4
94
8
1 "(F) Puerto Rico is eligible for United
2 States assistance provided on a government-to-
3 government basis, including foreign aid or pro-
4 grammatic assistance, at levels determined at
5 the discretion of Congress and the President;
6 "(G) property rights and previously ac-
7 quired rights vested by employment in Puerto
8 Rico or the United States are honored, and
9 where determined necessary such rights are
10 promptly adjusted and settled consistent with
11 government-to-government agreements imple-
12 menting the separation of sovereignty; and
13 "(H) Puerto Rico is outside the customs
14 territory of the United States, and trade be-
15 tween the United States and Puerto Rico is
16 based on a treaty.
17 "(2) A path under United States sovereignty
18 leading to statehood, in which —
19 "(A) the people of Puerto Rico are fully
20 self-governing with their rights secured under
21 the United States Constitution, which is the su-
22 preme law and has the same force and effect as
23 in the other States of the Union;
24 "(B) the sovereign State of Puerto Rico is
25 in permanent union with the United States, and
•HR 3024 IH
95
9
1 powers not delegated to the Federal Govern-
2 ment or prohibited to the States by the United
3 States Constitution are reserved to the people
4 of Puerto Rico or the State Government;
5 "(C) United States citizenship of those
6 born in Puerto Rico is guaranteed and pro-
7 tected to the same extent as those born in the
8 several States;
9 "(D) residents of Puerto Rico have equal
10 rights and benefits as well as equal duties and
1 1 responsibilities of citizenship, including payment
12 of Federal taxes, as those in the several States;
13 "(E) Puerto Rico is represented in the
14 United States Senate and the House of Rep-
15 resentatives proportionate to the population;
16 "(F) Puerto Rico is enfranchised to vote
17 for United States presidential and vice-presi-
18 dential electors proportionate to the population;
19 and
20 "(G) Puerto Rico adheres to the same lan-
21 guage requirement as in the several States.".
22 (b) Transition Stage. —
23 (1) Plan.— Within 180 days of the receipt of
24 the results of the referendum from the Government
25 of Puerto Rico certifying approval of a ballot choice
HR 3024 IH 2
96
10
1 in a referendum held pursuant to subsection (a), the
2 President shall submit to Congress legislation for a
3 transition plan of 10 years minimum which leads to
4 full self-government for Puerto Rico consistent with
5 the terms of this Act and in full consultation with
6 leaders of the three branches of the Government of
7 P*uerto Rico, the principal political parties of Puerto
8 Rico, and other interested persons as may be appro-
9 priate.
10 (2) Congressional consideration. — The
11 plan shall be considered by the Congress in accord-
12 ance with section 6.
13 (3) Puerto rican approval. —
14 (A) Not later than 180 days after enact-
15 ment of an Act pursuant to paragraph (1) pro-
16 viding for the transition to full self-government
17 for P^ierto Rico as approved in the initial deci-
18 sion referendum held under subsection (a), a
19 referendum shall be held under the applicable
20 provisions of Puerto Rico's electoral law on the
21 question of approval of the transition plan.
22 (B) Approval must be by a majority of the
23 valid votes cast. The results of the referendum
24 shall be certified to the President of the United
25 States by the Government of Puerto Rico.
•HR 3024 IH
97
11
1 (4) Effective date for transition pi^an. —
2 Upon receipt of the results of the referendum under
3 this subsection certifying approval of the transition
4 plan, the President of the United States shall issue
5 a proclamation announcing the effective date of the
6 transition plan to full self-government for Puerto
7 Rico.
8 (c) Implementation Stage. —
9 (1) Presidential recommendation. — Not
10 less than two years prior to the end of the period
11 of the transition provided for in the transition plan
12 approved under subsection (b), the President shall
13 submit to Congress legislation with a reeommenda-
14 tion for the implementation of full self-government
15 for Puerto Rico consistent with the ballot choice ap-
16 proved under subsection (a).
17 (2) Congressional consideration. — The
18 plan shall be considered by the Congress in accord-
19 ance with section 6.
20 (3) Puerto rican approval. —
21 (A) Within 180 days after enactment of
22 the terms of implementation for full self-govem-
23 ment for Puerto Rico, a referendum shall be
24 held under the applicable provisions of I*uerto
25 Rico's electoral laws on the question of the ap-
•HR 3024 m
98
12
1 proval of the terms of implementation for full
2 self-government for Puerto Rico.
3 (B) Approval must be by a majority of the
4 valid votes cast. The results of the referendum
5 shall be certified to the President of the United
6 States by the Government of Puerto Rico.
7 (4) Effective date of full self-govern-
8 me NT. — The President of the United States shall
9 issue a proclamation announcing the date of imple-
10 mentation of full self-government for Puerto Rico,
1 1 upon receipt of the results of the referendum certify-
12 ing approval of the terms of implementation.
13 SEC. 5. REQUIREMENTS RELATING TO REFERENDA, IN-
14 CLUDING INCONCLUSIVE REFERENDUM AND
15 APPLICABLE LAWS.
16 (a) Applicable Laws. —
17 (1) Referenda under Puerto rican
18 laws. — The referenda held under this Act shall be
19 conducted in accordance with the laws of Puerto
20 Rico, and voter eligibility for residents and non-
21 residents shall be determined by the Puerto Rico
22 State Election Commission.
23 (2) Pederai^ laws. — The Federal laws appli-
24 cable to the election of the Resident Commissioner
25 of Puerto Rico shall, as appropriate, also apply to
•HR 3024 IH
99
13
1 the referenda. Aiiy reference in such Federal laws to
2 elections shall be considered, as appropriate, to be a
3 reference to the referenda, unless it would frustrate
4 the purposes of this Act.
5 (b) Certification op^ Referenda Results. — The
6 results of each referendum held under this Act shall be
7 certified to tie President of the United States and the
8 Senate and House of Representatives of the United States
9 by the Government of Puerto Rico.
10 (c) Consultation and Recommendations for In-
1 1 CONCLUSIVE Referendum. —
12 (1) In general. — If a referendum provided in
13 this Act does not result in approval of a fully self-
14 governing status, the President, in full consultation
15 with leaders of the three branches of the Govern-
16 ment of Puerto Rico, the principal political parties
17 of Puerto Rico, and other interested persons as may
18 be appropriate, shall make recommendations to the
19 Congress within 180 days of receipt of the results of
20 the referendum.
21 (2) Existing structure to remain in ef^-
22 fect. — If the inhabitants of the territory do not
23 achieve full self-governance through either integra-
24 tion into the Union or separate sovereignty in the
25 form of independence or free association, Puerto
•HR 3024 IH
100
14
1 Rico will remain an unincorporated territory of the
2 United States, subject to the authority of Congress
3 under Article IV, Section 3, Clause 2 of the United
4 States Constitution. In that event, t\^ existing Com-
5 monwealth of Puerto Rico structure for local self-
6 government will remain in effect, subject to such
7 other measures as may be adopted by Congress m
8 the exercise of it's Territorial Clause powers to de-
9 termine the disposition of the territory and status
10 of it's inhabitants.
11 SEC. 6. CONGRESSIONAL PROCEDURES F(Ml CONSH>ER-
12 ATION OF LEGISLATION.
13 (a) In General. — The Chairman of the Committee
14 on Energy and Natural Resources shall introduce legisla-
15 tion providing for the transition plan under section 4(b)
16 and the implementation reconnnendation u»der section
17 4(e), as appropriate, in the United States Senate and the
18 Chairman of the Committee on Resources sliall intixxk»ee
19 such legislation in the United States House of Rej>resenta-
20 tives, providing adequate time for the consideration of tlie
21 legislation pursuant to the following provisions:
22 (1) At any time after the close of tlie 180th eal-
23 endar day beginning after the date of introduction of
24 such legislation, it shall be in oixler for any Member
25 of the United States House of Re{)resentatives or
•HR 3024 IH
101
15
1 the United States Senate to move to discharge any
2 committee of that House from further consideration
3 of the lei^slation. A motion to discharge shall be
4 higWy priviteged, and debate thereon shaH be limited
5 to not more than two hours, to be divided equally
6 between those swpporting and those opposing the
7 motion. As amendment to the motion shall not be in
8 order, and it shall not be in order to move to recon-
9 sider the vote by which the motion was agreed to or
10 disagreed to.
11 (2) At aay time after the close of the 14th leg-
12 islative day beginning after the last committee of
13 that House has reported or been discharged from
14 ftirther cowsideration of such legislation, it shall be
15 in order for any Member of that House to move to
16 proceed to ttie immediate consideration of the legis-
17 lation (si>eh motion not being debatable), and such
18 motioH is herdby made of high privilege. An amend-
19 ment to the motion shall not be in order, and it shall
20 not be in ©rder to move to reconsider the vote by
21 which the motio« was agreed to or disagreed to. For
22 the purposes wi this paragraph, the term "legislative
23 day" i»eans a day on which the United States
24 Ho*ise of Representatives or the United States Sen-
25 ate, as appropriate, is in session.
•HR 3024 IH
102
16
1 (b) Commitment of Congress. — Enactment of this
2 section constitutes a conunitment that the United States
3 Congress will vote on legislation establishing appropriate
4 mechanisms and procedures to implement the political sta-
5 tus selected by the people of Puerto Rico.
6 (c) Exercise of RuLEiVLAiaNG Power. — The provi-
7 sions of this section are enacted by the Congress —
8 (1) as an exercise of the mlemaking power of
9 the Senate and the House of Representatives and, as
10 such, shall be considered as part of the rules of each
11 House and shall supersede other rules only to the
12 extent that they are inconsistent therewith; and
13 (2) with full recognition of the constitutional
14 right of either House to change the rules (so far as
15 they relate to the procedures of that House) at any
16 time, in the same manner, and to the same extent
17 as in the ease of any other rule of that House.
1 8 SEC. 7. AVAILABILITY OF FUNDS FOR THE REFERENDA.
19 (a) In General. —
20 (1) Availability of AiMOUnts derived from
21 TAX on foreign rum. — During the period begin-
22 ning on October 1, 1996, and ending on the date the
23 President determines that all referenda required by
24 this Act have been held, the Secretary of the Treas-
25 ury, upon request from time to time by the Presi-
•HK 3024 IH
103
17
1 dent and in lieu of covering amounts into the treas-
2 uiy of Puerto Rico under section 7652(e)(1) of the
3 Internal Revenue Code of 1986, shall make such
4 amounts available to the President for the purposes
5 specified in subsection (b).
6 (2) Use of unexpended amounts. — Follow-
7 ing each referendum required by this Act and after
8 the end of the period specified in paragraph (1), the
9 President shall transfer all unobligated and unex-
10 pended amounts received by the President under
1 1 paragraph ( 1 ) to the treasury of Puerto Rico for use
12 in the same manner and for the same purposes as
1 3 all other amounts covered into the treasury of Puer-
14 to Rico under such section 7652(e)(1).
15 (b) Grants for Conducting Referenda and
16 Voter Education. — From amounts made available
17 under subsection (a)(1), the President shall make grants
18 to the State Elections Commission of Puerto Rico for
19 referenda held pursuant to the terms of this Act, as fol-
20 lows:
21 (1) 50 percent shall be available only for costs
22 of conducting the referenda.
23 (2) 50 percent shall be available only for voter
24 education finids for the central iiiling body of the
25 political party or parties advocating a particular bal-
•HR 3024 IH
104
18
1 lot choice. In the ease that more than one party is
2 advocating a ballot choice, the 50 percent shall be
3 apportioned equally among the parties.
4 (c) Additional Resources. — In addition to
5 amounts made available by this Act, the Puerto Rico Leg-
6 islature may allocate additional resources for administra-
7 tive and voter education costs to each party so long as
8 the distribution of funds is consistent with the apportion-
9 ment requirements of subsection (b).
O
•HR 3024 IH
105
The Prepared Statement of Juan M. Garcia-Passalacqua
After four decades, this bill answers the question.
However, John F. Kennedy won the Presidency in 1960.
• In 1961. Muhoz filed a proposal of the future status in the White House that
reads: "Upon certification by the Governor of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico to
the President of the United States that the conditions specified in this Act have
been fulfilled, the President shall proclaim that the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico
has become a fully sovereign state, in permanent association with the United
States"
• In 1962. A draft bill approved by Muhoz came out of the White House, reading:
"That at the effective date of this Act the United States of American shall relinquish
its sovereign rights in and to Puerto Rico and shall from then on exercise only such
rights with respect thereto as may be delegated to it by the people of Puerto Rico
and accepted by the government of the United States".
In the Legislative Assembly of Puerto Rico, Muhoz got approval of a resolution
that asked for: "The recognition and reaffirmation of the sovereignty of the people
of Puerto Rico, so that there may remain no doubt as to its capacity to enter into
a compact in juridical terms of equality". The PDP won big in 1964.
Luis Muhoz Marin retired in 1964. This is his official record of all his official posi-
tions regarding the status issue.
• In 1978. Just two years before his death, Muhoz left his political testament in
an interview in the newspaper El Mundo. In it, talking about political status, he
gave his final word:
"If Puerto Rico had obtained independence from Spain and had proposed to the
United States to unite with them, in an autonomous union, the minimum of powers
that we would have to developed autonomy" for Puerto Rico.
This, gentlemen, is the official historical record. We are pleased that your bill hon-
ors it. That is why I support it.
Exhibits
1. Letter from Henry Cabot Lodge to President Dwight D. Eisenhower, November
28, 1953 ( 1 page): "Your idea about Puerto Rico turned out to be a ten-strike".
2. Top Secret letter from Mason Sears to Henry Cabot Lodge of January 8, 1954
with annotation by President Eisenhower: "Fine. Secret. DE" (2 pages. Declassified
10/20/81): "It would also do no harm to hint at the almost certain honor which
would attach itself to Governor Muhoz should be become the first President of Puer-
to Rico".
3. Memorandum to Senator Lodge from Mason Sears, March 23, 1956 re Puerto
Rican Independence (2 pages): "Here is an idea about ultimate Puerto Rican inde-
pendence which I think has much merit and which I which could somehow be
brought to the attention of the appropriate Congressmen".
4. Letter from Henry Cabot Lodge to Sherman Adams, March 27, 1956 (1 page):
It is that Congress adopt a resolution offering independence to Puerto Rico on pre-
cisely the same terms as the President offered it. If the offer were accepted, many
problems would be solved".
5. Memorandum fro Jerry Morgan from Dwight D. Eisenhower, June 17, 1959 (1
page): "This is the memorandum handed to me by Governor Muhoz-Marin when you
accompanied him to my office. When bother him so much, please give me a report."
106
United States Representative
United Nations
November 26, 1953
Dear General:
Your idea about Puerto Rico turned out to be a ten-strike.
As you will have seen in the papers, I made the announcement in the General
Assembly yesterday — one week to the day after you mentioned it at breakfast — and
received an unprecedented burst of applause from the delegates. I was warmly
thanked by the Puerto Rican Delegate in particular and the comment among the
newspapermen was uniformly enthusiastic. The effect will be tremendous in Latin
American and in all colonial areas and it will regain some of the ground which un-
avoidably we lost earlier because of Tunisia and Morocco. The domestic reaction is
good too.
Enclosed is a copy of the statement I made.
Enclosed also is a copy of a letter which I am using to some Jewish friends. I
thought it might be useful to you in case any Jewish people come to talk to you
about the Security Council resolution on Kibya. While the resolution was not as I
would have written it myself, it is by no means as bad as some Jewish extremists
say that it is. In fact the net long-term result should be helpful to Israel. I believe
the enclosed is a balanced statement.
Faithfully yours,
Henry Cabot Lodge, Jr.,
Enclosures
The President, The White House.
January 8, 1954.
The Honorable Henry Cabot Lodge, Jr.,
White House,
Washington, DC
Dear Mr. Cabot:
Last Tuesday you asked me to give some thought as to how it might be possible
to stimulate the Puerto Rican Legislature to adopt a resolve requesting the United
States to give full independence to Puerto Rico, here are some preliminary thoughts
on the matter.
To begin with, there are certain fixed factors in the situation. They are:
1. The present compact between Puerto Rico and the United States cannot be al-
tered without Puerto Rican approval.
2. A rough breakdown of party strength among the electorate puts the Popular
party, headed by Governor Muhoz, at 60 percent, the statehood party of 20 percent
and the Independence party of 20 percent. As a practical matter this means that
nothing can be done unless Governor Muhoz is able and willing to sell the idea to
his own party. This will not be easy, considering that the principal reason for the
existence of the Popular party has been the belief that as an independent Nation
the Puerto Ricans could not enjoy the close integration with the United States econ-
omy, which is necessary if they are to stand on their own feet economically.
3. It should also be borne in mind that as soon as the possibility of independence
becomes public in Puerto Rico it may have the result of the temporarily increasing
the number of people who wish to migrate to the United States while it can be done
without any restrictions.
With these facts in mind here is a possible line of approach to governor Muhoz,:
(1) It should be explained to the Government that it was recognized in Washing-
ton The the establishment of Independence would be meaningless to Puerto Rico un-
less its present economic arrangements with the United States were continued into
the future:
(2) In view of the fact that up to the present Governor Munoz has gone out of
this way to emphasize that the present commonwealth relationship with the United
States is far more beneficial to Puerto Rico than independence, some formula must
be devised to permit him to make an about-face without risking a political loss-of-
face. It might be suggested that this could be accomplished if the governor were to
send a message to the legislature stating that operations of the Government under
the 1952 compact had proved so much more successful than anticipated that it was
apparent that if the United States were willing to extend into the future its present
economic arrangements with Puerto Rico, the time had definitely come when there
107
would be great advantage to the Puerto Rican people if they were to become fully
independent and on an equal footing with all other Latin American countries;
(3) It would also do no harm to hint at the almost certain honor which would at-
tach itself to Governor Muhoz should be become the first president of Puerto Rico;
(4) It should be explained to the Governor that the establishment of independence
in Puerto Rico in the near future would have an international impact in view of the
colonial issue which is so red hot in most parts of the world. It would be received
with great satisfaction by the Asiatic-African Nations and would enhance the influ-
ence of the two American continents in world affairs.
In conclusion it is my opinion that it is going to be difficult to persuade Governor
Muhoz to accept this proposal. If he opposes the idea, there would, of course, be no
chance of success. For this reason I believe that the proposal should be presented
to him at a very high level, preferably by yourself or by the Secretary of State if
he were willing. Toward that end I would suggest that a confidential communication
be sent to Governor Muhoz inviting him to a private conference the next time it is
convenient for him to be in the United States.
Finally, let me say that this whole matter is fraught with danger and any misstep
could easily lead to violence and bloodshed in Puerto Rico.
Sincerely yours.
Mason Sears
MEMORANDUM
March 23, 1956
To: Senator Lodge
From: Mason Sears
Subject: Puerto Rican Independence.
Here is an idea about ultimate Puerto Rican independence which I think has
much merit and which I wish could somehow be brought to the attention of the ap-
propriate Congressmen. It concerns the possibility of a Congressional resolution in
support of a statement in favor of independence for Puerto Rico which you presented
on behalf of the President to the General Assembly two years ago. At that time you
said to the General Assembly: "I am authorized to say on behalf of the President
that if at any time the Legislative Assembly of Puerto Rico adopts a resolution in
favor of more complete or even absolute independence, he will immediately there-
after recommend to Congress that such independence be granted."
I believe that a parallel statement in the form of a Congressional resolution would
be very beneficial to the United States in view of its anti-colonial traditions, which
it is temporarily having to stifle in view of its NATO alliance with the colonial pow-
ers.
While I am not familiar with Congressional drafting procedures, I submit the fol-
lowing idea for a resolution which could be altered in any way to meet the require-
ments. It goes as follows:
Whereas the President of the United States has stated that if at any time
the Legislative Assembly of Puerto Rico adopts a resolution in favor of more
complete or even absolute independence he will immediately thereafter rec-
ommend to Congress that such independence be granted; and
Whereas the present agreement between Puerto Rico and the United States
is a compact which cannot be altered unilaterally; and
Whereas the people of Puerto Rico have been in charge of their own govern-
ment for many years and have been officially recognized as a self-governing
people by the United Nations: Now, therefore, be it
Resolved by the Senate and House of representatives of the United States
of America in Congress assembled. That if the Legislative Assembly of
Puerto Rico adopts a resolution in favor of more complete or even absolute
independence, and if the President of the United States were to recommend
to Congress that such independence be granted, the Congress that such
independence be granted, the Congress would desire to cooperate with the
Legislative Assemble of Puerto Rico in an effort to reach a new agreement
which would result in independence.
I earnestly hope that something can be done to bring this suggestion to the atten-
tion of the appropriate committees in the House and Senate.
108
March 27, 1956.
Dear Sherm:
You know how much thought has been given to this problem of Puerto Rico — with
all its implications at home and abroad.
You may also remember that two years ago the President authorized me to say
to the United Nations that any time the Puerto Rican Assembly adopted a resolu-
tion in favor of independence that the President would immediately recommend to
Congress that such independence be granted.
There was no reaction from Puerto Rico to this move.
Mason Sears, who is our United States Representative on the Trusteeship Coun-
cil, has evolved an idea which I think has a great deal of merit. It is that Congress
adopt a resolution offering independence to Puerto Rico on precisely the same terms
as the President offered it.
If the offer were accepted, many problems would be solved.
If the offer were rejected, our Congress would at the very least have taken a step
which would be interpreted as "anti-colonial" and do us great good throughout the
world — notably in Afro-Asian countries.
As this involves so many different Departments, I am sending it to you.
It is an idea that has real merit and I do not see what we could possibly lose
by it.
I enclose Sears' memorandum to me.
Faithfully yours,
Henry Cabot Lodge, Jr.
End. Memorandum 3/23/56
The Honorable Sherman Adams,
The White House.
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
JUNE 17, 1959.
Memorandum for Jerry Morgan
This is the memorandum handed to me by Governor Muhoz-Marin when you ac-
companied him to my office. When you have examined into the "Commonwealth"
question that seemed to bother him so much, please give me a report.
D.D.E.
109
SUPPLEMENTAL SHEET
My full name, complete address and telephone number are;
JUAN M. GARCIA PASSALACQUA
President, Analysis Inc.
Condominio Parque de las Fuentes
Apt. 503
Hato Rey, PUERTO RICO 00918
(758) 758-5029.
The topical outline or summary of the testimony is:
Libre Asociado of Puerto Rico was created in
by the administrations of United States Presidents
Truman and Dwight D. Eisehower together with Puerto
Governor Luis Munoz Marin, for whom I worked as a Special
Assistant during the years 1958 and 1962-1964. In that capacity I
was privy to confidential information on his intent in creating
the status as one of "free association".
The Estado
1952-1953
Harry S.
Rican
President Dwight D. Eisenhower offered the people of Puerto
Rico independence through Ambassador Henry Cabot Lodge at the
United Nations on November 27, 1953.
To that offer, Luis Murtoz Marin responded, on behalf of the
people of Puerto Rico proposing the following course of action:
"We must eliminate all functions that would not be exercised by
and independent country and that are unncecesary to the concept
of free association with common citizenship".
That concept, as proposed by Luis Munoz Marin to Dwight D.
Eisenhower in 1953, is the one contained in H.R. 3024 as the
definition of "free association".
In his memory, and for that reason, I favor H.R. 3024.
GIVEN, in San Juan, Puerto Rico, on March 19, 11
SALACQUA
sis Inc.
no
JUAN M. GARCIA - PASSALACQUA
PRESIDENTB
ANAUSiS INCORPORADO
PALUAREALtSZ
RIO P1EDRAS, P.R. 0WZ7
(•08)7W-0737
CURRICULUM VITAE
President of Anillsls Inc., a non-profit political analysis
firm founded in 1969 in San Juan, Puerto Rico. Graduate of the
Harvard Law School, 1962. Visiting Profesor at Yale University
Political Science Department (1987-88, 1990-91). Author of a
dozen books, among them Puerto Rico: Equality and Freedom at
Issue , Ho 0 ve r / P r ae g e r , New York, 1984. Founder of the Harvard
International Law Journal (1961). Founder of the National
Association of Hispanic Journalists (1982). Member of the
Hispanic Advisory Group to Secretary of State Cyrus Vance, 1977-
1980. Member of Jimmy Carter observer team to the Panama
elections in 1989 and several other observer missions for the
National Democratic Institute for International Affairs. Member
of the Council on Foreign Relations in New York since 1989. At
present political analyst for El Nuevo Herald in Miami.
Born in Hato Rey, Puerto Rico in 1937. Has degrees from the
University of Puerto Rico (1957), Fletcher School of Law and
Diplomacy of Tufts University (1958), Juris Doctor of Harvard
University (1962), Tulane University (1967), and an Honorary
Degree from Central University, Bayam6n, Puerto Rico (1972).
Has served In the State Department of Puerto Rico (1958),
the Office of the Governor of Puerto Rico (1962-1967), and the
Ana G. MSndez Educational Foundation in Puerto Rico (1967-1987),
where he is a member of the Board of Directors since retirement
from his position as House Counsel, after twenty years.
Has done political analysis for the last twenty five years
on Puerto Rican, the Caribbean, Latin America and United States
affairs for television, radio and newspapers in Puerto Rico.
Has lectured at the Sorbonne, Harvard, Universidad Naclonal
Auc6noma de M€xico, Universidad Men^ndez y Pelayo in Spain,
Universidad de la Habana in Cuba, the Smithsonian Institution,
the World Peace Foundation in Boston, the Friedrich Ebert
Foundation in Germany, the Institute for European-Latin American
Relations in England, and the Americas Society in New York.
His latest publication is an essay in Colin Clarke (ed.).
Society and Politics in the Caribbean, Ma cmi 1 lan/S t . Anthony's
College, Oxford, England, 1991.
Has traveled to fifty countries in Latin America, Europe and
Asia. Speaks, reads and writes fluently in both English and
Spanish. Reading ability in other languages.
Is married to Ivonne Acosta and has three children.
Ill
TESTIMONY OF
HECTOR LUIS ACEVEDO
PRESIDENT
POPULAR DEMOCRATIC PARTY
BEFORE THE NATIVE AMERICAN AND
INSULAR AFFAIRS SUB-COMMITTEE
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
HEARINGS ON H.R. 3024
SAN JUAN, PUERTO RICO
MARCH, 23, 1996
112
Mr. President, Members of the United States House of
Representatives.
I come before you today to speak about democracy. Of the type
of democracy that equates the weak with the powerful. Of the
special sense that human beings have that make us understand that
in this life no person is more nor less than any other person.
The struggle of the Puerto Rican people, as soon as it gained
consciousness of its collective self, has been to affirm its values
through political action.
The tale of my people is not about civil war nor about
bloodshed; it is the tale of equality in hope and in the respect
that each human being deserves. Where people are judged not by the
position that they hold or the wealth that they accumulate, but by
the contributions they make when faced with the challenges of life
and the causes that they defend.
In this historic epic, our people have framed their centennial
struggle demanding respect for their identity.
It is under those premises of self-respect, of commitment with
the well being of our people and the recognition that we should
liberate ourselves from the ambush of traditional ways, that the
relationship between Puerto Rico and the United States has been
guided. A principal part of that relationship is the respect to
the free and self-determination of the people of Puerto Rico, as
evidenced by U.S. presidents like Harry Truman, Dwight D.
Eisenhower and John F. Kennedy. No one can preach to be in favor
of liberty and not be willing to respect its exercise.
This is why this bill (HR 3024) finds no place in a aemocracy.
It is the product of the actions of those who give their backs to
our voters and who do not respect the will of the people of Puerto
Rico as expressed freely in the ballot box. Of those who only
respect democracy when they win. Today, those who could not
convince our people to take a different course, after imposing a
plebiscite under their own rules, ask you to impose solutions that
were defeated in the ballot box. This bill is not about different
status formulas, but about the respect owed to the democratic
dignity of Puerto Rico and the United States.
Here in Puerto Rico the votes were already counted. In
explaining those results some wish now to re-write history and
alter the will of the people. That behavior constitutes an offense
to the Puerto Rican people.
Voting constitutes one of the most precious values of our
people. And we have showed it over and over; that is why Puerto
Rico has one of the highest rates of electoral participation in the
world. Certainly much higher than the rate in the United States.
113
That is the reason why we demand respect for the Commonwealth
status; and by doing it we are also demanding respect for the
democratic will of all Puerto Ricans.
Commonwealth won the plebiscite; those who lost are obliged
now to recognize, accept and respect that decision of our people.
They abuse their power and in the process offend the dignity of
Puerto Ricans when, using the strength of money and the political
power, they pretend to obtain through illegitimate means what they
could not advance in the ballot box.
Those who a few weeks ago were celebrating the loss of
American citizenship, but today, after seeing the outrage of our
people, oportunistically retracted themselves, deserve our most
powerful rejection.
Those who have lost an election to the Commonwealth and have
to resort to another plebiscite as their only means to defeat it,
insult our people.
The U.S. Congress must also respect and work constructively to
make effective that decision.
That goal cannot be accomplished if it is not understood that
by virtue of Law 600 Puerto Rico and the United States entered into
a compact between the two peoples; if it is not understood that in
1953 the United States presented to the United Nations the
Constitution of Puerto Rico and the concerted compact with Puerto
Rico to justify the request that Puerto Rico be eliminated from the
list of colonial territories.
There, the U.S. Ambassador, Henry Cabot Lodge, informed that
the compact between the people of the United States and the people
of Puerto Rico could not be broken unilaterally by one of the
parties and that is was stronger than a treaty. And that by virtue
of that representation the United Nations eliminated Puerto Rico
from the list of colonial territories, recognizing that Puerto Rico
had exercised its right to self-determination and had achieved a
legitimate form of self-government.
The bill that you have before you and for which these hearings
were called, declares that Congress still wields plenary powers
over Puerto Rico, that the establishment of Commonwealth status did
not in any way change the relationship between Puerto Rico and the
United States, that there is no compact and that none is
constitutionally possible. These were the very charges leveled at
the United Nations, against the United States, by the principal
enemies of democracy then, Cuba and the Soviet Union. Invariably,
every time the issue was raised, the ambassadors of the United
States before that body, including former President George Bush,
vehemently rejected those allegations and reiterated that since
114
November 3, 1953, the contrary to what it stated in this bill is
true: that Puerto Rico exercised its right to self-determination
and ceased to be classified as a colonial territory.
If you disagree now against the official position of the
United States before the United Nations, there is something that
respect for proper international behavior requires you to do
immediately. You should inform the United Nations that everything
said in 1953 and that has been repeated since, has been a
monumental fraud.
Not being this the true nature of Commonwealth, the premises
of HR 3024, which is deeply colonial in spirit, are totally wrong.
In conclusion, this bill does not do justice to the good name
of the United States. It is meager and crabbed. It is disdainful
of what the people of Puerto Rico has freely and overwhelmingly
backed for almost half a century in support of Commonwealth. It
portrays a great country as still fumbling for answers to what are
fundamentally very easy questions, if respect for the equality of
our peoples and the right to respect and self-determination are
taken to heart. That is not the United States that we know and
admire and are proud to be associated with.
The Popular Democratic Party rejects this undemocratic bill,
and, in the unlikely event that it be approved, shall not
participate in any such sham plebiscite as is tried to be imposed
here.
Do not ask me either to suggest amendments to this bill. Its
defecLs cannot be saved because they emanate from its intention.
When someone intentionally takes a shot at you, the issue is not
the make of the gun or the caliber of the bullet.
Please be aware, members of Congress, that the people of
Puerto Rico must be respected. Our dignity is not for sale nor is
it willing to be humiliated. Our people, always respectful of
others, look in equality to all men through the eyes of liberty.
Please be aware, members of Congress, that Puerto Rico shall
never be bought, and shall never surrender.
Thank you.
115
SENATOR RUBEN BERRIOS MARTINEZ
PRESIDENT OF THE PUERTO RICAN INDEPENDENCE PARTY
TESTIMONY BEFORE THE U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIVE AMERICAN AND INSULAR AFFAIRS
SAN JUAN, PUERTO RICO
MARCH 23, 1996
116
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcomittee:
After listening to the Presidents of the New Progressive and
Popular Democratic Parties (NPP and PDP), I imagine that you, as
well as a substantial number of our people, must be thinking that
the prospects for a bill with wide support in this country are
limited, indeed. Often, however, a difficult challenge provokes a
good response. This is one of such instances.
Today, I bring before you a proposal designed to achieve the
widest possible support without forcing anyone to yield on
fundamental principles.
Although the bill under consideration, H.R. 3024, suffers from
serious flaws which must be corrected, it also has great merit, and
it constitutes an important step in our decolonization process. The
bill vindicates the independence movement's historic position: it
recognizes the colonial nature of Puerto Rico's status and proposes
to enable our people to choose among decolonizing alternatives.
Last Monday, however, the Governor and President of the NPP
announced that he would make a proposal which, if adopted, would
undo the very essense of the bill under consideration. H.R. 3024
would lose its best attributes if it were to incorporate as an
option the very status which it challenges as of a territorial, and
hence of a colonial, nature. It would no longer be a decolonizing
measure if, under the guise of a so-called basic principle of
democracy, the people were asked to choose between colonalism and
decolonization .
Since when does democracy create a vested right to opt for
colonialism, an institution of servitude which, like apartheid and
117
2
slavery, has been outlawed in the civilzed world? Colonialism by
consent is not -for us or for anyone- a decolonizing option.
The PDP leadership, for its part, views H.R. 3024 as an
unilateral and anti-democratic imposition, and an electoral booby
trap. It is therefore necessary to put forth a proposal that
harmonizes the legitimate interests of the various sectors,
preserves the decolonizing nature of the bill, and guarantees a
democratic and bilateral process.
To achieve these ends. I propose that H.R. 3024 be amended.
firstf to establish a mechanism that guarantees that the Puerto
Rican people be the one to democratically authorize the
decolonization process; and second, to ensure that the decolonzing
options presented to the people are defined in a fair and equitable
manner.
To democratically authorize the decolonization process, I
propose the following mechanism: The bill, after its approval by
both Houses of Congress and the President's signature, would not be
implemented until the people grant their consent to the process
through a referendum in which we vote. Yes or No, to the Young Act.
Such referendum would be held in Puerto Rico after the 1996 general
election.
If we mean to democratize the process, this would not be
achieved by adding a colonial option, as the Governor has
suggested, but by submitting the Young Act for ratification by the
people as a condition for its implementation. The amendment which
I propose will also establish the boundary between a status process
118
3
and the general elections, since it would not take effect until the
Young Act is ratified in a referendum after the 1996 general
election. Finally, our proposal would facilitate the bill's
approval in Congress, since the enemies of decolonization will not
be able to argue that it is undemocratic as an excuse to oppose it.
And as if all this were not sufficient, both you and we would all
avoid the shamefulness of having colonialism offered as an
alternative .
I should add that the mechanism proposed is not without
precedent. A similar one was devised by the U.S. Congress for the
approval of Public Law 600 in 1950, although its goals were quite
different. The referendum-for-ratification mechanism was then used
to consolidate colonalism, and to exclude decolonizing options.
This time it will be used to promote decolonization. On the
previous occasion it served to accommodate the interests of the
times; but the world has changed and now it accommodates today's
interests. Previously, it degraded the mechanism of consent by
using it to colonize; now it will be used to decolonize.
To approve the proposed mechanism thus making the Governor's
proposal unnecessary is not enough, however. It is absolutely
necessary for the Puerto Rican people's approval that other
shortcomings in the bill be corrected in order to guarantee equity
and balance.
One of the bill's greatest shortcomings is that it is front-
loaded in favor of statehood. The bill paints that option in bright
but unrealistic colors, while depicting the separate sovereignty
119
4
options schematically and in shaded hues — and free association,
specifically, unfairly by not endowing it with a minimum of the
legitimate claims of its advocates.
In order to correct that imbalance, I suggest that you ask of
the various groups in Puerto Rico to submit for your Subcommittee's
consideration their preferred definition of the decolonizing option
which each advocates .
Now, regardless of the proposals which the various status
advocates may submit, the bill must be ammended to tell Puerto
Ricans the truth about statehood.
H.R. 3024 gives the impression that Puerto Rico may become a
state, keep Spanish as its primary language, and preserve its
national identity as a distinct and separate people from the Unites
States .
Few have spoken about the issues of language and national
identity with greater clarity than the Speaker of the House, Newt
Gingrich, primary co-sponsor of this bill. After recently affirming
with regard to the American nation that, "our goal is assimilation"
and "the sine qua non of our survival," he concluded that "without
English as a common language, there is no . . . [American]
civilization. "
I would also refer you to the words of Senator Daniel Patrick
Moynihan (D-NY) who, in 1990, articulated the heart of the problem
before the U.S. Senate:
In the end, the great issues before us are civic, not
economic. Do Puerto Ricans wish to become Americans? For that is
what statehood ineluctably implies. That is what statehood brings.
Or do they wish to maintain a separate identity?
120
5
This rare bipatrisan consensus should suffice to lead you to
amend the bill in order to make it patently clear that statehood
implies a path of political and cultural assimilation.
In harmony with the above, the section referring to language
should also be amended to clearly establish the absurdity of
conceving statehood for Puerto Rico without English as the primary
language in the public schools and in the judicial, legislative and
executive branches. Not to clarify these crucial matters would
perpetuate false and dangerous illusions among hundreds of
thousands of fellow Puerto Ricans who still naively perceive no
contradiction between statehood and a separate cultural identity.
With regard to the statehood option, it is also necessary for
Congress to understand that as long as ours remains a different
nationality from that of the United States, the' people of Puerto
Rico will retain their inalienable right to self-determination and
independence -that is, the right to secede. A nation cannot self-
determine itself out of self-determination.
Regarding the allegedly decolonizing nature of statehood, I
would remind you that, although statehood for Puerto Rico is
juridically decolonizing on its face, it is not so in its
application. Where nationalities are concerned, federal
enfranchisement in and of itself does not result in a colonial
people's right of full self-government.
As previously noted, however, the bill is unbalanced, not just
because of what it does not say about the true nature of statehood,
but also because of the manner in which it describes the separate
121
6
sovereignty option. The bill must be amended to correct that flaw.
Let me give an example. The treatment which H.R. 3024 affords
the matter of citizenship under free association, as well as the
manner in which free trade between the United States and Puerto
Rico is dealt with -to mention only two neuralgic issues-
constitutes a very serious flaw. Such treatment bears no relation
to the present state of the law or to modern-day commercial and
economic reality.
As far as independence is concerened, suffice it to say that,
in juridical terms, the summary and rigid definition provided in
the bill is reminiscent of those found in early 20th century
textbooks: correct as regards the basic elements, but incomplete as
to the current potential for flexibility and creativity.
As regards the separate sovereignty option, H.R. 3024 is
silent as to which modality should be implemented, if that were the
prevailing option. I therefore propose that the bill be amended to
provide that, upon choosing separate sovereignty, the People of
Puerto Rico be convened in a Constituent Assembly to which our
nascent sovereignty would be entrusted, an which would, among other
things, decide the form of Puerto Rico's sovereignty -free
association or independence- to be negotiated with the U.S.
Government .
Lastly, I wish to conclude by explaining what to some may
appear to be a paradox: why do I so enthusiastically promote a
status process definition which could initially lead to an
electoral victory for an option other than independence?
122
7
The Puerto Rican Independence Party (PIP) firmly believes
that, under present and foreseeable circumstances, the road to
independence is the road of the "supreme definition" advanced by
Dr. Pedro Albizu Campos -"Either Yankees or Puerto Ricans"- and
which presupposes a process that engages and confronts the U.S.
Congress with the need to put an end to Puerto Rico's colonial
condition. If this bill is properly amended, it could become an
effective catalyst for that process. On the other hand, there is
always the alternative of sitting and waiting for the perfect bill.
However, one should not forget that in political processes,
valuable aspects often intertwine with pettiness; but to write the
bill off as a mere booby trap is no more than an excuse for not
confronting Puerto Rico's colonial problem. One should take
advantage of the good and improve on the bad; but it would be a
disservice to our cause if we were to allow perfection to become an
enemy of what is necessary. And it is necessary to move a
decolonization process forward.
Sooner, rather than later, Puerto Rico will march towards its
own, separate sovereignty, either because Congress responds to our
clamor for sovereignty, or because it is forced to confront -
because of Puerto Rico- its own supreme definition. Will Congress
repudiate the fundamental principle of the American Union, E
pluribus unum ("from among many. One"), by admitting a distinct and
separate nation as a state of the Union? I haven't the slightest
doubt that Congress can only respect the very essence of the one
nation it represents.
123
8
In 1898, the Founding Father of our Homeland, Dr. Ramon
Emeterio Betances, under more difficult circumstances than those
confronting us today -16 days before the American invasion- had
pointed the way that was closed for so long. He counseled us then:
"Deal peacefully [with the Americans] in order to attain
independence." Betances, the prophet, spoke a century before his
time. For that was the redemptive solution which could not
materialze then; and that is the solution -for Puerto Rico as well
as the United States- which in light of the new circumstances in
our world becomes possible now.
Thank You.
124
THE PREPARED STATEMENT OF LUIS VEGA RAMOS
Luis Vega Ramos
President and designated representative
PROELA
Tel. (787) 724-1309
Siimtnary of Statement to the Siibcoimnittee on Native American and Insular
Affairs of the U.S. House of Representatives Regarding H.R. 3024, the United
States-Puerto Rico Political Status Act
On November 14, 1993, Puerto Ricans voted for the development of their
present status, the Estado Libre Asocindo, through a "bilateral compact that can only
be amended by mutual consent."
The best response to the 1993 plebiscite would be to present a "Bilateral
Compact Act" that would define the relationship between the U.S. and Puerto Rico.
However, your response is to call for a new plebiscite and to legally commit
the U.S. to enacting its results. Since this is truly a process of mutual-determination,
we are willing to consider your proposal, if you are willing to consider our
amendments.
In any attempt to structure a plebiscite. Congress has to follow two important
principles: Fair Play and Goodwill.
Fair play means that all three status tendencies are presented to the people on
equal footing. It does not mean that they look the same, but rather that they are
presented as they truly are, taking into account the applicable principles of both
International Law and U.S. Constitutional Law and the expressed aspirations of the
Puerto Rican people.
Goodwill requires that all status options have the same guarantees in terms
of access to the ballot and that the definitions adopted are immune to demagogic
manipulations by opposing forces. There cannot be covert manipulations to
adversely affect any of the options or actors who represent them.
If Congress acts with goodwill and provides for fair play, you'll have the
support of everyone in Puerto Rico. If you don't, you'll not only miss another
chance to break the impasse, but you will also make the situation worse.
125
PROELA
RO. Box 2864
San Juan, Puerto Rico 00902
Statement of Luis Vega Ramos, President of PROELA, to the Subcommittee on
Native American and Insular Affairs of the U.S. House of Representatives
Regarding H.R. 3024, the United States-Puerto Rico Political Status Act
San Juan, Puerto Rico
March 23, 1996
PROELA is a civic organization that for twenty years has advocated in Puerto
Rican, federal and international forums for the development of the current political
status within the context of a bilateral association. We took active part in the status
plebiscite campaign of 1993.
Today, we come before this Subcommittee on behalf of the hundred of
thousands of Puerto Ricans who voted in favor of the Estado Libre Asociado.
I. The Duty to Respond
The United States acquired Puerto Rico as a war booty in 1898. Fifty-two years
later, Congress approved its last status act, recognizing Puerto Rico's faculty to write
and adopt its own constitution and granting a measure of internal self-government.
For the next four decades, Puerto Ricans constantly struggled to attain a larger
degree of self-government and a full exercise of self-determination. In November
1993, more than 823,000 Puerto Ricans petitioned the Congress and the President to
adopt a "bilateral compact which can only be amended by mutual consent."
We have patiently waited for your answer. Now this Congress is considering
H.R. 3024, a bill that would authorize a new plebiscite sometime before the end of
1998, with a choice between two options: 1) a path leading to statehood and; 2) a path
leading to separate sovereignty.
The people of Puerto Rico have pushed the envelope as far as we can by
ourselves. Now it is time for Congress and the Administration to act rationally,
fairly and honestly to solve our mutual dilemma. It is your duty to act now.
II. Fair Play and Goodwill
The U.S. has expressed, domestically and internationally, its commitment to
the most basic principles of democracy and self-determination. Government should
work by the consent of the governed. We believe that the best response to the 1993
24-926 - 96.
126
plebiscite would be to present to Congress and the Puerto Rican people a "Bilateral
Compact Act" that would define the relationship between the Republic of the U.S.
and the Free Associated State of Puerto Rico. Last October, we urged you to consider
this alternative. We do the same today.
However, you have chosen a different path. Your response is to call for a new
plebiscite and to legally commit the U.S. to enacting its results. Since this is truly a
process of mutual-determination, we are willing to consider your proposal, if you
are willing to consider our amendments.
In any attempt to structure a plebiscite. Congress has to follow two important
principles: Fair Play and Goodwill.
Fair play means that all three status tendencies are presented to the people on
equal footing. It does not mean that they look the same, but rather that they are
presented as they truly are, taking into account the applicable principles of both
International Law and U.S. Constitutional Law and the expressed aspirations of the
Puerto Rican people.
Goodwill requires that all status options have the same guarantees in terms
of access to the ballot and that the definitions adopted are immune to demagogic
manipulations by opposing forces. Also, there cannot be covert manipulations on
the part of the sponsor of the vote to adversely affect any of the options or actors
who represent them.
If Congress acts with goodwill and provides for fair play, you will have the
support and cooperation of everyone in Puerto Rico. If you don't, you'll not only
miss another chance to break the impasse, but you will also make the situation
worse.
III. The Process
H.R. 3024 does not need a discussion as to the current legal nature of the U.S.-
Puerto Rico relationship. As you should know, that is one of the main points of
controversy in Puerto Rico. By adopting a position on the debate, one way or the
other, you would alienate hundreds of thousands of Puerto Ricans who would view
you as their enemy. This is totally unnecessary. In fact, the House adopted
unanimously in 1990 a plebiscite bill (H.R. 4765) that did not dwell on this debate.
Everyone agrees that Congress has the authority to mandate a status plebiscite. To try
to ascertain whether it is in light of the Treaty of Paris, the Territorial Clause or.
Section 9 of the Federal Relations Act of 1950 is irrelevant and diverting. Just
legislate a plebiscite and let the scholars and analysts debate this issue.
You should also make sure that the provisions in Section 5(a)(1) and (2) are
harmonized. We agree that the vote should be held in accordance uith Puerto Rican
127
law and that the State Electoral Commission (SEC) should determine voter
eligibility. However, we are worried that 5(a)(2) requires the application of federal
laws related to the election of the Resident Commissioner. Our main concern is that
these laws might impair the authority of the SEC to have final say on voter
eligibility. We insist that the SEC have that authority.
Another procedural point is that civic groups, such as PROELA, must have
the same rights the political parties do to represent the status options. We are as
active on this issue as the political parties, as you well know, so the law should grant
us similar rights.
IV. The Free Associated State (or "Estado Libre Asociado") Oprion
The specifics of what PROELA believes a bilateral compact of association
should include were presented to this Subcommittee last October 17, 1995. We now
concentrate on how H.R. 3024' s offer of a bilateral pact should be improved to
comply with International Law and U.S. Constitutional Law criteria and with the
aspirations of Puerto Rico as expressed in 1993.
First, the options of Free Associated State, in Spanish "Estado Libre Asociado,"
and independence should be separated. International Law and the Puerto Rican
debate recognizes them as separate options and so should the bill. Not to do so
would go against the principles of fair play and goodwill.
Second, the language concerning the U.S. citizenship of Puerto Ricans living
on the island upon enactment of the bilateral compact should be identical to the
section-by-section analysis of Section 172 of the compact between the U.S. and three
former U.N. Trust Territories included in the "Compact of Free Association Act of
1985":
"[a] United States citizen who becomes a citizen of the FAS and who does not
renounce his United States citizenship, would retain his United States
citizenship and continue to be entitled to the same rights and privileges as
any other United States citizen."
In terms of our position regarding citizenship issues in the bilateral compact,
we submit a legal paper prepared by PROELA Vice President Raul Mariani-Franco
Esq., that has already been sent to the White House Interagency Working Group on
Puerto Rico.
Regarding the other aspects of the Free Associated State offer, we are filing as
part of our suggested amendments a ballot text to be included in the law. We are
ready to discuss it in detail.
128
V. The Need for Compromise ... and Acrion
The Congress is considering H.R. 3024. The Clinton Administration has
expressed an extremely clear position with regards to the inclusion of the 1993
plebiscite winning option and the guarantee of Puerto Rican's U.S. citizenship. We
agree with the Administration on both counts. This Subcommittee should revise
H.R. 3024 to accommodate the President's views.
In order to include and commit all sectors in Puerto Rico, the Subcommittee
should revise H.R. 3024 to remove unnecessary diversions, provide for a fair and
just process and be willing to commit irrevocably to the results of a congressionally
mandated plebiscite. If you are not willing to do that in a plebiscite that includes
statehood then, bite the bullet --say so- and remove it from the list of options.
For almost one hundred years, the Puerto Rican nation has struggled and
waited for Congress to fulfill its obligations to us and provide us with a coherent
process that ensures a final disposition of the political status issue. We have been
ready for all these years. Now it is time to show that you are ready too.
Las gcneraciones pasadas, presentes y futuras esperan por ustedes. El pueblo
dc Puerto Rico hablo y continm hablando hoy. La bola estd en su cancha.
Muchas gracias.
129
PROELA
p. O. Box 2864,
San Juan, Puerto Rico 00902
Tel. (809) 724-1309
Suggested amendments on H.R. 3024
After reviewing the text of the United States — Puerto Rico Political Status
Act (H.R. 3024),, we suggest that the following amendments be included. These
would not alter the spirit or intention of the bill but would facilitate our
participation in the prescribed process in defense of the Free Associated State
alternative.
We are limiting our suggestions to the substantive and procedural aspects of
the bill. However, we should express our concern that the language of section 2
("Findings") is one that unnecessarily exacerbates ongoing debates in Puerto Rico.
Here are our suggestions:
Section 3
On page 5, line 20; insert after the word "cast" the phrase "unless Congress
establishes a different threshold for the statehood option."
Section 4
From line 1 of page 6, to line 16 on page 8: the bill should separate the options
of Free Association an Independence, hiternational Law recognizes them as separate
options, not variations of one of them.
The new (a)(1) should read:
"(1) A path of Puerto Rican sovereignty leading the current commonwealth
status towards a full free association with the United States to be defined by means
of a bilateral compact which can only be amended by mutual agreement. The
bilateral compact shall —
"(A) recognize Puerto Rico as a sovereign nation organized in a Free
Associated State (in Spanish, Estado Libre Asociado) with full authority and
responsibility for its internal and external affairs, exercising in its own name
and right the powers of government with respect to its territory and
population, language and culture, determining its own relations and
participation in the community of nations, and exercising all the attributes of
sovereign political entity, except those specifically delegated to the
130
Government of the United States in the text of the bilateral compact;
"(B) define all future relations between Puerto Rico and the United
States, providing for cooperation and assistance in matters of shared interest
as agreed and approved by Puerto Rico and the United States, and shall only
be amended or terminated by mutual agreement pursuant to the procedures
contemplated in the bilateral compact and to the respective constitutional
processes of the United States and Puerto Rico;
"(C) provide for a constitution democratically instituted by the people
of Puerto Rico, establishing a republican form of full self-government and
securing the rights of the citizens of Puerto Rico to be the supreme law of the
Free Associated State, and the Constitution and laws of the United States no
longer apply to Puerto Rico, with the exception of those included as part of
the bilateral compact
"(D) recognize Puerto Rico the power to determine and control its own
nationality and citizenship. A United States citizen who becomes a citizen of
the Free Associated State of Puerto Rico and who does not renounce his
United States citizenship, would retain his United States citizenship and
continue to be entitled to the same rights and privileges as any other United
States citizen.'
"(E) upon recognition of Puerto Rico by the United States as a
sovereign Free Associated State and establishment of government -to-
govemment relations on the basis of comity and reciprocity, Puerto Rico's
representation to the United States is accorded full diplomatic status;
"(F) Puerto Rico's eligibility for United States assistance to be provided
on a block grant government to government basis, including foreign aid or
programmatic assistance, at levels similar, but never superior, to the present
ones. Individuals will maintain the federal entitlements, such as social
security, that they have earned as United States citizens.
"(G) honor property rights and previously acquired rights vested by
employment in Puerto Rico or the United States, such as those of federal
employees and veterans, and where determined necessary, such rights are
promptly adjusted and settled consistent with government to government
agreements implementing the bilateral compact.
"(H) treat Puerto Rico as if it were part of the customs territory of the
United States in those areas that are beneficial to Puerto Rico and are included
within the terms of the bilateral compact.
' The language is taken from the section-by-section analysis of Section 172 of the compact approved
by Congress as part of the "Compact of Free Association Act of 1985" (P.L. 99-239; 99 Stat. 1770).
6
131
"(I) guarantee that the terms of the bilateral compact of the Free
Associated State can only be terminated or amended by mutual agreement
and that the People of Puerto Rico will give its consent or agreement in
accordance to the terms of the compact and the applicable constitutional
processes."^
On page 8, line 17; a separate (2) should be included to define the terms of
statehood (as is done in the draft) and a separate (3) to include the terms of
independence.
On page 9, line 20; (2)(G) should be amended to include the word "English"
between the words "same" and "language".
On page 10, line 12; insert after the period (.) the following:
"If after the 180 day period has expired, the President has not submitted a plan
to Congress, any legislation presented by a Member of Congress which leads to
full self-government for Puerto Rico consistent with the terms of this Act and
in full consultation with the leaders of the three branches of Government of
Puerto Rico, the principal political parties of Puerto Rico, and other interested
persons as may be appropriate, shall receive the same congressional
consideration outlined in section 6."
Section 5
On page 14, line 13; Insert before the word "The" the phrase "Not later than 30
days after the President has submitted legislation to the Congress," and replace the
capital "T" with a small "t".
Section 7
On page 17, line 25; eliminate the word "or" and replace it with a comma (,)
and insert after the word "parties" the word "or recognized citizen groups".
On page 18, line 1; insert after the word "party" the word " and/or recognized
citizen group".
These are our suggested amendments. We urge the Subcommittee to amend
H.R. 3024 to accommodate them.
^This language is taken from Section 441 of the compact approved by Congress as part of the
"Compact of Free Association Act of 1985" (99 Stat. 1771, at 1829).
7
132
PROELA
P.O. Box 2864
San Juan, Puerto Rico 00902
MEMORANDUM
To: Luis Vega Ramos
President, PROELA
From: Raul S. Mariani Franco, E
Vice-president, PROELA
Re: Bilateral Compact Analysis II -- Viability under U.S.
Constitutional and International Law of a dual citizenship
arrangement between the federal government and the government of a
non- territorial Free Associated State.
Date: February 10, 1996
In view of the fact that on January 30, 1996 Congressperson
Nydia Velazquez (D-NY) requested an official opinion from Mr. John
Killian, Senior Specialist of the American Law Division of the
Library of Congress, on the existence and implications of dual
citizenship in the case of the United States, I submit to you the
following .
I. The Facts:
The facts pertinent to the instant query are as described in
paragraph 3 of Congressperson Nydia Velazquez' letter of January
30, 1996.
II. Issues:
1. Is dual citizenship permitted by the Constitution of
the United States?
2. Can there be a dual citizenship arrangement between the
Federal government and the government of a non- territorial Free
Associated State?
III. Discussion:
Issue 1. There is no prohibition on its face from the text of
the Constitution of the United States to the possibility of the
citizens of the United States also being citizens of another
sovereign state. This means that if such prohibition existed it
would had to be found in a Supreme Court opinion or enacted in a
Congressional statute.
i
133
To this day Congress has never enacted a law prohibiting dual
citizenship for U.S. citizens. The only statutory provision that
explicitly dealt with dual citizenship, even if it later was
repealed was section 350 of the Immigration and Naturalization Act
of 1952.
Said section, which dealt with dual citizens at birth,
established that if those citizens sought the benefits of a foreign
citizenship, they will lose their U.S. citizenship after residing
in a foreign country for three (3) years after the age of twenty
two (22), unless they took an oath of allegiance to the U.S.
Section 350 was repealed in 1978 by P.L. No. 95-432.
The House report on the aforementioned law stated that:
"The primary effect of this section
(sec. 350) is to cause needless
anxiety among American citizens
residing abroad. In addition, it is
difficult to administer and has
caused confusion within the
Departments of State and Justice."
With the repeal of section 350, there is no longer any
provision prohibiting the exercise of dual citizenship by U.S.
citizens in the U.S. statutes. Since Congress has chosen not to
exercise its constitutional authority on dual citizenship, we most
turn to the Supreme Court opinions to find out whether there has
been found in the Constitution any impediment for the exercise of
dual citizenship by U.S. citizenship.
The Supreme Court has recognized the longstanding principle
of International Law that "it is the inherent right of every
independent nation to determine for itself, and according to its
own constitution and laws, what classes of persons shall be
entitled to its citizenship." United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169
U.S. 649, 688 (1898). Therefore it might be possible that a
citizen of the United State may be considered a citizen of another
country iinder that country's laws.
This was the case in Kawaklta v. United States. 343 U.S. 717
(1951) .
In said case the Court stated;
"The concept of dual citizenship recognizes
that a person may have and exercise rights
of nationality in two countries cuid be subject
to the responsibilities of both. The mere
fact that he asserts the rights of one
citizenship does not without more mean
134
that he renounces the other." Id. at 723-724.
Later, the Court went on to say:
"As we had said dual citizenship presupposes
rights of citizenship in each country. It
could not exist if the assertion of rights
or the assumptions of liabilities of one
were deemed inconsistent with the maintenance
of the other. For example, when one has a
dual citizenship, it is not necessarily
inconsistent with his citizenship in one
nation to use a passport proclaiming his
citizenship in the other." Id. at 725.
The closest the Supreme Court has come to putting some
limitations on dual citizenship is found in a two paragraph dictum
in Rogers v. Bellei. 401 U.S. 815 (1971) . It states:
"There are at least intimations in the
decided cases that a dual national
constitutionally may be required to make
election. In Perkins v. Elg. 307 U.S. 325,
329 (1939) , the Court observed that a
native-born citizen who had acquired dual
nationality during minority through his
parents' foreign naturalization abroad
did not lose his United States citizen-
ship 'provided that on attaining majority
he elects to retain that citizenship and
return to the United States to assume its
duties' . In Kawakita v. United States,
343 U.S., at 734, the Court noted that
a dual national 'under certain circumstances'
can be deprived of his American citizenship
through an Act of Congress. In Mandoli v.
Acheson. 344 U.S. 133, 138 (1952), the Court
took pains to observe that there was no
statute in existence imposing an election
upon that dual national litigant.
These cases do not flatly say a duty to
elect may be constitutionally imposed. They
surely indicate, however, that this is
possible, and in Mandoli the holding was based
on the very aisence of a statute and not on
any theory of unconstitutionality. And all
three of these cases concerned persons who
where born here, that is, persons, who
possessed fourteenth amendment citizenship;
they did not concern a person, such as
135
plaintiff Bellei, whose claim to citizenship
is wholly, and only, statutory. "
The aforementioned quote only states that Congress might at
some time impose a duty to elect to dual citizens. It doesn't say
that it has to impose that duty. To this date, Congress has
elected not to impose such a duty, in any instance whatsoever.
Even if Congress choose to enact legislation imposing that
duty, it would be difficult, if not impossible, to reconcile that
legislation with the Supreme Court's opinion in Afroyim v. Rusk.
387 U.S. 253 (1967). This case proclaims the irrevocability of
U.S. citizenship of a fourteenth amendment citizen unless there is
a voluntary and intentional action by the citizen that constitutes
a renunciation. Id at 268.
There is an ongoing debate as to the nature of the U.S.
citizenship of the persons born in Puerto Rico. Some say this
citizenship is of a statutory nature, while others contend that it
is now a fourteenth amendment nature. Even if you accept that it
is of a statutory nature, such as plaintiff Bellei 's was, the
dictum in said case is innaposite to the case of U.S. citizens born
in Puerto Rico. Puerto Ricans contrary to Bellei, weren't required
to comply with any condition to attain or retain their status as
birth citizens.
We agree with Professor Jose J. Alvarez Gonzalez' conclusion
to the effect that (even assuming that the U.S. citizenship of
Puerto Ricans is of a statutory nature) said citizenship is
protected by the Due Process Clause of the U.S. Constitution. The
law that granted citizenship to persons born in Puerto Rico (39
Stat. 951 (1917)) did so without imposing any conditions for
attaining or retaining it.
Accordingly, any enactment of legislation that would strip the
persons born in Puerto Rico of their U.S. citizenship would
constitute a violation of "long-standing principles of United
States constitutional law." Alvarez Gonzalez, J.J., The Empire
Strikes Out: Congressional Ruminations on the Citizenship Status
of Puerto Ricans, 27 Harv. J. Leais. 308 (1990) .
In view of all of the above, we conclude that there is no
constitutional impediment to dual citizenship within the U.S.
constitutional system. Furthermore, we conclude that there is no
statutory prohibition to dual citizenship at this time and Congress
has been consistently moving toward the elimination of any possible
limitation. See Ortiz Guzman Angel J. El Derecho Constitucional
Estadimidense y el Pacto Bilateral entre Puerto Rico y los Estados
Unidos, 29 Rev. Jur. UIA 297 at 316 n. 80 (1995) :
136
Mr. Seiberling:
Now, section 172 provides that citizens
of Micronesian states not residing in the
United States shall be entitled to the
same rights and privileges as any other
nonresident alien and that they shall be
treated as persons within the meaning of
the Administrative Procedure Act and the
Freedom of Information Act.
But in the section by section analysis of
section 172, it is noted, and I am quoting:
" [a] United States citizen who becomes
a citizen of a FAS and who does not
renounce his United States citizenship,
would retain his United States citizenship
and continue to be entitled to the same
rights and privileges as any other United
States citizen. "
This doesn't appear pertinent to the subject
matter of section 172.
Does this contemplate dual citizenship?
Mr. Berg:
It could contemplate a situation whereby an
individual would have both American citizen-
ship as well as freely associated states
citizenship. But if a person does acquire
American citizenship, or is an American
citizen, and has taken no act that would
otherwise strip him of his American citizen-
ship, then his rights would be those of an
American citizenship versus those of a resident
alien, which are the rights spoken to in
section 172.
Mr. Seiberling:
But he could also have a dual citizenship?
Mr. Berg:
The United States has a particular position
with respect to dual citizenship. Often-
times, however, an individual act that may
or may not be considered dispositive with
respect to the continuation of U.S. citizen-
ship continues.
We don' t want a situation where a provision
of the compact might be construed to strip
an American citizen of his rights as citizen
il
137
as long as he is a citizen.
'emphasis in citation) .
Moreover, the consistency of Congressional actions towards the
elimination of any possible limitation as to dual citizenship is
quite apparent from two very pertinent examples. First, Congress
moved in that direction when as part of the amendments made by P.L.
95-432 (1978) it elected to eliminate sub-part 5 of Section 349
which read:
"Sec. 349 (a) From and after the effective
date of this Act a person who is a national
of the United States whether by birth or
naturalization, shall lose his nationality
by-
(5) voting in a political election in a
foreign state or participating in an
election or plebiscite to determine the
sovereignty over foreign territory"
66 Stat. 268 (1952) .
The second example was so recently as 1994 when Congress
enacted P.L. 103-417 (1994) which, consistent with our
interpretation, facilitates the transmission of U.S. citizenship to
descendants of a citizen born and living outside the United States.
See Addendum #1, Proela, Bilateral Compact Analysis #1.
Issue 2. Having found that there is no prohibition against
dual citizenship, then no impediment exists for an arrangement of
dual citizenship between the United States and a non- territorial
Free Associated State.
Pursuant to contemporary International Law, under a bilateral
compact of Free Association, the parties could agree to any
citizenship arrangement that they deem appropriate, United States
V. Wong Kim Ark. 169 U.S. 649, 688 (1898).
Thus, it seems apparent that the granting of dual citizenship
status to persons born in Puerto Rico is a matter of policy making
to be addressed by Congress and the Executive Branch, and not a
matter of legal or constitutional constraints. A Congressional
grant of dual citizenship included as part of a bilateral compact
of free association could not be judicially reviewable under the
political question doctrine. Marbury v. Madison. 5 U.S. (1 Cranch)
137,164 (1803) .
As a matter of fact, federal courts have refrained from
reviewing "the policies that underlie the very recognition of
another sovereign by our own." Antolok v. U.S. . 873 F. 2d 369, 383
(D.C.Cir. 1989) .
138
Furthermore, the Supreme Court has been extremely consistent
in finding that "the political question doctrine excludes from
judicial review those controversies which revolve around policy
choices and value determinations constitutionally committed for
resolution to the halls of Congress or the confines of the
Executive Branch. " Japan V?halinq Ass'n v. American Cetacean Soc'y.
478 U.S. 221, 230 (1986) .
This case follows a consistent line of cases ending with U.S.
V. Pink. 315 U.S. 203 (1942) where the Supreme Court explained to
further lengths the limitations imposed by the policy making powers
of the political branches on the courts. In Pink at 229 the Court
underlined that: [the] "authority [of recognition] is not limited
to a determination of the government to be recognized. It includes
the power to determine the policy which is to govern questions of
recognition. Objections to the tmderlying policy as well as
objections to recognitions are to be addressed by the political
departments and not to the courts."
IV. Conclusion:
Dual citizenship is permitted by the Constitution and legal
practice of the United States and a dual citizenship arrangement is
fully possible in a bilateral compact outside of the Territorial
Clause of the United States Constitution as a policy determination
by the political branches.
139
THE PREPARED STATEMENT OF ANTONIO J. FAS ALZAMORA, ESQ.
Good Morning Mr. Chairman and members of the Conunittee:
I appear before you in my personal capacity, even though I
have been a legislator of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico for
twenty years, four as a member of the House of the Representatives
and sixteen in the Senate, where I am the Deputy Minority Leader of
the Popular Democratic Party. From 1985 to 1989, I was Secretary
General of my Party, whose founder Luis Munoz Marin, is the framing
father of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico.
As an active participant in our island's electoral processes
to elect our elected officials, as well as in those which pose
fundamental issues, such as the status plebiscite, held on November
14, 1993, I want to express to this distinguished subcommittee my
strong opposition to this bill, since it attempts against the right
of self determination of the People of Puerto Rico. The 1993
plebiscite was a clean process legitimized by the vote of 1.7
millon of my fellow citizens; who faithful to their democratic
traditions favored the continuation of the Commonwealth status, and
rejected statehood and independence. This act undoubfully is the
result of a democratic, free, and voluntary process.
There is nothing more undemocratic and unamerican than to
ignore the will of the majority. We learned this from the Framing
Fathers of the Constitution of the United States, and we have
proudly applied it in our daily lives as an organized society.
The proposal to hold another status referendum, regardless of
the options included on the ballot or the definitions of each
formula, is an attempt against the democracy and against the
decision adopted by most Puerto Ricans, less than three years ago.
The United States proudly boasts about being the custodian of
democracy, as zealous guards of the decisions of the people to
democratically choose its elected officials and status, and as a
defferent of freedom of speech.
It has done so in all five continents, in many nations of this
hemisphere. Why, then, is doesn't do the same in Puerto Rico? Not
doing so is like reviving the old imperialistic philosophy, to
accept an electoral result when it is favorable and to invalidate
it when it is unfavorable.
Governor Pedro Rossell6 imposed the 1993 status plebiscite,
committing himself publicly to accept the results and defend them
before the United States Congress on behalf of the People of Puerto
Rico. What was done? Nothing. Quite the contrary, he did not
respect the results, turned his back to the people's mandate in
favor of the Commonwealth, and then appealed before you seeking
help to invalidate the plebiscite results, alleging our current
status relationship is colonial. Now he is favoring a bill
introduced by Congressman Young, a statehood bill.
The United States as a nation and its Congress as an
140
institution, respects the American democracy. It should also
respect, as well, the democracy of Puerto Rico.
You, Congressmen, are the result of a democratic exercise;
Governor Rossell6 and the Resident Commissioner Carlos Romero
Barcel6, as well, are a result of a majority with regards status,
such an exercise hs b een engaged in the ocassions in 1952, 1967
and 1993.
The Commonwealth status has imperfections, as any political
formula might, and needs to move forward toward more autonomy.
But, why Congress can not decide to enhance the Commonwealth status
as expressed by the people of Puerto Rico? Why should sore losers
get it their the way? Being faithful to your democratic beliefs as
members of Congress, which you represent today, is respecting the
mandate of the People of Puerto Rico and addressing responsibly
such will.
Our political relationship is not colonial since July 25,
1952. It was precisely on 1953, when President Dwight Eisenhower
affirmed before the United Nations that Puerto Rico had achieved a
level of self government under the Commonwealth status, by virtu^
of which the United States ceased transmitting information oh
colonial territories.
I ask you, have the conditions changed since then, or you feel
a necessity to change the way to govern the Commonwealth of Puerto
Rico? Or do you favor statehood over Commonwealth, strictly for
political or financial reasons?
If the reason is the first use, the speak clearly and state
where are we mistaken so we can fix the problem. If it is the
second one, affirm clearly you wish to add a new star to the United
States flag, whether it is going to be Puerto Rico or the District
of Columbia. Lastly, if the reasoning is economic to favor
statehood, I considerly it an injustice, since our people has
contributed to the United States as much as it has received. Among
the many economic contributions of Puerto Rico to the United
States, rank, being one of the top ten markets for United States
goods, investments in Puerto Rico generate thousands of jobs in the
mainland, and the military bases, which do not pay a cent to the
Commonwealth. This represent millions in savings to the United
States. Equally has been our significant contributions in the
military, Puerto Rican soldiers have fought courageously overseas
when call upon to serve America, in every single war and conflict
in which the United States has been involved since World War I .
Puerto Rico is a nation which seeks through the Commonwealth
status to develop to a higher limit its self Government. This has
been recognized by the United States memorandum on the cessation of
trasnmmiting information with the establishment of the Commonwealth
of Puerto Rico. "The people of Puerto Rico have achieved a full
141
level of self government therefore the government of the United
States has decided that is no longer necessary to transmit
information with regards to Puerto Rico in light of Article 73 (e)
of the United Nations Charter. This conclusion acknowledges the
level of self government attained in the Commonwealth. One of the
main elements of the Commonwealth Constitution, as ratified by the
United States Congress, establishes that the political power
emanates from the people and excersised in conformity with its
will, as agreed in the compact between the people of Puerto Rico an
the people of the United States.
International and national legitimation that the government of
the United States gave to the Commonwealth at the United Nations on
the fifties and in the following statements before the
international community. Likewise, this bill puts you in an
uncomfortable position, hard to explain and even harder to
understand, because while you recognized the Constitution of the
United States as the sovering authority of the American nation, on
the other hand you are deat and refuse to accept ours on those same
terms. In addition, you are against what yourselves vigorously
defended, back in 1953 before the United Nation.
•
The Young bill is an awesome contradiction, because it is
against and rejects our natural condition considering it inferior
and colonial, and seeks to change it for another one like statehood
which represents the total denial of what the Puerto Rican people
have achieve as a country and as a Caribbean nation. That which is
promoted by the Young Bill it is, indeed, inferiority.
So, if is a colonial issue, then give a look to statehood, the
denial of the Puerto Rican nation, which is the most colonial
status option among the others. Our theory, even though it is of
the minority, its holding is that the statehood is a political
complex of inferiority, which would establish a relationship
without dignity. Do you think you can achieve political dignity
with seven congressmen, two senators and voting for the President
of the United States and also paying federal taxes in exchange for
welfare?
That is a very narrow minded vision, way too simplistic. The
dignity of the Puerto Rican people, proud of its history, of is
struggles and achievements, goes beyond a mere political
representation or an economic contribution proportional to the IS
treasury in order to enjoy some benefits. It has more to do with
our deepest values, with those which give sense and praise our
existence as a democratic country, freedom lover and respectful of
man's fundamental rights.
The United States is a nation with its own history, language,
literature, territory, values, and traditions. Puerto Rico is
exactly the same, a nation with its own particular characteristics.
Any issue between the mainland and the Island should be clear in
142
the fact that they are different nations, although associated in a
search for a common purpose.
During the last 98 years we have contributed to the American
dream. In light of the nature of our political relationship with
the United States, you have the legal and moral obligation to
contribute to the development of the "Puerto Rico dream" expressed
democratically by the majority of our people to address
affirmatively the 1993 results, and to enhance the Commonwealth
status to the highest degree of autonomy compatible with our
permanent relationship with the United States. This way both
nations will continue co-existing with the same dignity, just like
the way the United States Flag and the Puerto Rican Flag fly next
to each other, at the same level. We have a self government, which
was born by virtue of the compact agreed by the people of Puerto
Rico and the United States, and have entered an era of new
developments. The pretensions of the Young bill of denationalizing
Puerto Rico through statehood is "like throwing rocks to the moon".
The people of Puerto Rico has decided on three occasions when has
been confronted with the possibility of becoming something which we
are not. To those members with such contemplations, I would ask,
do no insist. Congressmen, because the only dignified authority foB
the majority of the Puerto Ricans is the one which is born and
raised from our own entrails. Thank you.
143
THE PREPARED STATEMENT OF HERBERT W. BROWN III
1) PUERTO RICANS VOTED IN 1993 TO CHANGE THEIR STATUS
PUERTO RICANS, REGARDLESS OF WHICH STATUS OPTION THEY CHOSE IN
THE 1993 PLEBISCITE, VOTED 100 PERCENT FOR A NEW STATUS. THEY
UNANIMOUSLY AGREED THAT OUR CURRENT STATUS AS AN UNINCORPORATED
U.S. TERRITORY DID NOT MEET THEIR ASPIRATIONS OF FULL SELF-
GOVERNMENT.
WE NO LONGER WANT TO DEPEND ON THE GOODWILL OF CONGRESSMAN AND
SENATORS FROM DISTANT STATES BEHOLDEN TO THEIR OWN CONSTITUENCIES
AND SPECIAL INTERESTS. WE NO LONGER WANT TO BE SHUT OUT OF WHITE
HOUSE POLICY MATTERS AFFECTING OUR ISLAND BECAUSE WE DON'T HAVE
ANY ELECTORAL VOTE POWER. WE NO LONGER WANT TO BE CAPITOL HILL
SUPPLICANTS, DEPENDENT ON THE LARGESSE OF OTHERS.
WHAT WE WANT IS A VOICE IN OUR FUTURE. A VOICE THAT HAS BEEN
DENIED FOR 500 YEARS.
WHAT WE COULDN'T AGREE ON WAS THE APPROPRIATE OPTION TO TRANSFORM
THE CURRENT COLONIAL STATUS TO ONE THAT REFLECTED OUR SELF-
DETERMINATION GOALS. MUCH OF THE ROOT OF OUR INABILITY TO CHOOSE
THE RIGHT VEHICLE FOR SELF-GOVERNMENT WAS, AND IS, CONFUSION AS
TO THE CHOICES THAT ARE LEGALLY PERMISSIBLE UNDER THE U.S.
CONSTITUTION.
2) CONGRESS RESPONDED TO THE PLEBISCITE'S RESULTS
CONTRARY TO WHAT SOME MAY ARGUE, CONGRESS DID INDEED ADDRESS THE
1993 PLEBISCITE RESULTS. THE RESPONSE SIGNED BY THE FOUR
CHAIRMEN OF THE COMMITTEES AND SUBCOMMITTEES RESPONSIBLE FOR
PUERTO RICO, CAREFULLY ANALYZED THE PLEBISCITE RESULTS AND THE
TESTIMONY GIVEN AT HEARINGS ON THE BALLOT ON OCTOBER 17, 1996.
THE RESULT WAS THE BILL NOW BEFORE US.
SHOWING A KEEN KNOWLEDGE OF HISTORY AND CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, YOU
HAVE CORRECTLY CONCLUDED THAT THE WINNING FORMULA - ENHANCED
COMMONWEALTH - WAS LEGALLY DEFECTIVE IN THAT CONGRESS WAS
CONSTITUTIONALLY BARRED FROM IMPLEMENTING MANY OF ITS PROVISIONS
INCLUDING THE GUARANTEE OF U.S. CITIZENSHIP AND PERMANENT TIES
WITH THE U.S.- PROVISIONS THAT COULD ONLY BE REALIZED THROUGH
STATEHOOD .
FORTUNATELY, CONGRESS WITH ITS PLENARY POWERS UNDER THE TERRITORY
CLAUSE DID NOT LEAVE THE MATTER STANDING. IT HAS SEEN FIT, UNDER
HR 3024, TO DEFINE THOSE STATUS OPTIONS THAT ARE AVAILABLE TO
PUERTO RICO AND WHICH CAN BE CONSTITUTIONALLY IMPLEMENTED. THAT
IS CONGRESS' RESPONSIBILITY UNDER THE CONSTITUTION AND UNDER THE
144
TREATY OF PARIS - AND IT IS A RESPONSIBILITY IT HAS ADMIRABLY AND
COURAGEOUSLY CARRIED OUT IN PROPOSING THIS LEGISLATION.
YOUR INITIATIVE -WHICH HAS BEEN THE TARGET OF MISPLACED CRITICISM
BY SOME- HAS BEEN WELCOMED BY ALL CLEAR THINKING PUERTO RICANS.
FOR THE SAME AUTHORITY THAT GIVES RISE TO THIS BILL COULD WELL
HAVE BEEN EXERCISED TO UNILATERALLY DETERMINE THE ISLAND'S STATUS
AND THAT OF ITS RESIDENTS. NOTHING PREVENTS CONGRESS FROM
DECLARING BY FIAT PUERTO RICO'S INDEPENDENCE - IN WHICH CASE OUR
STATUTORY AMERICAN CITIZENSHIP WOULD HAVE BEEN REPLACED BY A NEW
PUERTO RICAN EQUIVALENT.
YOU HAVE PROVIDED US THE VEHICLE TO EXERCISE OUR RIGHT OF SELF-
DETERMINATION WITH A CORRESPONDING CONGRESSIONAL COMMITMENT TO
IMPLEMENT THE CHOICE SELECTED. WE HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO FULLY
AND FINALLY ATTAIN, AFTER 500 YEARS, COMPLETE SELF-GOVERNMENT -
EITHER AS AN INDEPENDENT NATION, WITH OUR OWN LAWS AND
CITIZENSHIP - OR, AS THE FIFTY-FIRST STATE IN THE UNION, WITH
FULL AMERICAN CITIZENSHIP, EQUAL WITH ALL OTHER AMERICANS, AND
WITH ALL THE RIGHTS AND OBLIGATIONS THIS STATUS ENTAILS.
GIVEN YOUR COMMITMENT TO IMPLEMENT OUR CHOICE, WE MUST NOT LET
INTERNAL RANCOR OR PETTY JEALOUSIES DENY US OR OUR WELL EARNED
DESTINY.
3) UNLESS WE ACT ON STATUS, CONGRESS WILL ACT FOR US PERHAPS TO
OUR DETRIMENT
HAVING SHOWN IN 1993 THAT COMMONWEALTH OR THE STATUS QUO IS BUT
AN IMPERMANENT STATE OF AFFAIRS, THE PEOPLE OF PUERTO RICO HAVE
THE OPPORTUNITY TO DETERMINE THE FUTURE STATUS OF THE ISLAND AND
ITS RELATIONSHIP, IF ANY, WITH THE U.S..
BUT IF THIS BILL IS DERAILED OR IF FULL SELF-GOVERNMENT IS
REJECTED AND THE STATUS QUO PREVAILS - THE REAL LOSERS WILL BE
THE PEOPLE OF PUERTO RICO. WHY? WE HAVE A CHANCE TO DETERMINE
HOW AND UNDER WHAT CONDITIONS 500 YEARS OF COLONIALISM WILL BE
SHED. IF WE DON'T MAKE THIS DECISION FOR OURSELVES THEN WE RUN
THE RISK THAT CONGRESS WILL MAKE IT FOR US.
HAVING DECIDED THAT COMMONWEALTH IS TRANSITORY AND THAT PUERTO
RICO'S PATH TO FULL SELF-GOVERNMENT IS THE ONLY WAY OF ENDING THE
LAST VESTIGES OF COLONIALISM, CONGRESS WILL ACT IF WE FAIL TO
EXERCISE OUR RIGHT TO SELF-DETERMINATION.
CONGRESS HAS IT IN ITS POWER, CONSTITUTIONALLY TO DETERMINE OUR
STATUS AND OUR CITIZENSHIP. THE TERRITORIAL CLAUSE SPECIFICALLY
CONFERS THESE POWERS ON CONGRESS AND IT IS WITHIN ITS AUTHORITY,
EVEN ITS DUTY, TO EXERCISE THEM.
WE HAVE IT WITHIN OUR POWER TO CHOOSE TO RETAIN OUR U.S.
CITIZENSHIP AND FOREVER CEMENT OUR TIES TO THE U.S. - IN WHOSE
145
DEFENSE OF DEMOCRACY WE HAVE MADE THE SUPREME SACRIFICE SINCE THE
FIRST WORLD WAR. THIS STATEHOOD OFFERS.
WE ALSO HAVE IT WITHIN OUR POWER TO CHOOSE TO BECOME AN
INDEPENDENT NATION AND EXCHANGE OUR U.S. CITIZENSHIP FOR A PUERTO
RICAN CITIZENSHIP. A PAINFUL DECISION, YET ONE IN KEEPING WITH
INTERNATIONAL NORMS.
FINALLY, WE HAVE IT WITHIN OUR POWER TO ABDICATE OUR
RESPONSIBILITIES AND CEDE CONTROL TO THOSE WHO PROFIT FROM THE
STATUS QUO BY KILLING THIS BILL OR FAILING TO CHOOSE ONE OF THE
TWO PATHS TO FULL SELF-GOVERNMENT THIS LEGISLATION OFFERS.
SINCE NO TERRITORY HAS EVER ENTERED THE UNION WITHOUT ITS VOTERS
FIRST APPROVING STATEHOOD, OUR OBSTRUCTIONISM, INACTION OR
INABILITY TO ACT ON STATUS WOULD CEDE THAT DECISION TO CONGRESS
WHICH WOULD OFFER UP, UNILATERALLY, ONE ENFORCED OPTION,
INDEPENDENCE.
WHETHER ONE IS FOR INDEPENDENCE OR NOT, FOR STATEHOOD OR NOT, FOR
THE STATUS QUO OR NOT, THIS REAL POSSIBILITY PRESENTS ALL THE
WORST OF ALL POSSIBLE WORLDS.
A WORLD IN WHICH OUR SLOWLY ERODING RIGHTS UNDER THE U.S.
CONSTITUTION WOULD CONTINUE AND PERHAPS ACCELERATE AS CONGRESS
FINALLY GETS FED UP WITH OUR UNWILLINGNESS TO DEAL WITH STATUS
AND DECIDE TO SETTLE THE MATTER ON THEIR OWN.
A WORLD WHERE OUR FREEDOM TO CHOOSE OUR DESTINY HAS BEEN REPLACED
BY CONGRESSIONAL FIAT AND OUR BARGAINING POWER REDUCED TO A
SUPPLICANT, ONCE MORE.
THESE THEN ARE THE CHOICES AVAILABLE. STATEHOOD AND U.S.
CITIZENSHIP AND THE RIGHT TO PARTICIPATE AS EQUALS IN THE
AMERICAN POLITICAL PROCESS. INDEPENDENCE AND PUERTO RICAN
NATIONALITY AND CITIZENSHIP. THE STATUS QUO WITH ITS
IMPERMANENCE BOTH AS TO POLITICAL STATUS AND CITIZENSHIP.
AND, IF WE CHOOSE THE LATTER, THEN THOSE WHO HAVE BEEN SINGULARLY
UNSUCCESSFUL IN 'EXTENDING', 'ENHANCING', 'CULMINATING', AND
'PERFECTING' OUR STATUS WILL HAVE BEEN SUCCESSFUL ONLY IN
TRANSFERRING BACK TO CONGRESS PUERTO RICO'S FUTURE.
WE CANNOT ALLOW THIS OPPORTUNITY TO ESCAPE US. WE HAVE IT WITHIN
OUR CONTROL TO DETERMINE OUR FUTURE. CONGRESS HAS GIVEN US THE
CHANCE, A CHANCE THAT IF ALLOWED TO SLIP AWAY, MAY BE LOST
FOREVER.
ARE WE FINALLY OPEN TO THE CHALLENGE THAT THIS BILL HANDS US? OR
ARE WE DESTINED TO ALLOW POLITICAL OPPORTUNISM, AND SHORT TERM
ECONOMIC INTERESTS TO DEFEAT OUR RIGHT TO SELF-GOVERNMENT?
146
FOR ONE, I BELIEVE WE ARE UP TO THE TASK CONGRESS HAS LAID OUT
FOR PUERTO RICO. IN THIS BELIEF, I ASK ALL PUERTO RICANS TO
SUPPORT THIS LEGISLATION AND THEN JOIN TOGETHER AND EXERCISE OUR
RIGHT TO SELF-DETERMINATION.
THANK YOU.
147
TEN-POINT ANALYSIS OF H.R. 3024:
1. Under U.S. law and practice as well relevant resolutions of the U.N. General Assembly, there are
three recognized political status options available to the people of territories which have not yet completed
the transition from a previous colonial status to full self-government: integration into a sovereign nation,
independence, or a sovereign-to-sovereign treaty with another nation consistent with the status of free
association. H.R. 3024 provides for a self-determination process through which the people of Puerto
Rico can become fiilly self-governing by approving a change in Puerto Rico's current political status in
order to achieve one of the three recognized forms of fiill self-government.
2. H.R. 3024 bill does not address the proposed changes to the existing "commonwealth" regime as set
forth in the "Definition of Commonwealth" presented by the PDP on the 1993 status plebiscite ballot.
This is because the alternatives for instituting full self-government are the legitimate subject-matter of a
formal self-determination process, rather than mere proposals for legislative measures within the scope of
the existing "commonwealth" framework for local government operations while unincorporated territory
status continues. Should the voters reject a change of status in favor of a recognized form of full self-
goverrunent, new or different measures to modify the current "commonwealth" structure for local
government administration still can be proposed to Congress. To avoid confusion between legislative
proposals to modify the current "commonwealth" structure and the options for a fully self-governing
status. Section 5(c)(2) of the bill expressly recognizes that the current "commonwealth" unincorporated
territory status will continue in the event voters reject a plan for transition to full self-government
proposed in accordance with the act - subject to the authority' of Congress under the Territorial Clause at
Art. IV, Sec. 3, CI. 2 of the U.S. Constitution. To reiterate in the most clear and straight-fonvard
terms possible: H.R 3024 is a measure which presents the people with the full range of known
options for changing the present status of Puerto Rico to achieve a recognized form of full self-
government. The present status of the "Commonwealth of Puerto Rico" as an unincorporated
territory under the Territorial Clause is not — and constitutionally never can become — a form of
full self-government. Therefore, H.R. 3024 does not address the current status, which simply will
continue as may be permitted by Congress if Puerto Ricans do not approve a recognized form of full
self-government.
3. Contrary to the newspaper headlines, the Clinton Administration's brief policy statement of March
1 1, 1996 on Puerto Rican self-determination is not inconsistent with H.R. 3024. Both the
Administration spokesman's policy statement and the bill affirm the long-standing bipartisan U.S.
position respecting the right of the people of Puerto Rico to choose a future political status which ~ upon
acceptance by the U.S. Congress - would transform the "Commonwealth of Puerto Rico" into a
recognized form of full self-government based on separate sovereignty or statehood. Both the
Administration policy statement and H.R. 3024 also recognize that the voters may prefer to remain a
"commonwealth," in which case the status quo will continue based on voter disapproval of a status
change. That means continuation of the current unincorporated "commonwealth" territory status under
the Territorial Clause. This is why the White House statement is very precise and carefully written to
accommodate a result in which the voters' "aspirations for self-determination" can be "fiilfilled" by
continuation of the current "commonwealth" status quo. It is critical to note that the Administration
statement does not state that the "aspirations of the people for full self govenmient" can be achieved
through a determination by the voters in favor of "commonwealth" status. Nor does the Administration
statement make any commitment to changes in the "commonwealth" structure consistent with the
"Definition of Commonwealth" on the 1993 plebiscite ballot. This is because the White House knows
that the natiu-e of "commonwealth" will still be subject to the authority of Congress under the Territorial
Clause until Puerto Rico becomes a state or a separate sovereign nation. Changes or "improvements" to
the existing commonwealth status quo are a matter of Congressional discretion, not something that can be
achieved through self-determination by the people.
148
4. The view that the March 1 1 statement by an Administration spokesman rejected the approach
embodied in H.R. 3024 has no basis in the language of the policy' statement itself. Only if the
Administration asserts that voter approval of the current "commonwealth" unincorporated territor>' status
under the Territorial Clause will constitute full self-government would there be a diflference between the
Administration position and H.R. 3024. However, as issued by the White House inclusion of
"commonwealth" in the Administration statement has the same meaning as recognition of the ability of
the voters to reject change in favor of continued "commonwealth" in Section 5(c)(2) of H.R. 3024. Like
so much of what has been done for the last four decades by those federal and local oQlcials who have been
ambi\alent about ending the colonial era for Puerto Rico, the March 1 1 Administration statement was
ambiguous enough to allow all parties in Puerto Rico to read what they want to in the statement. The
time for ambiguity is over, and the time for moral courage and intellectual honesty finally has arrived. I
call on the Administration to issue a clear statement that full self-government can not be achie%ed as long
as the Territorial Clause applies. It is appropriate to affirm that the U.S. will respect the wishes of the
people, but honesty requires that commitment to be understood in the context of the reality that Congress
will continue to have the discretion and authority to alter, modify or otherwise dispose of the territory and
determine the status of the population in accordance with the Treafy of Paris. Partial application of the
U.S. Constitution includes certain rights against fundamental abuses of Federal powers, but that does not
secure permanent union, equal legal and political rights or guaranteed citizenship for the inhabitants of
the territory. H is deceptive to allow people to belioe thcv are secure in rights which, in reality, can
be restricted, modified or c\cn taken awav in the future. This will be the case until the transition to
self-government that began in 1952 is completed bv transforming the "Commonwealth of Puerto
Rico" into a nation with separate sovereignty or a state of the union as defined in H.R. 3204. The
approval process and voting procedures through which the wishes of the people regarding these options
are expressed can vary, and will be determined by Congress in any federally-sanctioned self-determination
process. The Administration may have views on the proposed mechanism which differ from H.R. 3024,
and that can be debated. But as long as the procedure is one in which the voters understand how to cast
a ballot in order to approve a change in the current status, or reject change in favor of preserving the
status quo, the process of democratic self-expression will be valid under norms for self-determination.
5. H.R. 3024 recognizes that as long as unincorporated territory status continues the "Commonwealth
of Puerto Rico" will not achieve a recognized form of full self-government. Misguided policies intended
to establish that unincoporated territory status is consistent with full self-government have failed, despite
the best efforts of certain U.S. and Puerto Rican political and commercial interest groups to preserve the
status quo out of self-interest at the expense of progress toward a recognized form of full self-government.
Such measures as partial e.x-tension of the U.S. Constitution under the Insular Cases, the extension of a
limited form of U.S. citizenship based on birth in the territory, and the establishment of local
constitutional government during the current territorial era have not created a permanent, legally
enforceable, or fully self-governing status for the territory and its inhabitants. What one Congress may
give to Puerto Rico, a future Congress can take away as long ai the Territorial Clause applies. It is
dangerous for the U.S. citizens of Puerto Rico to believe other^vise, because even the well-intentioned
federal officials who may sincerely wish unincorporated territorial status could become permanent and be
based on an enforceable govemment-to-govemment mutuality will not be around if and when a ftitiu^e
Congress exercises its discretion to gradually or summarily alter, modify, amend, reduce, restrict or
eliminate the legal rights and political status the territorial population has come to take for granted at
their own peril. We should never forget that under U.S. constitutional law Puerto Ricans continue to be
classified legally as "inhabitants" of a "territory" of which Congress may "dispose" through the exercise
of its "plenary power" over unincorporated "possessions" such as the "Commonwealth of Puerto Rico."
Puerto Ricans have "civil rights and political status" conferred at the discretion of Congress under Article
IX of the Treaty of Paris.
6. Although the United States ceased transmitting information to the United Nations in 1953 based
upon adoption of a local constitution approved by Congress and the inhabitants of the territory, Puerto
149
Rico has not been fully integrated into the United States. Nor does Puerto Rico exercise the necessary
indicia of separate sovereignty and nationality to constitute free association. The historical and legal
record which supports this conclusion includes the fact that both before and since local constitutional self-
government was instituted the legal, political and citizenship status of the population of Puerto Rico has
been determined unilaterally by the U.S. Congress, a national legislative body in which the people of the
territory have no voting representation. The legal and political status of the population provided and
continued at the discretion of the U.S. Congress does not include equal rights with other U.S. citizens
in the states, is a limited form citizenship which is not guaranteed, and the political status of the
"Commonwealth of Puerto Rico." still an unincorporated territory, is not permanent. Although
the principle of consent was respected in establishing the local constitution in that the voters of the
territory gave approval, the constitution was authorized, approved and amended by Congress. The
Federal courts have interpreted the "Commonwealth of Puerto Rico" structure for local
constitutional self-government as merely a delegation of Congressional authority over local affairs
pursuant to the Territorial Clause of the U.S. Constitution. In addition, both the 1961 "Kennedy
Memo" on Puerto Rico's status, and the "Bush Memo" of 1992, the most recent formal Presidential policy
document relating to Puerto Rico's status, explicitly state that the authority of the local constitutional
goverrunent is limited to "internal affairs and administration" at the territorial level.
7. Numerous acts of Congress and Federal court decisions applicable to Puerto Rico establish beyond
doubt that the attempt to establish a commonwealth status during the current territorial era based on
mutual consent has failed both legally and politically, and has not resulted in decolonization. Contrary to
recent dangerously misleading statements by certain federal and territorial officials, the precedent of the
Northern Mariana Islands and Guam territories, as well as free association for Micronesia, Palau and the
Marshall Islands, make it clear that the attempt to carve out a status falling somewhere between
permanent \inion and separate sovereignty - the so-called best of both worlds solution - is doomed to
failure due to the purposeful design of the framers of the U.S. Constitution. The boundaries of the
possible have been established, and the bottom line is this: a non-state area under U.S. sovereignty is
subject to the Territorial Clause and a pact based on the principle of consent or mutuality is not
legally enforceable to the extent that such an area can become fully self-governing. As to free
association, creative arrangements are possible as the Micronesian treaties demonstrate, but with
separate sovereignty there is separate nationality and citizenship. Liberal alien immigration p)olicies
have been provided but not dual citizenship, and the relationship is not permanent or binding, but rather
is terminable at will on the same terms by either govenmient.
8. The preceding discussion reminds us that the current nationality and citizenship status of Puerto
Ricans under 8 U.S.C. 1402 does not arise under the 14th Amendment of the Constitution based on birth
or naturalization in the United States. Like the previous status of "citizens of Puerto Rico" under the
Forakcr Act, the current U.S. citizenship of the people of Puerto Rico is a statutory arrangement
which was conferred at the discretion of Congress under the Territorial Clause and does not arise
from an exercise of sovereign self-determination by the people of Puerto Rico. The current limited
and less-than-cqual U.S. citizenship status of people bom in Puerto Rico during the territorial period was
prescribed by Congress to implement U.S. sovereignty and nationality established imder Article IX of the
Treaty of Paris. It is easy for those with constitutionally guaranteed citizenship rights in the U.S. to
insist that Congress could only restrict or eliminate the current citizenship status based on birth in Puerto
Rico if there were some compelling Federal purpose which satisfied the due process equal protection test.
These "friends of Puerto Rico" are simply missing the point that Puerto Ricans want the same rights as
other U.S. citizens, and will stand for nothing less if Puerto Rico is to remain within the U.S. political
system. Of course, if Puerto Ricans choose separate sovereignty Puerto Rico will control its own
nationality and citizenship status, and U.S. nationality and citizenship will end on terms prescribed by
Congress. A legal analysis of the Congressional Research Service dated November 15, 1990, has been
cited by those who argue that U.S. citizenship can not be lost without the consent of the people of Puerto
Rico. That is not what the CRS opinion concludes. Rather, the memo points out that as long as Puerto
Rico remains an unincorporated territory Congress must have a legitimate purpose that would justify
150
termination of U.S. citizenship. However, the memo explicitly recognizes that the "possibility of
revocation in the event of independence" would not involve the same difficulty of identifying a "legitimate
reason" for ending U.S. citizenship for those who acquired it during the territorial period based on being
bom in Puerto Rico (See, CRS Document on "Questions in re Citizenship Status of Puerto Ricans,"
November 15, 1990, p. 4). A vote for separate sovereignty would be consent by the people to withdrawal
of U.S. nationality and citizenship, and majority rule would prevail and affect the entire population unless
Congress provided othenvise. The concept of mass dual citizenship is a fantasy which will never come
true. As discussed below, Congress will never agree to dual citizenship because it is incompatible with
and would undermine both U.S. and Puerto Rican sovereignty.
9. The self-determination procedure proposed by H.R. 3024 very simply asks the people concerned
which of the paths to full self-government would be preferred, and then requires the U.S. Congress ~ after
failing to do so during a century of colonial rule ~ to inform the people of the specific terms under which
the Congress would be willing to approve the preferred future political status constituting fiill self-
government outside the Territorial Clause. If the voters do not accept, agree with or approve the
terms offered by the U.S. Congress for achie\ing the recoenized form of full self-government
preferred bv the population, the power to preserve the status quo by rejecting the U.S. offer
remains with the people under the terms of H.R. 3024. Voting on the option of preseryjng the
status quo would be redundant, because the status quo is what Puerto Rico automatically will get if
the voters reject change. While expressly including the option of preserving the unincorporated
territory status quo on the ballot would not be legally objectionable, it is not required or even relevant to
the choice between the three recognized forms of full self-government. In the history of post W.W. II
decolonization, the norm has been for non-self-governing people to choose between the recognized forms
of full self-government, and remaining in colonial status generally has not been an option w hich needed to
be included on a self-determination ballot in most cases. For example, in U.S. decolonization practice the
voters in the Northern Mariana Islands, the Federated States of Micronesia, Palau and the Republic of the
Marshall Islands were not given the option of remaining in a non-self-governing status under the U.N.
trusteeship system.
10. Similarly, there is no logic or purpose in voting again on the changes to the status quo which
were proposed under "improved" or "enhanced" version of the "Definition of Commonwealth" as
presented on the 1993 ballot. For as long as the "Commonwealth of Puerto Rico" remains an
unincorporated territory such changes will be at the discretion of Congress rather than something
that can be implemented through an exercise of sovereign self-determination by the people of Puerto
Rico. Again, only the options for full self-government are the legitimate subject matter for a valid
act of self-determination in which the U.S. Congress would agree to recognize an exercise of the
inherent sovereignty of the people of Puerto Rico as the basis for decolonization for the first time in
500 years. A vote to remain in the present colonial status has little value or meaning in the context of a
process intended to determine if the U.S. and Puerto Rico wil) be able to agree on a process for
democratically instituting one of the recognized options for full self-government. H.R. 3024 represents
the most authoritative and definitive proposal regarding the status of Puerto Rico formally introduced by a
Member of Congress since the Treaty of Paris was taken up by the Senate almost 100 years ago. As a
matter of constitutional and international law, this bill goes beyond the proposals considered by Congress
in 1991 because it recognizes that a vote to preserve the status quo and continue unincorporated territory
status will never resolve Puerto Rico's status permanently, and that continuation of the present
"commonwealth" status is what will occur automatically and by default if the people of Puerto Rico arc not
yet ready for full self-government. Having said that, if Congress chose to include some ballot pro\ision
relating to continuation of the present status it would not be wTong to do so as long as it is made clear that
the unincorporated commonwealth status is not a form of full self-government and is not a path to
decolonization.
151
AUTHORITIES, CITATIONS AND COMMENTS IN SUPPORT OF PRECEDING ANALYSIS:
I. INTERNATIONAL STANDARDS FOR SELF-GOVERNMENT
As a party to the Charter of the United Nations, the United States has administered its territories
and possessions in the context of the U.N. decolonization process. In addition to Article 73 and other
provisions of the U.N. Charter relating to termination of the non-self-governing status of people in
territories governed by administering powers. Resolution 2625 (XXV) of October 24, 1970 is the most
recent relevant General Assembly measure comprehensively addressing the framework for completing the
transition from a previous colonial status to a recognized form of full self-govermnent. Preceding
measures included G.A. Res. 1541 and G.A. Res. 1514 of 1960. The three status options of
independence, integration or free association set forth in Section 4 of H.R. 3024 are consistent with these
U.N. measures and previous U.S. practices relating to decolonization.
Although the U.N. General Assembly adopted Res. 748 (VIII) in 1953, recognizing that Puerto
Rico had achieved a new constitutional status, and accepting the U.S. determination to stop transmitting
information to the U.N. regarding Puerto Rico, in 1996 it is clear that the new constitutional status
instituted in 1953 has not led to full self-government consistent with integration, independence or free
association. As an unincorporated territory Puerto Rico has not been integrated into the United States,
including citizenship with equal civil and political rights or full participation in the constitutional process
of government. The legislative history of the 1950 revisions of the Puerto Rico Federal Relations Act
authorizing a commonwealth constitution make it clear that full integration was not contemplated or
intended.
For example. Congressional policy documents included in the Historical and Statutory Notes at 48
use. 73 lb exp'icitly state that establishment of a local constitution and commonwealth structure of
government "...would not change Puerto Rico's fundamental political, social, and economic relationship to
the United States." Notwithstanding the language in 48 U.S.C. 73 lb "...fully recognizing the principle
of consent" and adopting a federal-territorial relationship "...in the nature of a compact," House Report
No. 2275 cited at 48 U.S.C. 73 lb states that the Congress retains authority over Puerto Rico's political,
social, and economic relationship to the U.S., including application of laws enacted by Congress and
Federal judicial jurisdiction in Puerto Rico, and the point is driven home by the statement that the
provisions of the earlier organic laws governing the territory repealed upon the establishment of the
commonwealth were limited to "...matters of purely local concern" (48 U.S.C. 73Ib Historical and
Statutory Notes)
It is difficult to reconcile the contents of the Congressional measures defining the nature of the
commonwealth structure for local government with the representations made by U.S. diplomats in the
United Nations in 1953, except to note again that G.A. Res. 748 was adopted in 1953 prior to the
establishment of recognized criteria for full self-government under the later relevant U.N. resolutions
adopted in 1960 and 1970, as discussed above. Nevertheless, the conclusion seems inescapable that the
U.S. representatives in the U.N. and the foreign goverrunent representatives who accepted the U.S.
decision to stop reporting on Puerto Rico did not have a meeting of the minds on the nature of the internal
U.S. constitutional law governing the status of unincorporated territories subject to the Territorial Clause,
even after local constitutional government is established.
Perhaps the only explanation based on the assumption that all parties were acting in good faith is
that the U.N. accepted that with the establishment of constitutional self-government Puerto Rico no longer
was in the category of completely non-self-governing peoples, and that the general expressions regarding
adherence to the principle of consent satisfied all concerned at the time that Puerto Rico actually had
achieved a post-colonial status. With the blush still on the new constitutional arrangement, the parties
may sincerely have believed it to be true.
152
This also explains why ihe U.N. has accepted the U.S. position to suspend reporting on the
Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands based on establishment of an unincorporated territor>'
status consistent with the Puerto Rico commonwealth model. This suggests that once the people of an
unincorporated territon.' have freely expressed a preference to be integrated into the U.S. and a new local
constitutional status has been established, the U.N. will accept suspension of reporting by the
Administering Power with so%ereignty over the previously non-self-governing area. It really does appear
that the U.N. is not overly concerned about the reser\ed authority of Congress under the Territorial
Clause, or the fact that as long as the Territorial Clause is in effect the formal process of full integration
leading to full self-government has not been completed.
Perversely, the fact that the U.N. accepted the U.S. decision to suspend reporting in 1953 based on
the establishment of local constitutional government is cited by supporters of the current "commonwealth"
status as evidence that Puerto Rico is fully self-governing. To the contrary, if the U.S. were to adopt the
position that the current unincorporated "commonwealth" status has become permanent then there
arguably would be a basis for the U.N. to request the U.S. to resume reporting on Puerto Rico due to the
fact that equal legal and political rights have not been extended to the people of Puerto Rico. Certainly, if
the Clinton Administration were to assert that unincorporated "commonwealth" status constitutes full self-
government and that the decolonization process has been completed on the basis of the status quo. that
would fall short of U.N. standards for terminating the non-self-governing status of previously colonial
areas.
It is precisely for this reason that the March 1 1 White House statement reiterated the U.S. position
that the people of Puerto Rico still have a right to self-determination. If the U.S. could sustain the
argument that unincor]X)rated "commonwealth" status constitutes full and complete integration, or that
the people of an unincorporated territory can be viewed as fully self-governing and decolonized, there
would be no requirement to recognize the right of the people to change their status through an additional
self-determination process.
Still, there are those who suggest Puerto Rico has achieved a degree of "distinct" sovereignty, quasi-
nationality or de facto free association under the Puerto Rico Federal Relations Act. But this view is
predicated only on ambiguities associated with the establishment of local constitutional govenunent, and
is categorically nullified by the fact that U.S. sovereignty and constitutional supremacy continues. In
addition, under U.N. and international legal practice to which the U.S. has adhered in its free association
treaties with Pacific island nations a free association status must be terminable by both go%emments party
to the treaty on the same terms (See, J. Crawford, The Creation of States in International Law,
Uni\ersity of Adelaide. Australia (1979)). Since the constitutional government of "Commonwealth of
Puerto Rico" docs not have the authority to terminate or "dispose" of its relationship with the U.S. in the
same manner that Congress may do so under the Territorial Clause, this is just one of the several criteria
for free association which are not satisfied by the existing "commonwealth" arrangements. Thus, there is
no plausible argument that Puerto Rico acquired sufficient sovereignty under the Puerto Rico Federal
Relations Act or the local constitution to consider the current status as the result of a "bilateral pact" to
which the U.S. Congress is bound, or which is unalterable without consent by Puerto Rico. The current
Spanish language translation for "Commonwealth of Puerto Rico" may imply "free association," but that
is just a symptom of the pathology of the current colonial status.
There have been some highly irresponsible and misleading statements made recently about the
nature of free association between the U.S. and the three Pacific island mini-nations, the Federated States
of Micronesia, the Republic of the Marshall Islands and the Republic of Palau. Specifically, it has been
asserted that the citizens of these nations have dual U.S. citizenship. This is false. Under Section 141 of
U.S. Public Law 99-239 the citizens of the free associated states under the Compact of Free Association
have separate nationality and citizenship. These free associated states citizens are treated as aliens under
U.S. immigration and nationality laws. The Compact of Free Association grants a limited and
temporary waiver of \ isa requirements to enable Micronesian citizens to enter the U.S. for fifteen years.
However, this waiver expires in five years and Congress has discretion to renew or terminate the ability of
153
this class of aliens to enter without a business or visitor visa, and any time spent in the U.S. during the
fifteen year waiver period does not count for naturalization purposes.
After 2001, the citizens of the Pacific island free associated states can be required by Congress to be
treated the same for travel and immigration purposes as citizens from every other foreign nation. This
clarifies that U.S. legal practice relating to free association is based on the determination by Congress that
separate sovereignty requires separate nationality and citizenship. The formulation of nationality and
citizenship options under the separate sovereignty scenario defined in Section 3(1) of H.R. 3024 is
consistent with the Micronesian free association legal precedent, and the practical requirements of U.S.
immigration and nationality law which make this approach an inevitable result of separate sovereignty.
This would not be something the U.S. would be doing to the people of Puerto Rico. It is something
the people would be doing to themselves if they chose separate sovereignty, and it is imperative that this
be made very clear so that the misinformation that has been disseminated in the past does not mislead the
voters about what the real consequences will be if they vote to separate form the United States. For
under a separate sovereignty scenario the allegiance, nationality and citizenship of the inhabitants of the
territory and those whose U.S. citizenship is based on birth in the territory during the colonial period will
be transferred to the new sovereign, just as it transferred from Spain to the United States under Article IX
of the Treaty of Paris. This is by operation of international law and U.S. legal and historical precedent,
including the transition regarding U.S. nationality held by citizens of the Philippines when separate
sovereignty was proclaimed by President Truman in 1946 (See, 22 U.S.C. 1394).
Of course, the prospect of losing U.S nationality and citizenship only arises if the voters decide they
do not want to be under U.S. nationality. Renouncing U.S. nationality and citizenship and demanding
to keep that status is an absurd notion. Those who want to have it both ways need to recognize that H.R.
3024 is entirely consistent with the legal practice of the U.S. and the international community in these
matters (See. American Insurance Company v. Canter. 26 U.S. (1 Pet.) 511, 542 (1828); United States ex
rel Schwarzkopf V. Uhl. 137 F. 2d 898, 902 (2d Cir. 1943); O'Connell. The Law of State Succession 246
(1956).
In addition to the clear legal precedents on citizenship, one of the clearly established requirements
of a status consistent with free association is that the neither sovereign government may have undue power
or ability to interfere in the other's internal affairs. As the Department of Justice noted in its February
1991 testimony on S. 244, the "Puerto Rico Status Act," mass dual citizenship under a separate
sovereignty scenario, including free association or independence, "...potentially could lead to significant
United States intervention in Puerto Rican affairs in the exercise of the President's responsibility to protect
the safety, rights, and welfare of U.S. citizens abroad." No doubt current Administration officials would
dismiss the idea that the President would ever act in a manner inconsistent with Puerto Rican national
sovereignty if Puerto Rico were to become independent or enter into a free association status, but Puerto
Rican willingness in 1996 to leave these matters within the discretion of the U.S. President and Congress
may have consequences in 2075 which can not be imagined at this time.
If Puerto Ricans are serious about independence or separate sovereignty, then they owe it to their
grandchildren to ensure that Puerto Rican nationality will be respected as a matter of right under
international law rather left to the discretion of other nations, including the U.S. as the nation which
would be the former colonial power if the voters choose a separate sovereignty option. If Puerto Ricans
are not ready to go down that road, then the only other way to secure human rights and dignity is through
a sovereign act of the people through which the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico takes its place alongside
the other commonwealths and states which are full and equal sovereign states permanent in the union
under the constitution, with guaranteed and permanent U.S. nationality and citizenship.
Those who continue to suggest that the Covenant to Establish the Commonwealth of the Northern
Mariana Islands (U.S. Public Law 94-241) somehow sets a precedent for a bilateral pact which is
enforceable on a govemment-to-govemment basis need to understand that the international law and
154
constitutional basis for the CNMI Covenant is fiindamentally different than that which governs
Congressional measures relating to Puerto Rico. For the U.S. adopted a negotiating procedure and
entered into the agreement with the Northern Mariana Islands in a maimer consistent with the fact that
the U.S. did not have sovereignty over the Northern Mariana Islands during the period of U.N. trusteeship
prior to implementation of the CNMI Covenant. The Territorial Clause did not apply in the case of the
Northern Mariana Islands until the CNMI Covenant entered into force based on a U.N. observed act of
self-determination in which the non-U.S. citizens approved entering into the status of an unincorporated
territoo'- Because U.S. sovereignty and the Territorial Clause were to be extended to the CNMI under
the agreement, it was approved by the U.S. Congress in the form of a joint resolution passed by a majority
vote in both Houses of Congress instead of being ratified by the Senate in the conventional treaty approval
procedure.
The meaning of these significant legal and constitutional factors has been recognized by the Federal
courts, including the U.S. Claims Court which observed that:
"The United Stales has not administered the Trust Territory [including the Northern Mariana
Islands) under the authority conferred in Article IV, Section 3, concerning regulation by
Congress of territories or other property belonging to the United States." 6 CI. Ct. 441, 456
(1984)
When the voters in the Northern Mariana Islands approved the CNMI Covenant that act of self-
determination process was accepted by the U.N. as a basis for the U.S. to stop transmitting information
about the CNMI as part of the former Trust Territory. This was because the choice of the voters in favor
of integration into the U.S. was understood to be a choice in favor of U.S. sovereignty. Howe%er, as in
the case of Puerto Rico, the vote for integration and establishment of local constitutional government has
not resulted in completion of the process of integration for the CNMI. The CNMI has the same basic
model of unincorporated "commonwealth" territory status as Puerto Rico, except that the CNMI mutual
consent provision is far stronger than the "principle of consent" language in the Puerto Rico Federal
Relations Act. As discussed below, that arrangement is subject to the authority and discretion of
Congress under the Territorial Clause.
The preceding discussion makes it clear that Puerto Rico has not achieved a recognized form of fiill
self-go%emment consistent with integration, free association or independence. It therefore is ironic that
H.R. 3024 has become a lightening rod for criticism in Puerto Rico precisely because it comes closer than
any pre\ iously proposed federal or territorial government measure to defining the bedrock legal and
political realities facing the U.S. and Puerto Rico with respect to self-government and the future political
status issue. After nearly a century of mutual U.S. and Puerto Rican acquiescence in an impermanent,
imperfect and incomplete political relationship based on legal ambiguities, the gates to the only real paths
to full self-government have been thrown open by H.R. 3024.
II. THE NATURE OF COMMONWEALTH UNDER THE TERRITORIAL CLAUSE
To understand why the straightforward approach of H.R. 3024 has generated so much debate, it is
important to realize that for o\'er forty years inventive but unsustainable status theories have been
advanced by those federal ofTicials, Puerto Rican leaders and corporate interests who have benefited from
preservation of the present order. Too often Puerto Ricans have been asked to pretend that tax
exemptions justify separate and unequal treatment in the U.S. legal, political and economic system. Too
often residents of the territory have allowed themselves to pretend that their status is "special" and
"unique," when it actually is just colonialism dressed up and masquerading as local autonomy. Too
many of us have been seduced into believing we should be grateful for what we have, and that this is the
best of both worlds, when it actually is the most insidious form of colonialism for the veiy reason that it
has been made to seem comfortable, permanent and safe when it is not.
155
The view which idealizes the current status is nothing more than a collective shared fantasy that
Puerto Rico's colonial condition and the second-class citizenship status established in 1917 actually
constitutes a permanent status based on mutual consent. Our current status exists at the discretion of
Congress. After four decades of being subject to laws passed by a national legislature in which we have
no voting representation, we know that there is no real mutuality' or permanence in the "Commonwealth
of Puerto Rico" territorial status.
This reality was already obvious, but it has been confirmed once again by a July 28, 1994 U.S.
government legal opinion. In a memorandum of law and policy from the Deputy Assistant Attorney
General of the United States in the Federal Department of Justice to the Clinton Administration's Special
Representative on Guam Commonwealth negotiations, the following statement is made regarding
mutuality and the principle of consent in the case of Puerto Rico:
"The Department [of Justice] 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 Soc. Sec. 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 subsequent
Congress." DOJ Memo, footnote 2, p. 2.
The Department of Justice memo goes on to state that inclusion of a ballot option in a political status
plebiscite in the form of an unalterable pact predicated on the principles of consent and mutuality
"...would be misleading," and that "...honesty and fair dealing forbid the inclusion of such illusory and
deceptive provisions..." in a statute or agreement creating a commonwealth structure for constitutional
government in an unincorporated territory. The memo also states that unalterable mutual consent pacts
"...raise serious constitutional issues and are legally unenforceable." Finally, the Justice Department
memo opposes formulation of a status option in a self-determination process sponsored by the Congress
based on the notion of unalterable mutuality or a binding consent requirement "...unless their
unenforceability (or precatory nature) is clearly stated in the document itself."
Curiously, the Department of Justice memo states that it intends to honor the principles of consent
and mutuality in the case of the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands (CNMI) as a matter of
policy since the CNfMI Commonwealth Covenant contains an express mutual consent clause. Even if
Department of Justice officials had the authonty to honor a provision it has determined to be "legally
unenforceable," this meaningless gesture is irrelevant because the Federal courts already have ruled in
U.S. ex rel. Richards v. De Leon Guerrero, C. A. 9 (N. Mariana Islands) 1993, 4 F. 3d 749, that Congress
can intrude into local CNMI affairs in a manner inconsistent with the plain language of the CNMI
Commonwealth Covenant. E\en though the CNMI is internally self-governing under the terms of the
Commonwealth Covenant and Congress agreed in 1976 not to act inconsistent with that status without
consent, in the Guerrero case the Court of Appeals ruled that a Department of the Interior audit of local
government tax returns and regulation of purely local budget matters did not unduly affect the right of
local self-government.
Instead of respecting the CNMI Commonwealth Covenant as an unalterable bilateral pact in
accordance with its terms, the court treated the 1976 CNMI status agreement as a statute enacted by
Congress pursuant to the Territorial Clause. While recognizing that the statute defines the relationship
between the "commonwealth" and the Congress and provides limits on the ability of Congress to change
the relationship, instead of treating these limits as unalterable and enforceable, the court adopted a
balancing test between the right of mutual consent with the authority of Congress to protect and promote
Federal interests. The words of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals can best tell the story:
"Even if the Territorial Clause provides the constitutional basis for the Congress' legislative
10
156
aulhorit>' in the commonwealth, it is solely by the Covenant that we measure the limits of
Congress' legislative power ...the United States must have an identifiable federal interest that
will be served by the relevant legislation... At the center of this dispute, however, is
the.. .sentence. ..limiting the United States' legislative authority 'so that the fundamental
proNisions of this Covenant... may be modified only with the consent of the... Govenmient of
the Northern Mariana Islands' The Governor asks us to read this provision. .as carving out
an area of 'local affairs' immune from federal legislation. We decline to adopt such an
expansive interpretation of the. ..mutual consent provision... we think it is appropriate to
balance the federal interest to be sened by the legislation at issue against the degree of
intrusion into local affairs." U.S. v. De Leon Guerrero. 4 F. 3d 749 (1993)
Translation: Congress can not bind a future Congress to an unalterable pact based on mutual
consent. Pedantic ideologues pretending to be constitutional and international legal scholars can delude
themselves and the public by plaving clever word games about these issues, but the result will be the same
as long as the Territorial Clause applies.
The same result applies to Puerto Rico under the Supreme Court case Harris v. Rosario. 446 U.S. 65 1
(1980). The legal and political meaning of the U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Harris was followed and
more fully revealed in the opinion of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit in the case ofU.S.
v. Sanchez. 992 F. 2d 1 143. Describing the "Commonwealth of Puerto Rico" structiue for local self-
government under the Puerto Rico Federal Relations Act as merely a limited and discretionary delegation
of Congressional authority under the Territorial Clause, the Court, quoting from 831 F. 2d at 1 176, found
that:
"'With each new organic act, first the Foraker Act in 1900, then the Jones Act in 1917, and then
the Federal Relations Act in 1950 and later amendments, Congress has simply delegated more
authority to Puerto Rico over local matters. But this has not changed in any way Puerto Rico's
constitutional status as a temtory, or the soiu-ce of power over Puerto Rico. Congress
continues to be the ultimate source of power pursuant to the Territory Clause of the
Constitution.' Congress may unilaterally repeal the Puerto Rican Constitution or the
Puerto Rican Federal Relations Act and replace them with any rtiles and regulations of its
choice." ILL v. Sanchez. 992 F. 2d 1 143 (1993)
Just as the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals recognized in the Guerrero case that the Territorial
Clause is the constitutional basis for the CNMI commonwealth pact, the Eleventh Circuit opinion in
Sanchez makes it clear that the notion of an unalterable bilateral pact based on an enforceable principle of
consent and mutuality for Puerto Rico will and ultimately must fail. There is no reason to believe that
the "fiscal autonomy" element in the "Definition of Commonwealth" on the 1993 plebiscite ballot in
Puerto Rico would fare any belter under the "unalterable bilateral pact" which was proposed in that ballot
option than "internal sclf-goverrunent" has under the CNMI pact. As long as the "commonwealth"
remains an unincorporated territory, the Federal courts be hard pressed to overturn any act of Congress
which are consistent with a legitimate federal piupose.
During inconclusive Congressional consideration of Puerto Rico status legislation in 1991, the
former Secretary of Justice of Puerto Rico attempted to argue that random language in the case ofU.S. v.
Ouinones. 758 F. 2d 40, (1st Cir. 1985) supports the expansive view of commonwealth as something more
than unincorporated territory status. In response the Department of Justice submitted written statements
to the GAO rejecting the court's comments in Quinones as "dictum" which was not part of the actual
ruling in the case. It was also pointed out that the court in the Ouinones case upheld a statute which
altered the Puerto Rican Federal Relations Act without mutual consent. See, Appendix IV, GAO/HRD-
91-18, The U.S. Constitution and the Insular Areas, April 12, 1991 letter to GAO from Assistant Attorney
General of the United States. Thus, reading the Ouinones case as a defining or authoritative case with
respect to the nature of the current "commonwealth" status is just another attempt to perpetuate ambiguity
and deny the colonial nature of the status quo.
11
157
Puerto Ricans know this by now. For even though they have a measure of local constitutional self-
government, it has been modified by federal law to which they did not consent. The status and rights of
Puerto Ricans under federal laws and policies regulating local economic and social affairs are determined
by a Congress in which they should have seven voting members, and by a President who should need the
vote of the residents of the island to be elected. Those who have sought to advance Puerto Rico's political
evolution by pretending that Puerto Ricans have justice, equality, mutuality and self-government when
they do not have these rights are merely the defenders of an anti -democratic status quo.
The more hysterical the cries of opposition to this bill, the more shrill, absurd and hyper-technical
the arguments against the definitions of full self-govenunent under the bill, the more clear it becomes that
this proposal has shattered the myth that full self-government was achieved in 1952 by a sleight-of-hand.
Liberty and equality under a system of full self-government is not something a people can misappropriate
through cleverness, it is not something that can be stolen when the colonial power is not looking, it is not
something we achieve without effort and pain.
The genie is now out of the bottle, all the worid can see that the Emperor has no clothes. H.R. 3024
exposes the naked truth that Puerto Rico can not have separate sovereignty and nationality and at the same
time enjoy permanent union and guaranteed citizenship. Puerto Rico can not be a nation-within-a-
nation. The honor and dignity of the Puerto Rican people as individuals rather than a body politic
demands that the people do the hard work and make the difTicuIt choices required to achieve full self-
goveniment in the second century since monarchy was ended in Puerto Rico. Puerto Rican self-
determination must be understood as a collective act of individuals seeking freedom, equality and
democracy, not a rally or celebration of unity by members of a political party.
If Puerto Ricans are to become a separate nation they need to separate from the U.S. and establish a
govemment-to-govemment relationship based on real mutuality and autonomous authority and
responsibility the same way other societies in our region have separated from former colonial powers. If
Puerto Ricans are to achieve a permanent and equal status as a sovereign state in union with the U.S.
under the national constitution, then they need to rise to the occasion offered by H.R. 3024.
Either way, Puerto Ricans need to take control of their destiny and commit themselves to the legal,
political, economic and cultural imperative of becoming fiilly self-governing. This is not a drill, this is
not a game. This is for real, the time for pretending is over. The people of this island homeland need
to set aside party affiliation and stand up as individuals to redeem their sacred honor by ending the
colonial regime.
12
24-926 - 96 - 6
158
%-
I . S. Drpartini-iit ot .liistiic
Office of Legal Counsel
Oflltc .•! Ihc
De|>ul\ ANiiMnal All*trii«\ Geiierjil
Ua.i/i/fiem/1. D C ;».<.«■
July 28, 1994
MEMORiySDUM FOR
THE SPECIAL REPRESENTATIVE
FOR GUAM COMMO>rWEALTH
^
From: Teresa Wynn Roseborough
Deputy Assistant Attorney General
Re: Mutual Consent Provisions in
The Guam Commonwealth Legislation
The Guam Commonwealth Bill, H.R. 1521, 103d Cong., 1st Sess. (1993) contains
two sections requiring the mutual consent of the Government of the United States and thQ
Government of Guam. Section 103 provides that the Commonwealth Act could be amended
only with mutual consent of the two governments. Section 202 provides that no Federal
laws, rules, and regulations passed after the enactment of the Commonwealth Act would
apply to Guam without the mutual consent of the two governments. The Representatives of
Guam insist that these two sections are crucial for the autonomy and economy of Guam. Tlie
former views of this Office on the validity or efficacy of mutual consent requirements
included in legislation governing the relationship between the federal government and non-
state areas. Le^ areas under the sovereignty of the United States that are not States,' have
' Territories that have developed from the stage of a classical territory to that of a Commonwealth with a
constitution of their own adoption and an elective governor, resent being called Terrilones and claim that thai
legal term and its implications are not applicable to them. We therefore shall refer to all Territories and
Commonwealths as non-state areas under the sovereignty of the United Stales or briefly as non-state areas.
159
not been consistent.- We therefore have carefully reexamined this issue. Our conclusion is
that these clauses raise serious constitutional issues and are legally unenforceable,'
In our view, it is important that the text of the Guam Commonwealth Act not create
any illusory expectations that might to mislead the electorate of Guam about the
consequences of the legislation. We must therefore oppose the inclusion in the
Commonwealth Act of any provisions, such as mutual consent clauses, that are legally
unenforceable, unless their unenforceability (or precatory nature) is clearly stated in the
document itself.
I.
The Power of Congress to Govern the Non-State
Areas under the Sovereignty of the United States
is Plenary within Constitutional Limitations
All territory under the sovereignty of the United States falls into two groups: the
States and the areas that are not States. The latter, whether called territories, possessions, or
commonwealths, are governed by and under the authority of Congress. As to those areas,
Congress exercises the combined powers of the federal and of a state government. These
basic considerations were set out in the leading case of National Bank v. County of Yankton.
101 U.S. 129, 132-33 (1880). There the Court held:
- To our knowledge the first consideration of the validity of mutual consent clauses occurred in 1959 in
connection with proposals to amend the Puerto Rico Federal Relations Act. At that time the Department took
the position that the answer to this question was doubtful but that such clauses should not be opF>osed on the
ground that they go beyond the constitutional power of Congress. In 1963 the Department of Justice opined that
such clauses were legally effective because Congress could create vested rights in the status of a territory that
could not be revoked unilaterally. The Department adhered to this position in 1973 in connection with then
pending Micronesians status negotiations in a memorandum approved by then Assistant Attorney General
Rehnquist. On the basis of this advice, a mutual consent clause was inserted in Section 105 of the Covenant
with the Northern Mariana Islands. The Department continued to support the validity of mutual consent clauses
in connection with the First 1989 Task Force Report on the Guam Commonwealth Bill. The Department
revisited this issue in the early 1990's in connection with the Puerto Rico Status Referendum Bill in light of
Bowen v. Aeencies Opposed to Soc. Sec. Entrapment. 477 U.S. 41, 55 (1986), and concluded that there could
not be an enforceable vested right in a political status: hence that mutual consent clauses were ineffective
because they would not bind a subsequent Congress. We took the same position in the Second Guam Task
Force Report issued during the last days of the Bush Administration in January 1993.
' Mutual consent clauses are not a novel phenomenon: indeed they antedate the Constitution. Section 14 of
the Northwest Ordinance contained six "articles of compact, between the original States and the people and
States in the said territory, and [shall] forever remain unalterable, unless by common consent." These articles
were incorporated either expressly or by reference into many early territorial organic acts. Clinton v.
Englebrecht. 80 U.S. (13 Wall.) 434, 442 (1872). The copious litigation under these "unalterable articles"
focussed largely on the question whether the territories" obligations under them were superseded by the
Constitution, or when the territory became a State, as the result of the equal footing doctrine. We have,
however, not found any cases dealing with the question whether the Congress had the power to modify any duty
imposed on the United States by those articles.
- 2
160
It is certainly now loo iaie to doubt the power of Congress to goveni
the Territories. There have been some differences of opinion as to the
particular clause of the Constitution from whicii the power is derived, but that
it exists has always been conceded/
All territory within the jurisdiction of the United States not included in
any State must necessarily be governed by or under the authority of Congress.
The Territories are but political subdivisions of the outlying dominion of the
United States. Their relation to the general government is much the same as
that which counties bear to the respective States, and Congress may legislate
for them as a State does for its municipal organizations. The organic law of a
Territory takes the place of a constitution as the fundamental law of the local
government. It is obligatory on and binds the territorial authorities; but
Congress is supreme, and for the purposes of this department of its
governmental authority has all the powers of the people of the United States,
except such as have been expressly or by implication reserved in the
prohibitions of the Constitution.
Yankton was anticipated in Chief Justice Marshall's seminal opinion in American
Insurance Co. v. Canter. 26 U.S. (1 Pet.) 511, 542-43, 546 (1828). The Chief Justice
explained:
In the mean time [i.e. the interval between acquisition and statehood],
Florida continues to be a territory of the United States; governed by virtue of
that clause in the Constitution, which empowers Congress "to make all needful
rules and regulations, respecting the territory, or other property belonging to
the United States."
Perhaps the power of governing a territory belonging to the United
States, which has not, by becoming a state, acquired the means of self-
■' Some derived that power from the authority of the United Stales to acquire territory, others from the mere
fact of sovereignty, others from the Territory Clause of the Constitution of the United States (Art. IV, Stc, 3,
CI. 2) pursuant to which Congress has "Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations
respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States". See e.g. American Insurance Co. v.
Canter. 26 U.S. (1 Pet.) 511. 542(1828): Mormon Church v. United States, 136 U.S. 1, 42-44(1890);
Downes v. Bidwell, 182 U.S. 244, 290 (1901).
At present, the Territory Clause of the Constitution is generally considered to be the source of the
power of Congress to govern the non-slate areas. Hooven & Allison Co. v. Evatt, 324 U.S. 652, 673-674
(1945): Examining Board v. Flores de Otero. 426 U.S. 572. 586 (1976); Harris v. Rosario, 446 U.S. 651
(1980): see also Wabol v. Villacrusis. 958 F.2d 1450. 1459 (9th Cir. 1992), cert, denied sub nom. Philippine
Goods. Inc. v. Wabol, U.S. . 113 S.Ct. 675 (1992). (Footnote supplied.)
-3-
161
jiovemniem, may result necessarily from the facts, that it is not within the
jurisdiction of any panicular state, and is within the power and jurisdiction ot
the United States.
"In legislating for them [the Territories], Congress exercises the combined
powers of the general, and of a state government."
Id. at 542-43, 546.
The power of Congress to govern the non-state areas is plenary like every other
legislative power of Congress but it is nevertheless subject to the applicable provisions of the
Constitution. As Chief Justice Marshall stated in Gibbons v. Ogden, 22 U.S. (9 Wheat) 1,
196 (1824), with respect to the Commerce Power:
This power [the Commerce Power], like all others vested in Congress is
complete in itself, may be exercised to its utmost extent, and acknowledges no
limitations, other than are prescribed in the constitution. (Emphasis added.)
This limitation on the plenary legislative power of Congress is self-evident. It
necessarily follows from the supremacy of the Constitution. S^ e^., Hodel v. Virginia
Surface Mining and Reclamation Assoc. 452 U.S. 264, 276 (1981). That the power of
Congress under the Territory Clause is subject to constitutional limitations has been
recognized in County of Yankton. 101 U.S. at 133; Downes v. Bid well. 182 U.S. 244, 290-
91 (1901); District of Columbia v. Thompson Co. . 346 U.S. 100, 109 (1953).
Finally, the power of Congress over the non-state areas persists "so long as they
remain in a territorial condition." Shively v. Bowlbv. 152 U.S. 1, 48 (1894). S^ also.
Hooven & Allison Co. v. Evatt. 324 U.S. 652, 675 (1945) (recognizing that during the
intermediary period between the establishment of the Commonwealth of the Philippine
Islands and the fmal withdrawal of United States sovereignty from those islands "Congress
retains plenary power over the territorial government").
The plenary Congressional authority over a non-state area thus lasts as long as the
area retains that status. It terminates when the area loses that status either by virtue of its
admission as a State, or by the termination of the sovereignty of the United States over the
area by the grant of independence, or by its surrender to the sovereignty of another country.
-4
162
n.
The Revocahle Nature of Congressional Legislation
Relating to the Govemmeni of Non-State Areas
While Congress has the power to govern the non-state areas it need not exercise that
power itself. Congress can delegate to the inhabitants of non-state areas full powers of self-
government and an autonomy similar to that of States and has done so since the begirning of
the Republic. Such delegation, however, must be "consistent with the supremacy and
supervision of National authority". Clinton v. Englebrecht. 80 U.S. (13 Wall.) 434. 441
(1872); Puerto Rico v. Shell Co.. 302 U.S. 253, 260, 261-62 (1937). The requirement that
the delegation of governmental authority to the non-state areas be subject to federal
supremacy and federal supervision means that such delegation is necessarily subject to the
right of Congress to revise, alter, or revoke the authority granted. District of Columbia v.
Thompson Co.. 346 U.S. 100, 106, 109 (1953).' See also. United States v. Sharpnack. 355
U.S. 286, 296 (1958), Harris v. Boreham. 233 F.2d 110, 113 (3rd Cir. 1956), Firemen's
Insurance Co. v. Washington. 483 F.2d 1323, 1327 (D.C. Cir. 1973). The power of
Congress to delegate governmental powers to non-state areas thus is contingent on the
retention by Congress of its power to revise, alter, and revoke that legislation.* Congress
therefore cannot subject the amendment or repeal of such legislation to the consent of the
non-state area.
This consideration also disposes of the argument that the power of Congress under the
Territory Clause to give up its sovereignty over a non-state area includes the power to make
a partial disposition of that authority, hence that Congress could give up its power to amend
or repeal statutes relating to the governance of non-state areas. But, as shown above, the
retention of the power to amend or repeal legislation delegating governmental powers to a
non-state area is an integral element of the delegation power. Congress therefore has no
' Thompson dealt with the District of Columbia's government which is provided for by Art. 1, Sec. 8. CI.
17 of the Constitution, rather than with the non-state areas as to whom the Congressional power is derived from
the Territory Clause. The Court, however, held that in this area the rules relating to the Congressional power
to govern the District of Columbia and the non-state areas are identical. Indeed, the Court relied on cases
dealing with non-state areas, e^.. Hombuckle v. Toombs. 85 U.S. (18 Wall.) 648, 655 (1874), and
Christian son v. Kins County. 239 U.S. 365 (1915). where it held that Congress can delegate its legislative
authority under Art. 1, Sec. 8. CI. 17 of the Constitution to the District, subject to the power of Congress at any
time to revise, alter, or revoke that authority.
* Congress has exercised this power with respect to the District of Columbia. The Act of February 21 .
1871. 16 Stat. 419 gave the District of Columbia virtual territorial status, with a a governor appointed by the
President, a legislative assembly that included an elected house of delegates, and a delegate in Congress. The
1871 Act was repealed by the Act of June 20. 1874, 18 Stat. 116. which abrogated among others the provisions
for the legislative assembly and a delegate in Congress, and established a government by a Commission
appointed by the President.
-5 -
163
authority to enact legislation under the Territory Clause that would limit the unlettered
exercise of its power to amend or repeal.
The same result flows from the consideration that all non-state areas are subject to the
authority of Congress, which, as shown above, is plenary. This basic rule does not permit
the creation of non-state areas that are only partially subject to Congressional authority. The
plenary power of Congress over a non-state area persists as long as the area remains in that
condition and teniiinates only when the area becomes a State or ceases to be under United
States sovereignty. There is no intermediary status as far as the Congressional power is
concerned.
The two mutual consent clauses contained in the proposed Commonwealth Act
therefore are subject to Congressional modification and repeal.
m.
The rule that legislation delegating governmental powers to a non-state area
must be subject to amendment and repeal is but a manifestation of the general
rule that one Congress cannot bind a subsequent Congress, except where it
creates vested rights enforceable under the Due Process Clause of the Fifth
Amendment.
The rule that Congress cannot surrender its power to amend or repeal legislation
relating to the government of non-state areas is but a specific application of the maxim that
one Congress cannot bind a subsequent Congress and the case law developed under it.
The rationale underlying that principle is the consideration that if one Congress could
prevent the subsequent amendment or repeal of legislation enacted by it, such legislation
would be frozen permanently and would acquire virtually constitutional status. Justice
Brennan expressed this thought in his dissenting opinion in United States Trust Co. v. New
Jersey, 431 U.S. 1, 45 (1977), a case involving the Impairment of the Obligation of
Contracts Clause of the Constitution (Art. I, Sec 10, CI. 1):
One of the fundamental premises of our popular democracy is that each
generation of representatives can and will remain responsive to the needs and
desires of those whom they represent. Crucial to this end is the assurance that
new legislators will not automatically be bound by the policies and
undertakings of earlier days.... The Framers fully recognized that nothing
would so jeopardize the legitimacy of a system of government that relies upon
the ebbs and flows of politics to "clean out the rascals" than the possibility that
those same rascals might perpetuate their policies simply by locking them into
binding contracts.
164
Nonetheless, the maxim that one Congress cannot bind future Congress, like e\er\
legal nile. has its limits. As early as 1810. Chief Justice Marshall explained in Fletcher \.
Peck. 10 U.S. (6 Cranch) 87. 135 (1810):
The principle asserted is that one legislature is competent to repeal any
act which a former legislature was competent to pass; and that one legislature
cannot abridge the powers of a succeeding legislature.
The correctness of this principle, so far as respects general legislation,
can never be controverted. But. if an act be done under a law, a succeeding
legislature cannot undo it. The past cannot be recalled by the most absolute
power. Conveyances have been made, those conveyances have vested legal
estates, and if those estates may be seized by the sovereign authority, still, that
they originally vested is a fact, and cannot cease to be a fact.
When, then, a law is in its nature a contract, when absolute rights have
vested under that contract, a repeal of the law cannot devest (sic) those rights.
The powers of one legislature to repeal or amend the acts of the preceding one are
limited in the case of States by the Obligation of Contracts Clause (Art. I, Sec. 10, CI. 1) of
the Constitution and the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, and in the case
of Congressional legislation by the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment. This
principle was recognized in the Sinking-Fund Cases. 98 U.S. 700, 718-19 (1879):
The United States caimot any more than a State interfere with private
rights, except for legitimate governmental purposes. They are not included
within the constitutional prohibition which prevents States from passing laws
impairing the obligation of contracts, but equally with the States they are
prohibited from depriving persons or corporations of property without due
process of law. They cannot legislate back to themselves, without making
compensation, the lands they have given this corporation to aid in the
construction of its railroad. Neither can they by legislation compel the
corporation to discharge its obligations in respect to the subsidy bonds
otherwise than according to the terms of the contract already made in that
connection. The United States are as much bound by their contracts as are
individuals, (emphasis supplied.)
See also Bowen v. Agencies Opposed to Soc. Sec. Entrapment. 477 U.S. 41, 54-56 (1986).
-7
165
IV
The Due Process Clause does not Preclude Congress from
Amending or Repealine the two Mutual Consent Clauses
The question therefore is whether the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment
precludes a subsequent Congress from repealing legislation for the governance of non-state
areas enacted by an earlier Congress under the Territory Clause. This question must be
answered in the negative.
The Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment provides:
No person shall ... be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due
process of law. (emphasis supplied.)
This Clause is inapplicable to the repeal or amendment of the two mutual consent
clauses here involved for two reasons. First, a non-state area is not a "person" within the
meaning of the Fifth Amendment, and, second, such repeal or amendment would not deprive
the non-state area of a property right within the meaning of the Fifth Amendment.
A.
A non-state area is not a person in the meaning of the Due Process Clause of the
Fifth Amendment.
In South Carolina v. Katzenbach. 383 U.S. 301, 323-24 (1966), the Court held that a
State is not a person within the meaning of the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment.
See also. Alabama v. ^A, 871 F.2d 1548, 1554 (11th Cir.), cerL denied. 493 U.S. 991
(1989) ("The State of Alabama is not included among the entities protected by the due
process clause of the fifth amendment"): and State of Oklahoma v. Federal Energy
Regulatory Comm.. 494 F.Supp. 636, 661 (W.D. Okl. 1980), affd, 661 F.2d 832 (10th Cir.
1981), cert, denied, sub, nom. Texas v. Federal Energy Regulatory Comm.. 457 U.S. 1 105
(1982).
Similarly it has been held that creatures or instrumentalities of a State, such as cities
or water improvement districts, are not persons within the meaning of the Due Process
Clause of the Fifth Amendment. City of Sault Ste. Marie. Mich, v. Andrus, 532 F. Supp.
157, 167 (D.D.C. 1980); El Paso. County Water Improvement District v. IBWC/US. 701 F.
Supp. 121, 123-24 (W.D. Tex 1988).
The non-state areas, concededly, are not States or instrumentalities of States, and we
have not found any case holding directly that they are not persons within the meaning of the
Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment. They are, however, governmental bodies, and
- 8-
166
the rationale of South Carolina v. Katzeiihach. 383 U.S. at 301. appears to lie that such
liodies are not protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment. Moreover, it is
well established that the political subdivisions of a State are not considered persons protected
as against the State by the provisions of the Founeenth Ainendment. See. e.<;.. Newark v.
New Jersey. 262 U.S. 192, 1% (1923): Williams v. Mavor of Bahimore. 289 U.S. 36. 40
M933): South Macomb Disposal Authority v. Township of Washinpton. 790 F.2d 500. 505.
507 (bth Cir. 1986) and the authorities there cited. The relationship of the non-state areas to
the Federal Govemment has been analogized to that of a city or county to a State. As stated.
supra, the Court held in National Bank v. County of Yankton. 10! U.S. 129, 133 (1880):
The territories are but political subdivisions of the outlying dominion of the
United States. Their relation to the general govemment is much the same as
that which counties bear to the respective States ...
More recently, the Court explained that a non-state area is entirely the creation of
Congress and compared the relationship between the Nation and a non-state area to that
between a State and a city. United States v. Wheeler. 435 U.S. 313, 321 (1978). It follows
that, since States are not persons within the meaning of the Fifth Amendment and since the
political subdivisions of States are not persons within the meaning of the Fourteenth
Amendment, the non-state areas are not persons within the meaning of the Due Process
Clause of the Fifth Amendment.
B.
Legislation relating to the governance of non-state areas does not create any rights or
status protected by the Due Process Clause against repeal or amendment by subsequent
legislation.
As explained earlier, a subsequent Congress cannot amend or repeal earlier legislation
if such repeal or amendment would violate the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment.
Le^, if such amending or repealing legislation would deprive a person of property without
due process of law. It has been shown in the preceding part of this memorandum, that a
non-state area is not a person with the meaning of the Due Process Clause. Here it will be
shown that mutual consent provisions in legislation, such as the ones envisaged in the Guam
Commonwealth Act, would not create property rights within the meaning of that Clause.
Legislation concerning the governance of a non-state area, whether called organic act.
federal relations act, or commonwealth act, that does not contain a mutual consent clause is
clearly subject to amendment or repeal by subsequent legislation. A non-state area does not
acquire a vested interest in a particular stage of self govemment that subsequent legislation
could not diminish or abrogate. While such legislation has not been frequent, it has occurred
in connection with the District of Columbia. See District of Columbia v. Thompson Co..
346 U.S. 100, 104-05 (1953); supra n.6. Hence, in the absence of a mutual consent clause.
-9
/
167
legislation concerning the covernmeni ot a non-siaie area is subject to amendment or repeal
hy subsequent legislation.
This leads to the question whether the addition of a mutual consent clause. Le^ of a
provision that the legislation shall not be modified or repealed without the consent of the
Government of the United States and the Government of the non-state area, has the effect of
creating in the non-state areas a specific status amounting to a property right within the
meaning of the Due Process Clause. It is our conclusion that this question must be answered
in the negative because (1) sovereign governmental powers cannot be contracted away, and
(2) because a specific political relationship does not constitute "property" within the meaning
of the Fifth Amendment.
1 . As a body politic the Government of the United States has the general capacity to
enter into contracts. United States v. Tingey. 30 U.S. (5 Pet.) 115, 128 (1831). This
power, however, is generally limited to those types of contracts in which private persons or
corporations can engage. By contrast [sovereign] "governmental powers cannot be
contracted away," North American Coml. Co. v. United States. 171 U.S. 110, 137 (1898).
More recently the Supreme Court held in connection with legislation arising under the
Contract Clause (Art. I, Sec. 10, CI. 1) of the Constitution that "the Contract Clause does
not require a State to adhere to a contract that surrenders an essential attribute of its
sovereignty." United States Trust Co. v. New Jersey. 431 U.S. 1, 23 (1977).'' In a similar
context Mr. Justice Holmes stated:
One whose rights, such as they are, are subject to state restriction,
cannot remove them from the power of the State by making a contract about
them. Hudson Water Co. v. McCarter. 209 U.S. 349, 357 (1908).'
Agreements or compacts to the effect that the Congress may not amend legislation
relating to the government of a non-state area without the consent of the latter, or that federal
legislation shall not apply to Guam unless consented to by the Government of Guam would
unquestionably purport to surrender essential powers of the federal government. They are
y
■ Cases arising under the Contract Clause holding that a State cannot contract away a sovereign power are
also applicable to the contracts made by the federal government because the Contract Clause imposes more
rigorous restrictions on the States than the Fifth Amendment imposes on the federal government. Pension
Benefit Guaranty Corp. v. R.A. Grav Co., 467 U.S. 717, 733 (1984); National Railroad Passenger Corp. v.
A.T. &. S.F. R.. 470 U.S. 451. 472-73 n.25 ( 1985). Hence, when state legislation does not violate the
Contract Clause, analogous federal legislation is all the more permissible under the Due Process Clause of the
Fifth Amendment.
" Cited with approval with respect to federal legislation in Norman v. B. &. OR.. 294 U.S. 240. 308
(1935).
- 10-
168
thcretorc iioi biiuiiii}: on the United States and cannot conlcr a property inieiesi proitMcd In
the Fifth Amendment."
More generally, the Supreme Coun held in Bowen v. Agencies Opposed to Soc. Sec.
Enirapment. 477 U.S. 41. 55 (1986), that the contractual propeny rights protected by the
Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment are the traditional private contractual rights,
such as those ansuig from bonds or insurance contracts, but not arrangements that arc part ot
a regulatory program such as a State's privilege to withdraw its participation in the Social
Security system with respect to its employees. Specifically, the Court stated:
But the "contractual right" at issue in this case bears little, if any.
resemblance to rights held to constitute "property" within the meaning of the
Fifth Amendment. The termination provision in the Agreement exactly
tracked the language of the statute, conferring no right on the State beyond
that contained in § 418 itself. The provision constituted neither a debt of the
United States, see Perry v. United States, supra, nor an obligation of the
United States to provide benefits under a contract for which the obligee paid a
monetary premium, see Lynch v. United States, supra. The termination clause
was not unique to this Agreement; nor was it a term over which the State had
any bargaining power or for which the State provided independent
consideration. Rather, the provision simply was part of a regulatory program
over which Congress retained authority to amend in the exercise of its power
to provide for the general welfare.
Agreements that the Guam Commonwealth Act may not be amended without the consent of
the Government of Guam, or that future federal statutes and regulations shall not apply to
Guam without the consent of the Government of Guam clearly do not constitute conventional
private contracts; they are elements of a regulatory system.
In the past the Department of Justice at times has concluded that a non-State area may
have a vested interest in a specific status which would be immune from unilaterial
Congressional amendment or repeal.'" We cannot continue to adhere to that position in
' Cases such as Lvnch v. United .States. 292 L'.S. 571 (1934). and Perrv v. L'niled States. 294 U.S. 330
(1935). are not contrary to this conclusion. Both cases involved commercial agreements (Lynch: insurance:
Perrv: Government bonds) In Lynch the Court held that Congress could not amend the contract merely to save
money "unless, indeed the action falls within the federal police police power or some other paramount power.'
292 L'.S. at 579. Perrv involved bonds issued by the United States under the authority of Art. I. Sec. 8. CI. 2
of the Constitution, to borrow money on the credit of the United States. The Court held that Congress did not
have the power to destroy the credit of the United Slates or to render it illusory by unilaterally abrogating one
of the pivotal terms of the bonds to save mone> . While the Court held that the United States had broken the
agreement, it nevertheless held that plaintiff could not recover because, as the result of regulations validly issued
by the United States, he had not suffered any monetary damages.
•" Cf. n.2.
- 11 -
169
view of the rulings ot tlie Supreme Coun that legislation concerning the governance of a non-
state area is necessarily subject to Congressional amendment and repeal: thai goveninienul
bodies are not persons within the meaning of the Due Process Clause: that governmental
powers cannot be contracted away, and especially the exposition in the recent Bowen case,
that the property rights protected by the Due Process Clause are those arising from private
law or commercial contracts and not those arising from governmental relations."
Sections 103 and 202 therefore do not create vested property rights protected by the
Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment.'^ Congress thus retains the power to amend
the Guam Commonwealth Act unilaterally or to provide that its legislation shall apply to
Guam without the consent of the government of the Commonwealth. The inclusion of such
provisions, therefore, in the Commonwealth Act would be misleading. Honesty and fair
dealing forbid the inclusion of such illusory and deceptive provisions in the Guam
Commonwealth Act.'^
Finally, the Department of Justice has indicated that it would honor past commitments
with respect to the mutual consent issue, such as Section 105 of the Covenant with the
Northern Mariana Islands, in spite of its reevaluation of this problem. The question whether
the 1989 Task force proposal to amend Section 103 of the Guam Commonwealth Act so as to
limit the mutual consent requirement to Sections 101, 103, 201, and 301 constitutes such
prior commitment appears to have been rendered moot by the rejection of that proposal by
the Guam Commission.
" It is significant tiiat the circumstances in which Congress can effectively agree not to repeal or amend
legislation were discussed in the context of commercial contracts. Bowen. 477 U.S. at 52.
'- Bowen. it is true, dealt with legislation that expressly reserved the right of Congress to amend, while the
proposed Guam Commonwealth Act would expressly preclude the right of Congress to amend without the
consent of the Government of Guam. The underlying agreements, however, are not of a private contractual
nature, and. hence, are not property within the meaning of the Due Process Clause. We cannot perceive how
they can be converted into "property" by the addition of a provision that Congress foregoes the right of
amendment.
" The conclusion that Section 202 of the Guam Commonwealth Act (inapplicability of future federal
legislation to Giiam without the consent of Guam) would not bind a future Congress obviates the need to
examine the constitutionality of Section 202. In Currin v. Wallace. 306 U.S. 1, 15-16 (1939), and United
States v. Rock Royal Co-op. 307 U.S. 533, 577-78 (1939). the Court upheld legislation that made the
effectiveness of regulations dependent on the approval of tobacco farmers or milk producers affected by them.
The Court held that this approval was a legitimate condition for making the legislation applicable. Similarly, it
could be argued that the approval of federal legislation by the Government of Guam is a legitimate condition for
making that legislation applicable to Guam. Since, as stated above, a future Congress would not be bound by
Section 202, we need not decide the question whether the requirement of approval by the Government of Guam
for every future federal statute and regulation is excessive and inconsistent with the federal sovereignty over
Guam.
- 12-
170
APPENDIX TO THE TESTIMONY OF HERBERT BROWN, III
CITIZENS EDUCATIONAL FOUNDATION
Historical record of the debate on P.L. 600 and the Puerto Rico Constitution between 1950-
1952: the record clearly indicates that the intent of Congress was not to create a unique
status for Commonwealth, a position on which its advocates in Puerto Rico agreed.
• Hon. Luis Munoz Marin, Governor of Puerto Rico, (1948- 1964):
"You know, of course, if the people of Puerto Rico should go crazy, Congress can
always get around and legislate again. But, 1 am confident that the Puerto Ricans will not do that,
and invite congressional legislation that would take back something that was given to the people
of Puerto Rico as good United States citizens." Hearings before the Committee on Public Lands,
House of Representatives, Eighty First Congress, 2"''., page 33.
• Hon. Antonio Femos- Isem, Resident Commissioner from Puerto Rico in Washington:
"As already pointed out, H.R. 7674 would not change the status of the island of Puerto
Rico relative to the United States: It would not commit the United States for or against any
specific future form of political formula for Puerto Rico. It would not alter the powers of
so\ereignty acquired by the United States over Puerto Rico under the Treaty of Paris." Hearings
Before the Committee on Public Lands, House of Representatives, Eighty First Congress. I"**.,
page 63.
• Hon. .Antonio Femos- Isem, Resident Commissioner from Puerto Rico in Washington:
"This bill does not change the fundamental situation of non- incorporation in which
Puerto Rico is now, but it allows Puerto Rico to develop along the lines of self- government in a
parallel line with a Territory that attains statehood. That would be the situation under this bill.
"In other words, it is development into self- govemment on the part of a non-
incorporated area of the United States, without virtually changing its position relative to the
United States." Hearings Before the Committee on Public Lands of the U.S. , Eighty First
Congress. Second Session on H.R. 7674 "A bill to provide for the organization of a
constitutional govemment by the people of Puerto Rico." March 14, 1950. Serial No. 26.
• Hon. Luis Munoz Marin, Governor of Puerto Rico (1948- 1964):
"This bill does not change the fundamental situation of non-incorporation in which
Puerto Rico is now. but it allows Puerto Rico to develop along the lines of self- govemment in a
parallel line with a territory that attains statehood. That would be the situation under the bill. In
other words, it is development into self-govemment on the part of a non- incorporated area of the
United States, without virtually changing its position relative to the U.S." Hearings Before the
Committee on Public Lands, House of Representatives, House of Representatives, on H.R. 7674,
81st Congress. March 14, Washington Govemment Printing Office, 1950, page 17.
• Congressman Crawford of Michigan:
". . .and the people of Puerto Rico are still definitely tied in under the supervision of the
Congress and under the protection of the provisions of the Federal Relations Act." Congressional
Record. May 28, 1952, page 6180.
• Congressman Meader of Michigan:
171
"We are creating a Commonwealth. That has never been done in U.S. history before.
We have admitted 35 states into the union. The legal effect of that is clear. The legal effect of
creating a Commonwealth is not clear.
Under the Organic Act now in effect it is clear that that Congress retains fiill power to
amend or repeal that act. The delegation of authority for local self- government is clearly
revocable.
The questions in my mind are these: May the Congress amend or repeal the Constitution
of Puerto Rico or laws enacted pursuant thereto? If the Congress in the future passes laws
applicable either to territories and possessions generally, which are inconsistent with the Puerto
Rican Constitution or laws enacted pursuant thereto, which law shall take precedence? Is the
delegation of authority irrevocable? That is the question.
The legislative counsel was unable and unwilling to give me a written opinion on the
subject. The Library of Congress opinion which I obtained says that: While the adoption of this
Constitution, with the approval of Congress, may create a moral obligation not to override the
compact made with the people of Puerto Rico pursuant to Public Law 600, Eighty- First
Congress, it would not diminish the constitutional power to deal with this territory as it deems
best.
This seems the consensus of the legal opinion I was able to assemble within the limited
period I had namely, that the approval of the Puerto Rico Constitution does not constitute an
irre\ocable delegation of the authority of the Congress under article IV. section 3, of the Sates
Constitution." Congressional Record. May 28, 1952, page 6183.
• Congressman Homer H. Budge of Idaho:
"A better approach might have been to have the people of Puerto Rico to write their own
Constitution without limitations and looking towards either independence , Or at least,
incorporation in the U.S. in a higher plane than that of a Commonwealth which under the
proposed Constitution seems to be a mere colonialism." Congressional Record, May 13, 1952,
page 5127.
• Senator O' Mahoney , chairman of the Interior and Insular Affairs Committee:
"It will be easy to assume that in granting this authority the Congress has placed no
restraints upon the action of the people of the island. Such is not the case however. The
authority granted in Public Law 600 was carefially drawn to make it apply only to
matters of local self- government... Those sections not repealed (of the Jones Act) by
specific legislation remain in full force and are to be known as the Puerto Rican Federal
Relations Act. So the whole purpose of this authorization was to extend to the people of
Puerto Rico the opportunity of drawing a charter of local self- government within the
scope of the Constitution and the laws of the U.S..." Congressional Record. June 3,
1952. page 7832.
172
THE PREPARED STATEMENT OF ROBERT BUSO ABOY
In the past half century our Institution has approved and issued more than 18
reports on this issue:
—On the Political Problem of Puerto Rico (1944);
— On the Minimum Substantive Requirements for each of the Three Formulas to Be Considered in
a Plebiscite (1963);
— On the Juridical Relations Between Puerto Rico and the United States (1972);
--On the Decolonization of Puerto Rico (1973);
-On a New Compact Between Puerto Rico and the United States (1975);
-On the Essential Procedural Requirements for the Decolonization of Puerto Rico (1977);
— On the Decolonization and Self-Determination of the People of Puerto Rico ( 1 978) and (1979);
— On the Decolonization of Puerto Rico ( 1 980);
— On the Present Stage of the Process of Decolonization of Puerto Rico and on the Inclusion of the
Case of Puerto Rico in the Agenda of the General Assembly of the United Nations (1981 and 1982
and 1983);
— To Recommend that the Voters in Puerto Rico Be Consulted on the Desirability of Convening a
Constitutional Convention and on the Desirability of Revising the Terms of the Existing Relations
between Puerto Rico and the United States (1985);
— On the Compact of Free Association of the Marshall Islands and the Federated States of
Micronesia with the United States of America (1985); and;
— On Two New Constitutional Initiatives (1985).
173
Memorandum on the
Commonwealth of Puerto Rico
November 30, 1992
Memorandum for the Heads of Executive
Departments and Agencies
Puerto Rico is a self-governing territory of
the United States whose residents have been
United States citizens since 1917 and have
fought valorously in five wars in the defense
of our Nation and the liberty of others.
On July 25, 1952, as a consequence of
steps taken by both the United States Gov-
ernment and the people of Puerto Rico vot-
ing in a referendum, a new constitution was
promulgated establishing the Common-
wealth of Puerto Rico. The Commonwealth
structure provides for self-government in re-
spect of internal affairs and administration,
subject to relevant portions of the Constitu-
bon and the laws of the United States. As
long as Puerto Rico is a territory, however,
the will of its people regarding their political
status should be ascertained periodically by
means of a general right of referendum or
specific referenda sponsored either by the
United States Government or the Legislature
of Puerto Rico.
Because Puerto Rico's degree of constitu-
tional self-government, population, and size
set it apart from other areas also subject to
Federal jurisdiction under Article TV, section
3, clause 2 of the Constitution, I hereby di-
rect all Federal departments, agencies, and
officials, to the extent consistent with the
Constitution and the laws of the United
States, henceforward to treat Puerto Rico ad-
ministratively as if it were a State, except in-
sofar as doing so with respect to an existing
Federal program or activity would increase
or decrease Federal receipts or expenditures,
or would seriously disrupt the operation of
such program or activity. With resf>ect to a
Federal program or activity for which no fis-
cal baseline has been estabhshed, this memo-
randum shall not be construed to require that
such program or activity be conducted in a
way that increases or decreases Federal re-
ceipts or expenditures relative to the level
that would obtain if Puerto Rico were treated
other than as a State.
If any matters arise involving the fun-
damentals of Puerto Rico's status, they shall
be referred to the Office of the President.
This guidance shall remain in effect until
Federal legislation is enacted altering the
current status of Puerto Rico in accordance
with the freely expressed wishes of the peo-
ple of Puerto Rico.
The memorandum for the heads of execu-
tive departments and agencies on this sub-
ject, issued July 25, 1961, is hereby re-
scinded.
This memorandum shall be published in
the Federal Register.
George Bush
Note: This memorandum u:as released by the
Office of the Press Secretary on December
1.
174
Don Young, Chairman
la.^. BouBE of fieprEBEntatiuefi
Committee on Eefiourccg
liBa^tington, 1B€ 20515
February 29, 1996
The Honorable Roberto Rexach-Benitez
President of the Senate
The Honorable Zaida Hernandez-Torres
Speaker of (he House
of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico
San Juan, Puerto Rico 00901
Dear Mr. Rexach-Benitez and Ms. Hernandez-Torres:
The Committee on Resources and the Committee on International Relations are
working cooperatively to establish an official record which we believe will enable the
House to address the subject-matter of Concurrent Resolution 62, adopted by the
Legislature of Puerto Rico on December 14, 1994. While the specific measures
addressing Puerto Rico's status which the 104th Congress will consider are still
being developed, we believe the history of the self-determination process in Puerto
Rico, as well as the record of the Joint Hearing conducted on October 17, 1995 by
the Subcommittee on Native American and Insular Affairs and the Subcommittee
on Western Hemisphere, lend to the following conclusions with respect to the
plebiscite conducted in Puerto Rico on November 14, 1993:
1. The plebiscite was conducted under local law by local authorities, and the
voting process appears to have been orderly and consistent with recognized
standards for lawful and democratic elections. This locally organized self-
determination process was undertaken within the authority of the constitutional
government of Puerto Rico, and is consistent with the right of the people of Puerto
Rico freely to express their wishes regarding their political status and the form of
government under which they live. The United States recognizes the right of the
people of Puerto Rico to self-determination, including the right to approve any
permanent political status which will be established upon termination of the current
unincorporated territory status. Congress will take cognizance of the 1993
plebiscite results in determining future Federal policy toward Puerto Rico.
2. The content of each of the three status options on the ballot was determined by
the three major political parties in Puerto Rico identified with those options,
II
175
respectively. The U.S. Congress did not adopt a formal position as to the feasibility
of any of the options prior to presentation to the voters. Consequently, the results
of the vote necessarily must be viewed as an expression of the preferences of those
who voted as between the proposals and advocacy of the three major political
parties for the status option espoused by each such party.
3. None of the status options presented on the ballot received a majority of the
votes cast. While the commonwealth option on the ballot received a plurality of
votes, this result is difficult to interpret because that option contained proposals to
profoundly change rather than continue the current Commonwealth of Puerto Rico
government structure. Certain elements of the commonwealth option, including
permanent union with the United States and guaranteed U.S. citizenship, can only
be achieved through full integration into the U.S. leading to statehood. Other
elements of the commonwealth option on the ballot, including a government-to-
government bilateral pact which cannot be altered, either are not possible or could
only be partially accomplished through treaty arrangements based on separate
sovereignty. While the statehood and independence options are more clearly
deflned, neither of these options can be fully understood on the merits, unless
viewed in the context of clear Congressional policy regarding the terms under which
either option could be implemented if approved in a future plebiscite recognized by
the federal government. Thus, there is a need for Congress to define the real options
for change and the true legal and political nature of the status quo, so that the
people can know what the actual choices will be in the future.
4. Although there is a history of confusion and ambiguity on the part of some in
the U.S. and Puerto Rico regarding the legal and political nature of the current
"commonwealth" local government structure and territorial status, it is
incontrovertible that Puerto Rico's present status is that of an unincorporated
territory subject in all respects to the authority of the United States Congress under
the Territorial Clause of the U.S. Constitution. As such, the current status does
not provide guaranteed permanent union or guaranteed citizenship to the
inhabitants of the territory of Puerto Rico, nor does the current status provide the
basis for recognition of a separate Puerto Rican sovereignty or a binding
government-to-government status pact.
5. In light of the foregoing, the results the November 14, 1993 vote indicates that
it is the preference of those who cast ballots to change the present impermanent
status in favor of a permanent political status based on full self-government. The
only options for a permanent and fully self-governing status are: 1) separate
sovereignty and full national independence, 2) separate sovereignty in free
association with the United States; 3) full integration into the United States
political system ending unincorporated territory status and leading to statehood.
176
6. Because each ballot option in the 1993 plebiscite addressed citizenship, we want
to clarify this issue. First, under separate sovereignty Puerto Ricans will have their
own nationality and citizenship. The U.S. political status, nationality, and
citizenship provided by Congress under statues implementing the Treaty of Paris
during the unincorporated territory period will be replaced by the new Puerto
Rican nationhood and citizenship status that comes with separate sovereignty. To
prevent hardship or unfairness in individual cases, the U.S. Congress may determine
the requirements for eligible persons to continue U.S. nationality and citizenship, or
be naturalized, and this will be governed by U.S. law, not Puerto Rican law. If the
voters freely choose separate sovereignty, only those born in Puerto Rico who have
acquired U.S. citizenship on some other legal basis outside the scope of the Treaty of
Paris citizenship statutes enacted by Congress during the territorial period will not
be affected. Thus, the automatic combined Puerto Rican and U.S. citizenship
described under the definition of independence on the 1993 plebiscite ballot was a
proposal which is misleading and inconsistent with the fundamental principles of
separate nationality and non-interference by two sovereign countries in each other's
internal affairs, which includes regulation of citizenship. Under statehood,
guaranteed equal U.S. citizenship status will become a permanent right. Under the
present Commonwealth of Puerto Rico government structure, the current limited
U.S. citizenship status and rights will be continued under Federal law enacted under
the Territorial Clause and the Treaty of Paris, protected to the extent of partial
application of the U.S. Constitution during the period in which Puerto Rico remains
an unincorporated territory.
7. The alternative to full integration into the United States or a status based on
separate sovereignty is continuation of the current unincorporated territory status.
In that event, the present status quo, including the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico
structure for local self-government, presumably could continue for some period of
time, until Congress in its discretion otherwise determines the permanent
disposition of the territory of Puerto Rico and the status of its inhabitants through
the exercise of its authority under the Territorial Clause and the provisions of the
Treaty of Paris. Congress may consider proposals regarding changes in the
current local government structure, including those set forth in the "Definition of
Commonwealth" on the 1993 plebiscite ballot. However, in our view serious
consideration of proposals for equal treatment for residents of Puerto Rico under
Federal programs will not be provided unless there is an end to certain exemptions
from federal tax laws and other non-taxation in Puerto Rico, so that individuals and
corporations in Puerto Rico have the same responsibilities and obligations in this
regard as the states. Since the "commonwealth" option on the 1993 plebiscite
ballot called for "fiscal autonomy," which is understood to mean, among other
things, continuation of the current exemptions from federal taxation for the
territory, this constitutes another major political, legal and economic obstacle to
177
implementing the changes in FedernI law and policy required to Tulfill the terms of
the "DeHnition of Commonwealth."
8. In addition, it is important to recognize that the existing Commonwealth of
Puerto Rico structure for local self-government, and any other measures which
Congress may approve while Puerto Rico remains an unincorporated territory, are
not unalterable in a sense that is constitutionally binding upon a future Congress.
Any provision, agreement or pact to the contrary is legally unenforceable. Thus,
the current Federal laws and policies applicable to Puerto Rico are not unalterable,
nor can they be made unalterable, and the current status of the inhabitants is not
irrevocable, as proposed under the "commonwealth" option on the 1993 plebiscite
ballot. Congress will continue to respect the principle of self-determination in its
exercise of Territorial Clause powers, but that authority must be exercised within
the framework of the U.S. Constitution and in a manner deemed by Congress to
best serve the U.S. national interest. In our view, promoting the goal of full self-
government for the people of Puerto Rico, rather than remaining in a separate and
unequal status, is in the best interests of the United States. This is particularly
true due to the large population of Puerto Rico, the approach of a new century in
which a protracted status debate will interfere with Puerto Rico's economic and
social development, and the domestic and international interest in determining a
path to full self-government for all territories with a colonial history before the end
of this century.
9. The record of the October 17, 1995 hearing referred to above makes it clear
that the realities regarding constitutional, legal and political obstacles to
implementing the changes required to fulfill the core elements of the
"commonwealth" option on the ballot were not made clear and understandable in
the public discussion and political debate leading up to the vote. Consequently,
Congress must determine what steps the Federal government should take in order to
help move the self-determination process to the next stage, so that the political status
aspirations of the people can be ascertained through a truly informed vote in which
the wishes of the people are freely expressed within a framework approved by
Congress. Only through such a process will Congress then have a clear basis for
determining and resolving the question of Puerto Rico's future political status in a
manner consistent with the national interest.
Ultimately, Congress alone can determine Federal policy with respect to self-
government and self-determination for the residents of Puerto Rico. It will not be
possible for the local government or the people to advance further in the self-
determination process until the U.S. Congress meets its moral and governmental
responsibility to clarify Federal requirements regarding termination of the present
unincorporated territory status of Puerto Rico in favor of one of the options for full
self-government.
178
The results of the locally administered 1993 vote are useful in this regard, but
in our view are not definitive beyond what has been stated above. The question of
Puerto Rico's political status remains open and unresolved.
Sincerely,
Don Young / /
irman / /
imittee/On Resources
Cha
Com
2<v-/^
Cn Gilman
Chairman
Committee on InternntionnI
Jations
ia
Elton Gallegly
Chairman
Subcommittee on Native American
and Insular Affairs
Dan Burton
Chairman
Subcommittee on the Western
Hemisphere
cc: Hon. Hector Luis Accvedo
Hon. Ruben Berrios
Hon. Pedro Rosseilo
179
Don Young, Chairman
1&3. Jixmae of fiepreHentatiucB
Committee on i&e£(ources(
fflaairtimgton.B<£ 20515 March 4. 1996
Dear Colleague:
Under the "United States-Puerto Rico Political Status Act" which we are sponsoring, for
the first time in nearly a century of U.S. administration there will be a Congressionally recognized
fi-amework for the inhabitants of Puerto Rico to freely express their wishes regarding the options
foi full self-government. If this self-determination process does not result in voter approval of
one of the recognized options for full self-government, then by democratic choice of the voters -
instead of by Federal mandate ~ the status quo will continue and Puerto Rico will remain a locally
self-governing unincorporated territory under Congressional administration.
Under the U.S. Constitution and applicable principles of international law, the three
recognized options for flill self-government are independence, separate sovereignty in free
association with the U.S. and full integration into the US. leading to statehood. In order for
Congress to determine how to respond to the aspirations of the people of Puerto Rico regarding a
permanent, future political status in a manner which promotes and preserves the U.S. long-term
national interest, we need to address the status question based on clearly defined principles and
standards. This is what our bill does.
Locally conducted plebiscites have been inconclusive, and were unduly influenced by
vested interests exploiting the status quo. It is time for the U.S. Congress to meet its
responsibility under the Constitution to provide for a self-determination procedure in which the
U.S. national interest in resolving the status issue is taken into account, rather than allowing the
issue to be dominated by local political rivalries and interference from those who thrive
opportunistically on the present territorial status. The United States also has a right of self-
determination, and this process requires action by both the U.S. and Puerto Rico in order to
advance towards a full self-government relationship.
After 400 years of colonial rule by Spain ended in 1898, it should not have taken another
100 years of American administration for the U.S. Congress to define the options for full and
permanent self-government. The Governor of Puerto Rico and our colleague Resident
Commissioner Romeo-Barcelo support this bill. We hope you will co-sponsor the measure and
support its early enactment
Enclosed is a copy of the bill and summary To co-sponsor, call 226-7393.
Sincerely,
^1 ^^^ <^-<^K
DON young/ ELTON GALl
Chainhan / Chairman
Comhiittee on Resources Subcommittee on Native American
' and Insular Affairs
180
Congressional 'Record
th
PROCEEDINGS AND DEBATES OF THE ] 04 CONGRESS, SECOND SESSION
Vol. 142
WASHINGTON, WEDNESDAY, MARCH 6, 1996
No. 29
UNITED STATES-PUERTO RICO
POLITICAL STATUS ACT
HON. DON YOUNG
OF AL.\SKA
IN TIIE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Wednesday. March 6. 1996
Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, today,
the introduction of the United Stales-Puerto
Rico Political Status Act will, (or the first time
in nearly a century of U.S. adminislration, pro-
vide a congressionatty recognized framework
(or the inhabitants of Puerto Rico to (reely ex-
press their wishes regarding the options for
full selt-governrrwnt I want to acknowledge
the insightful leadership of Speaker Newt
Gingrich in working with the committee to for-
mulate a process to advance the United
States-Puerto Rico relationship toward a con-
clusive one of full self-government. A number
of Members have been supportive and instru-
mental in the development of the legislation,
including Elton Gallegly. chairman of the
Subcommittee on Native American and Insular
Affairs of the Committee on Resources. Ben
Gilman. chairman of the Committee on Inter-
national Relations, and Dan Burton, chairman
of the Subcommittee on the Western Hemi-
sphere who cochaired with Mr, Gallegly the
October 17, 1995, joint heanng on the 1993
Puerto Rico status plebiscite. There also has
been substantial input from Members on the
other side of the aisle.
This matter o( tremendous importance to the
United States and the nearly 4 million United
Stales Citizens in Puerto Rico can only be re-
solved by adhering to constitutionally arxj
internationally based pnrx:iples and standards
(or lull self-government. While many may mis-
construe this legislation to be designed to ben-
efit one local Puerto Rico political party over
another, it is, in (act, a serious bipartisan effort
to enact into law a pragmatic process with the
long-term objective of resolving the Puerto
Rico status dilemma. The legislation divides
the process into three manageable stages
which follow historical precedent set by the
Congress in providing (or final political
statuses ol territories and trust temtories dur-
ing this century.
The (irst step in the process is the initial de-
cision stage m which voters are asked which
fundamental relationship they prefer with the
United Stales— one o( separate sovereignty
leading to independence or free association or
under United States sovereignty leading to
statehood.
The second and Hnat steps are the transi-
tion arxJ implementation stages which follow
the historical patterns of enabling and admis-
sion acts for territories becoming Slates and
Simitar measures for insular areas becoming
separate sovereigns.
If this self-determination process does not
result in voter approval of one o( the rcogmzed
options for full self-government, then by demo-
cratic choice of the voters — instead of by Fed-
eral mandate— the status quo wilt continue
arKl Puerto Rico will remain a locally self-gov-
erning unincorporated territory under congres-
sional administration.
Under the U.S. Constitution and applicable
principles of international taw. the three recog-
nized options for full self government are mde-
pcrxJence. separate sovereignty in free asso-
ciation with the United States, and full integra-
tion into the United Slates leading to state-
hood. In order lor Congress to determine how
to respond to the aspirations of the people of
Puerto Rico regarding a permanent, future po-
litical status in a manner which promotes and
preserves the U.S. long-term national interest.
we need to address the status question based
on clearly defined principles and standards.
This is precisely what the bill does.
Locally conducted plebiscites have been irv
conclusive, and were unduly influenced by
vested interests exploiting the status quo. It is
time (or the U.S. Congress to meet its respon-
sibility under the Constitution to provide for a
self-determination procedure in which the U.S.
national interest in resolving the status issue is
taken into account, rather than allowing the
issue to be dominated by local political rival-
ries and intertererKe from those who thnve
opportunistically on the present territorial sta-
tus. The United Stales also has a right o( self-
determination and this process requires action
by both the United States and Puerto Rico in
order to advance toward a full self-government
relationship.
After 400 years of colonial rule by Spain
ended in 1898. it should not have taken arv
other 100 years of Amencan administration (or
the U.S. Congress to define the options lor full
arxJ permanent self-government. The United
States-Puerto Rico Status Act permits full self-
government to be realized in Puerto Rico in
definitive steps, with a smooth transition to
whatever form of full self-government the peo-
ple choose: independence, separate sov-
ereignty in free association with the United
States, or statehood.
There is an important event which took
place recently which is relevant to the intro-
duction o( this legislation. On February 29.
1996, I joined three other House committee
and subcommittee chairmen from the Commit-
tees on Resources and International Relations
in responding to Concurrent Resolution 62 of
the Puerto Rico Legislature.
In 4he Concurrent Resolution the legislature
asks the l04th Congress to respond to the re-
sults of the November 14, 1993, status plebi-
scite m Puerto Rico, wherein the Common-
wealth ballot proposition received a plurality of
48.6 percent votes cast, and to indicate the
next steps in resolving Puerto Rico's political
status. After extensive research, oversight,
and a joint hearing, a substantial record was
developed enabling a concise response to
Concurrent Resolution 62.
Following is the text ol the response to the
President of the Senate and Speaker of the
House o( the Puerto Rico Legislature:
HOUSE OF RErRESENTATIVES.
COMMITTErON RESOURCES.
WashmQton. DC. February 29. !996.
Hon. Roberto Rexach-Benitez.
president of the Senate.
Hon. Zaida Hernanoez-Torres.
Speaker of the House of Corrimortu'palth of Puer-
to Rico. San Juan. Puerto Rtco.
Dear Mr. Rrxach-Benitez and Ms. Her-
NANDEz-ToKREs: The Committee on Re-
sources and the Committee on International
Relations are working cooperatively to es-
tablish an official record which we believe
win enable to House to address the subject-
matter of Concurrent Resolution 62. adopted
by tho Legislature of Puerto Rico on Decem-
ber 14. 1994 While the specific measures ad-
dressing Puerto Rico's status which the 104th
Congress will consider are still being devel-
oped, we believe the history of the self-deter-
mination process in Puerto Rico, as well as
the record of the Joint Hearing conducted on
OctoDer 17. 1995 by the Subcommittee on Na-
tive American and Insular Affairs and the
Subcommittee on Western Hemisphere, lead
to the following conclusions with respect to
the plebiscite conducted In Pertro Rico on
November 14. 1993:
1. The plebiscite was conducted under local
law by local authorities, and the voting proc-
ess appears to have been orderly and consist-
ent with recognized standards for lawful and
democratic elections. This locally organized
self-determination process was undertaken
within the authority of the constitutional
government of Puerto Rico, and Is consistent
with the right of the people of Puerto Rico ~
Ireely to express their wishes regarding their
political status and the form of government
under which they live. The United SUtes
recognizes the right of the people of Puerto
Rico to self-determination. Including the
right to approve any permanent political
status which will be established upon termi-
nation of the current unincorporated terri-
tory status. Congress will take cognizance of
the 1993 plebiscite results In determining fu-
ture Federal policy toward Puerto Rico.
2. The content of oach of the three status
options on the ballot was determined by the
three major political parties In Puerto Rico
Identified with those options, respectively.
The U.S. Congress did not adopt a formal po-
sition as to the feasibility of any of the op-
tions prior to presentation to the voters.
Consequently, the results of the vote nec-
essarily must be viewed as a an expression of
the preferences of those who voted as tw-
tween the proposals and advocacy of tho
three major political parties for the status
option espoused by each such party.
3. None of the status options presented on
the ballot received a majority of the votes
cast. While the commonwealth option on the
ballot received a plurality of votes, this re-
sult Is difficult to Interpret becAuse that op-
tion contained proposals to profoundly
change rather than continue the current
Commonwealth of Puerto Rico governmeot
structure. Certain elements of the common-
wealth option, Including permanent union
with the United States and guaranteed U.S.
citizenship, can only be achieved through
full Integration Into the U.S. leidlng to
statehood. Other elements of the common-
wealth option on the ballot, Including a gov-
ernment-to-government bilateral pact which
cannot be altered, either are not possible or
could only be partially accomplished
through treaty arrangements based on sepa-
rate sovereignty. While the statehood and
Independence options are more clearly de-
fined, neither of these options can be fully
understood on the merits, unless viewed Id
the context of clear Congressional policy re-
garding the terms under which either option
could be Implemented If approved In a future
plebiscite recognized by the federal govern-
ment. Thus, there Is a need for Congress to
define the real options for change and the
true legal and political nature of the status
quo. so that the people can know what the
actual choices will be In the future.
4. Although there Is a history of confusion
and ambiguity on the part of some In the
U.S and Puerto Rico regarding the legal and
political nature of the current "common-
wealth" local government structure and ter-
ritorial status. It Is Incontrovertible that
181
E300
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— Extensions of Remarks
March 6, 1996
Puerto Rico's present status Is that of an un-
incorporated territory subject In all respects
to the authority of the United States Con-
gress under the Territorial Clause of the U.S.
Constitution. As such, the current status
does not provide guaranteed permanent
J union or guaranteed citizenship to the Inhab-
itants of the territory of Puerto Rico, nor
does the current status provide the basis for
recognition of a separate Puerto Rlcan sov-
ereignty or a binding govemment-to-govern-
ment status pact.
5. In light of the foregoing, the results the
November 14, 1993 vote Indicates that It Is
the preference of those who cast ballots to
change the present Impermanent status In
favor of a permanent political status based
on full self-government. The only options for
a permanent and fully self-governing status
are; (1) separate sovereignty and full na-
tional Independence. (2) separate sovereignty
in tree association with the United States:
(3) full Integration Into the United States po-
litical system ending unincorporated terri-
tory status and leading to statehood.
6. Because each ballot option In the 1993
plebiscite addressed citizenship, we want to
clarify this Issue. First, under separate sov-
ereignty Puerto Ricans will have their own
nationality and citizenship. The U.S. politi-
cal status, nationality, and citizenship pro-
vided by Congress under statutes Implement-
ing the Treaty of Paris during the unincor-
porated territory period will be replaced by
the new Puerto Rlcan nationhood and citi-
zenship status that comes with separate sov-
ereignty. To prevent hardship or unfairness
in individual cases, the U.S. Congress may
determine the requirements for eligible per-
sons to continue U.S. nationality and citi-
zenship, or be naturalized, and this will be
governed by U.S. law, not Puerto Rlcan law.
If the voters freely choose separate sov-
ereignty, only those bom in Puerto Rico who
have acquired U.S. citizenship on some other
legal basis outside the scope of the Treaty of
Paris citizenship statutes enacted by Con-
gress during the territorial period will not be
affected. Thus, the automatic combined
Puerto Rlcan and U.S. citizenship described
under the definition of Independence on the
1993 plebiscite ballot was a proposal which Is
misleading and inconsistent with the fun-
damental principles of separate nationality
and non-interference by two sovereign coun-
tries In each other's internal affairs, which
includes regulation of citizenship. Under
statehood, guaranteed equal U.S. citizenship
status will become a permanent right. Under
the present Commonwealth of Puerto Rico
government structure, the current limited
U.S. citizenship status and rights will be
continued under Federal law enacted under
the Territorial Clause and the Treaty of
Paris, protected to the extent of partial ap-
plication of the U.S. Constitution during the
period In which Puerto Rico remains an un-
incorporated territory.
7. The alternative to full Integration into
the United States or a status based on sepa-
rate sovereignty is continuation of the cur-
rent unincorporated territory status. In that
event, the present status quo, including the
Commonwealth of Puerto Rico structure for
local self-government, presumably could
continue for some period of time, until Con-
gress in its discretion otherwise determines
the permanent disposition of the territory of
Puerto Rico and the status of Its inhabitants
through the exercise of its authority under
the Territorial Clause and the provisions of
the Treaty of Paris. Congress may consider
proposals regarding changes in the current
local government structure, including those
set forth in the "Definition of Common-
wealth" on the 1993 plebiscite ballot. How-
ever, in our view serious consideration of
proposals for equal treatment for residents
of Puerto Rico under Federal programs will
not be provided unless there Is an end to cer-
tain exemptions from federal tax laws and
other non-taxation In Puerto Rico, so that
individuals and corporations In Puerto Rico
have the same responsibilities and obliga-
tions In this regard as the states. Since the
"commonwealth" option on the 1993 plebi-
scite ballot called for "fiscal autonomy,"
which is understood to mean, among other
things, continuation of the current exemp-
tions from federal taxation tor the territory,
this constitutes another major political,
legal and economic obstacle to implementing
the changes In Federal law and policy re-
quired to fulfill the terms of the "Definition
of Commonwealth."
8. In addition, it is Important to recognize
that the existing Commonwealth of Puerto
Rico structure for local self-government, and
any other measures which Congress may ap-
prove while Puerto Rico remains an unincor-
porated territory, are not unalterable in a
sense that is constitutionally binding upon a
future Congress. Any provision, agreement
or pact to the contrary is legally unenforce-
able Thus, the current Federal laws and
policies applicable to Puerto Rico are not
unalterable, nor can they be made unalter-
able, and the current status of the inhab-
itants is not irrevocable, as proposed under
the "commonwealth" option on the 1993
plebiscite ballot. Congress will continue to
respect the principle of self-determination in
its exercise of Territorial Clause powers, but
that authority must be exercised within the
framework of the U.S. Constitution and in a
manner deemed by Congress to best serve the
U.S. national interest. In our view, promot-
ing the goal of full self-government for the
people of Puerto Rico, rather than remaining
in a separate and unequal status, is in the
best interests of the United States. This Is
particularly true due to the large population
of Puerto Rico, the approach of o new cen-
tury in which a protracted status debate will
interfere with Puerto Rico's economic and
social development, and the domestic and
international Interest in determining a path
to full self-government for all territories
with a colonial history before the end of this
century.
9. The record of the October 17, 1995 hear-
ing referred to above makes it clear that the
realities regarding constitutional, legal and
political obstacles to implementing the
changes required to fulfill the core elements
of the "commonwealth" option on the ballot
were not made clear and understandable in
the public discussion and political debate
leading up to the vote. Consequently, Con-
gress must determine what steps the Federal
government should take in order to help
move the self-determination process to the
next sta^e, so that the political status aspi-
rations of the people can be ascertained
through a truly Informed vote In which the
wishes of the people are freely expressed
within a framework approved by Congress.
Only through such a process will Congress
then have a clear basis for determining and
resolving the question of Puerto Rico's fu-
ture political status in a manner consistent
with the national Interest.
Ultimately. Congress alone can determine
Federal policy with respect to self-govern-
ment and self-determination for the resi-
dents of Puerto Rico. It will not be possible
for the local government or the people to ad-
vance further In the self-determination proc-
ess until the U.S. Congress meets its moral
and governmental responsibility to clarify
Federal requirements regarding termination
of the present unincorporated territory sta-
tus of Puerto Rico in favor of one of the op-
tions for full self-government.
The results of the locally administered 1993
vote are useful in this regard, but In our
view are not definitive beyond what has been
stated above. The question of Puerto Rico's
political status remains open a^d unre-
solved.
Sincerely.
Don Youno.
Chairman, Committee
on Resources.
Elton Galleoly,
Chairman. Subcommit-
tee on Native Amer-
ican and Insular Af-
fairs.
Ben Gilman,
Chaimuin, Committee
on International Re-
lations.
Dan Bukton,
Chairman. Subcommit-
tee on the Western
Hemisphere.
182
Don Young, Chaiaman
Committee on S^tiomtti
aaa0t)inBton, BC 20515
Chronology for Implementing the United States-Puerto Rico Political Status Act
Action by Congress, the President, or the people of Puerto Rico Projected Date
Congressional enactment of the United States-Puerto Rico
Political Status Act before the end of 1996
Initial Decision Referendum by the people of Puerto Rico
on the question of which path toward flill self-government,
to be held no later than 12/31/98
President submits Transition Plan legislation for full self-
government to Congress within 180 days of referendum 6/30/99
Congressional enactment o/Transition Act to full
self-government within 180 days of receipt of President's
proposal 12/31/99
Transition Act Referendum by the people of Puerto Rico
on approval of Transition Act within 180 days of referendum 6/30/00
Presidential proclamation begins the Transition toward full
self-government July, 2000
President submits Implementation legislation to Congress
2 years prior to end of Transition period July, 2008
Congressional enactment o/Implementation Act for
full self-government for Puerto Rico within 1 80 days of
receipt of President's proposal 6/30/09
Implementation Act Referendum by the people of Puerto Rico
on approval of Implementation Act within 180 days of enactment 12/31/09
Presidential proclamation implementing full self-government
for Puerto Rico July, 2010
183
^ifar 'BarSosa be ^osario
Historiadora Oficial de Puerto Rico
Condominio El Ponce
Suite 404
274 Canal Street
Santurce, PR 00907
>\c^.^a.H^ic^ c^4^
I A_-o£X.jv«»-jt
-!<,'
184
^ifar ^ar6o5a be ^^osario
Historiadora Oficial de Puerto Rico ^ :X'
Condominio El Ponce
Suite 404
274 Canal Street • l_ .
Santurce, PR 00907 -^ "^-^
4^ «,b.uu^-^-5 .-stAx.-^Ji_fi, J>^a_.<sAejv^ *>J^c.^^ ^
ti^z
<S^J^.J^ <L^«.,.c^ a....A. -^^--^^-^
■J
185
^ifar ^ar6o$a be QRosario
Historiadora Oficial de Puerto Rico
Condominio El Ponce yC.jf:XT_ "tl^^-J- '^~e5l^i-<» c^u.-*-^ **-<,^a->
Suite 404 \.^y^-■'^
21 A Canal Street ^ .
Santurce, PR 00907 -^-^
^ v«^i«a V--'^^^-^ -%JU:i,^:^^ V*-
186
^ifar ^ar6o5a be Q-^osario
Historiadora Oficial de Puerto Rico ^'
Condominio El Ponce _^^^.. 17 Vw^JUlJtv
Suite 404 ^ \.^J^eX^ KX<*-'^ | f-—
274 Canal Street
Santurce, PR 00907 ^^^^ Ua^ V^'^i'^ ^ ^^.^VX^^^^xu^
^..^^ <=^ "^"^^-^ .>^<^V\r ^^^^^^--^ "V^ ^
r ^ Cs-wTVU-^ W^>Ltr^^^^ ^ S %-t^.
187
^ifar ^ar6osa be QRosarto
Historiadora Oficial de Puerto Rico _^ r
w
Condominio El Ponce
274 Canal Street U \mX "^^r-^^^-^ ^^--«*^*"^j^_-»jt3wX/RXX <^^
Santurce, PR 00907 ^
4^uv^^'
«o.
188
QDifar ^arGosa be ^^osario <-/
Historiadora Oficial de Puerto Rico
Condominio El Ponce ~U> ^^ g^^x^ t^ £^.---0 1^ ^ ^
Suite 404
274 Canal Street Jfr /^^ ' «. . \a Jt 1^ p-<V^
Santurce. PR 00907^"^^ ( '-^^^-^^-'^ ^'"^^ ^^^
L>X^.r.^ -^^^^^V-^H^ tX^ ^^n 'o^.^^
189
^ifar '^^arGosa be QRosario -?/
Historiadora Oficial de Puerto Rico
Condominio El Ponce 0 V)f\ '^
Suite 404 Q t^ o-v>- ^^i«-t»-*,x<w-r-^ V^^^ '-
274 Canal Street \^^ ^ ^ I
Santurce. PR 00907
1. ^ o-Y^.-*-^ "^^^^ (2^^ aJ^u.<^ u<_(l1ccJ_^
24-926 - 96 - 7
190
cptfar ^ar6o5a be ^^osario
Historiadora Oficial de Puerto Rico
f'is
Condominio El Ponce • r)t)^i^^^^^ , rs
Suite 404 UaJ^ -Vw-J^ cj^^^^v^*-^ ^'^^^l^
274 Canal Street
Santurce. PR 00907 t^^^^T^^v^ ^^~tW \V^-^^^.
4.y_^^ ^ /gL>-«_- v.^^ ^>As^ ^ •5lv-cs.u*ocvvC^ Cy A;r
''iX\_j^ \>^^ -A^ w^ljU^ ^l^ 'Mac X-<_c<_4cX^ - —
191
^ifar ^ar6osa be QRosario
Historiadora Oficial de Puerto Rico
^-
Condominio El Ponce .\ N \ 1 C, ^ O
Suite 404 C> Y^-ftX^ {) ^' ^L^-esL GLc-t-e:L>
274 Canal Street -"*~^
Santurce, PR 00907
y^^occ,
192
Pbepared Statement of Dr. Mduam J. Ramkez de Ferhm
Puerto Ricans in Civic Action
Puertorriquenos En Accion Ciudadana
PO BOX 3225, MAYAGUEZ, PUERTO RICO , 00681 (787) 8.34-0726
4
TESTIMONY OF MIRIAM J. RAMIREZ de FERRER, MD*
BEFORE THE
COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES
US. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ON H.R. 3024
"UNITED STATES-PUERTO RICO POLITICAL STATUS ACT
SAN JUAN, PUERTO RICO
MARCH 23, 1996
• Miriam J. Ramirez de Ferrer is president and founder of Puerto Ricans in Civic Action, a non-partisan
organization who delivered 350,000 individually signed petitions for statetiood to Congress and works to
secure political and economic equality for ttie 3.7 million United States citizens resident on the island. Since
1982. Dr. Ramirez has spearheaded the lobbying efforts of the group in the US. Congress.
Dr. Ramirez maintains a gynecological medical practice in Mayaguez, Puerto Rico.
193
Mr. Chairman, committee members and staff, welcome to Puerto Rico and thank you for the honor
of inviting me to present our organization's views on this historic legislation. While you are here, we
hope you have the opportunity to visit with your fellow United States citizens in Puerto Rico, and
see the historic sights and modem dynamic society we have created here in the Caribbean, truly
making our island its Shining Star.
All this progress has been possible with our nearly 100 year old relationship with the United States.
A relationship that now must be taken one fmal step beyond territorial links to one another and unites
our two destinies together forever, etemally preserving our cherished American citizenship, or
creates an independent Puerto Rico with its own sovereignty, nationality and distinct citizenship.
Your courageous efforts to resolve our mutual relationship dilemma is highly appreciated. You have
exercised your responsibility under the Territorial Clause of the US Constitution and so have defmed
the status options available to Puerto Ricans who, through the process of self-determination, will
ch<6se a fmal status for Puerto Rico.
It's sad that we need to place in your hands this issue of status choices, rather than to resolve it
ourselves, due in part to our own political leaders who have failed over the past almost 100 years to
candidly address the realities of the options available under the US Constitution. It's not that we did
not have appropriate guidelines to help us present the permitted choices but rather for political
expediency most of our leaders have opted to maintain the fiction of the status quo in order to
preserve their own power, and assure their elections.
As you have so eloquently stated, Puerto Rico remains an unincoiporated territory of the United
States. You reached this conclusion after carefiil research and examination of the historical records
as well as your own extensive hearings last October 17, 1995. At those hearings proponents of all the
stams options were heard and their arguments weighed. ■
Through the last 12 years, our organization has acquired many historical documents dealing with the
political relationship of Puerto Rico with the United States. Our group delivered 350,000 individually
signed petitions to Congress for statehood and has worked hard with Congress to solve the status
problem of Puerto Rico. We hope these historical documents and our years of research will help
clarify many misconceptions regarding the present relationship of Puerto Rico and the United States.
The following facts, supported by official documents included at the end of my testimony, will be
useful to set the record straight on what the present relationship between Puerto Rico and the United
States is. In other words what is this thing called "Commonwealth".
1. TREATY OF PARIS: December 10, 1898 (Extffl^itf^^
The Treaty signed by Spain and the United States after the Spanish-American War.
• Article II - Spain ceded Puerto Rico to the United States.
• Article IX - " In case they (Spanish subjects) they remain in the territory they may preserve
their allegiance to the Crown of Spain by making before a court of record, within a year from
2
194
the date of the exchange of ratifications of this treaty, a declaration of their decision to
preserve such allegiance; in default of which declaration they shall be held to have renounced
it and to have adopted the nationality of the territory in which the may reside. The civil rights
and political status of the native inhabitants of the territories hereby ceded to the United
States shall be determined by the Congress. "
2. FIRST ORGANIC ACT OF PUERTO RICO - 1900 - 1917 (Exhibit B)
The United States said this act was meant to "Temporarily to provide revenues and civil government
for Puerto Rico, and for other purposes." for the inhabitants of Puerto Rico.
• Section 7: "That all inhabitants continuing to reside therein who were Spanish subjects on the
eleventh day of April, eighteen hundred and ninety-nine (April 11, 1899) and then resided in
Puerto Rico, and their children bom subsequent thereto, shall be deemed and held to be
citizens of Puerto Rico, and as such entitled to the protection of the United States, except such
as shall have elected to preserve their allegiance to the Crown of Spain on or before the
eleventh day of April nineteen hundred, in accordance with the provisions of the treaty of peace
between the United States and Spain entered into on the elex'enth day of April, eighteen
hundred and ninety nine; "
3. ORGANIC ACT OF 1917, As Amended ( Jones Act ) (Exhibit Q
• Section 5: "That all citizens of Puerto Rico, as defined by section seven of the Act of April
12th, nineteen hundred. and are not citizens of any foreign country, are hereby declared,
and shall be deemed and held to be, citizens of the United States. "
NOTE; This section of the Jones Act would prohibit Congress from allowing Puerto Ricans
to remain citizens of the United States if they are citizens of another country. So how could
dual citizenship be awarded under separate sovereignty if the Jones Act prevails?
4. ROOSEVELT ADMINISTRATION: (1933-45)
As a result of a personal relationship between then Senator Muiioz Marin (the "creator^' of
Commonwealth ) and a reporter by the name of Ruby Black, and in turn through this reporter's
close relationship with Mrs. Roosevelt, they convinced President Roosevelt back in the 40's, that
Puerto Rico was on the verge of a revolution. Muiioz enlisted the support of then Secretary of
Interior, Harold Ickes to influence the President. (Exhibit D)
• March 3, 1943, Harold Ickes sent President Roosevelt a memo urging him to announce the
decision to order arevision of the Organic Act so as to provide for the election of a governor
and recommended Muiioz Marin as the leader of the Puerto Rican group. (Exhibit E)
• March 5,1943, President Roosevelt sends a letter to Congress urging the revision of the
Organic Act. (Exhibit F)
• In 1947, Congress authorized the people of Puerto Rico to elect their own govemor.
195
5. TRUMAN ADMINISTRATION: (1945-52) '^'jfSW^^B^mr- IW^^'i'^'^^
Note: By now Munoz Marin is the man with good ties to Washington. He succeeds in convincing
President Truman that the people of Puerto Rico be allowed to adopt a Constitution.
• 1949 - Munoz Marin became the first elected governor of Puerto Rico. (Exhibit G)
• A bill, S3336, was introduced in Congress to authorize the people of Puerto Rico to adopt
their own Constitution and to organize a local government.
• Senate Report No. 1779 and the House Report No. 2275 of S3336 : said the following:
(pg.2682-2683) "It is important that the nature and general scope o/S.3336 be made
absolutely clear. The bill under consideration would not change Puerto Rico's
fundamental, political, social and economical relationship to the United States. Those
sections of the Organic Act of Puerto Rico pertaining to the political, social, and economic
relationship of the United States and Puerto Rico concerning such matters as the applicability
of United States laws, customs, internal revenue. Federal judicial jurisdiction in Puerto Rico.
Puerto Rican representation by a Resident Commissioner, etc.. would remain in force and
effect, and upon enactment of S. 3 3 36 would be referred to as the Puerto Rican Federal
Relations Act. The sections of the Organic Act which section 5 of the bill would repeal are the
provisions of the act concerned primarily with the organization of the local executive,
legislative, and judicial branches of the government of Puerto Rico and other matters of
purely local concern ". (Exhibit H)
(pg. 2684) "Puerto Rico is unincorporated territory" The report in Law 600 specifies that the
present commonwealth is an unincorporated territory. (Exhibit H)
(pg. 2684) Sen. Joseph C.O'Mahoney said : "Nor will it in any way preclude a future
determination by the Congress of Puerto Rico 's ultimate status. The bill merely authorizes the
people of Puerto Rico to adopt their own constitution and to organize a local government" .
(Exhibit H)
Note: This clearly states that Puerto Rico continues to be an unincorporated territory of the United
States after Law 600.
• 1950 - Public Law 600 - Approved by the 81st Congress July 3, 1950
• 1951 - President Truman writes Governor Munoz: " // gives me great pleasure to receive
word from you that the overwhelming majority of the voters of Puerto Rico desire to draft their
own constitution. " .. "It seems to me in fairness to the people of Puerto Rico, that only when
these economic and social goals are clearly in sight can they decide as to what ultimate
relationship with the United States they desire. " (Truman recognizes that Puerto Rico had not
achieved a final status.) (Exhibit I)
• "The appointment of the first Puerto Rican Governor was the first step and the election of the
196
Governor was the next step, and now the adoption of the Constitution which gives Puerto Rico
the status of a state in the Union is a wonderjiil step in the right direction. "
Note: This seem to show Truman's inclination towards statehood. (Exhibit J)
• 1952 - Resolution 22: The Puerto Rico Constitutionai Convention approves the erroneous
translation of Commonwealth into " Associated Free State" (Estado Libre Asociado).
(Exhibit K)
Note: This continues to be a confusing issue of since many in Washington are led to believe that
we actually are a Free Associated State, just by this erroneous translation.
• March 4, 1952: Munoz sent a telegram to President Truman "Once more the heartfelt thanks
of Puerto Rican people for your support and leadership in achieving this new form of political
freedom and equality within the American Union. " : He celebrates the relationship of Puerto
Rico within the American Union. (Exhibit L)
• January 16, 1953 : Gov. Muiioz sent a telegram to put pressure on President Truman, before
he leaves the Presidency on January 19, 1953, to inform the United Nations that Puerto Rico
should not be included among the non-self governing areas. Truman does this a few hours
before leaving The White House, on the eve of Eisenhower's swearing in ceremony. (Exhibits
M)
. 1952-54 : Foreign Relations of the United States: Vol III - UNITED NATIONS AFFAIRS
(pg. 1429) - October 9, 1 952 "/ am pleased to report that with the establishment of the
Commonwealth of Puerto Rico on July 25,1952, the people of Puerto Rico have attained a Jull
measure of self-government, consistent with Puerto Rico 's status as a territory of the United
States. " ^Northrop, Acting Secretary of State)
(pg.l431) "The Constitution of the Commonwealth is markedly similar to that of a State. "
(pg.l432) "All public officials must take an oath to support the Constitution of the US. "
(pg.l433) " Puerto Rico has not become an independent nation: neither has it become a
State of the Union. It remains a territory of the United States. "
Note: These things were being monitored from Puerto Rico during the days before the 1952 elections
and continued after the elections when Eisenhower took office. Personal experience tells us that those
times in Washington are usually very confusing since a Democrat administration was leaving office
and a Republican is entering on January 19,1953
• January 17, 1953: Governor Muiioz Marin sent a letter to the President of the United States:
(Was it meant for President Truman, who received it a few hours before he left office, or
for President Elect Dwight Eisenhower, who swore office on January 19th.)
197
Note: The facts on Puerto Rico's relationship with the United States are totally misconstrued in
Gov. Munoz' letter. His purpose was to mislead the President on what Puerto Rico had become, so
as to move forward with his agenda on "commonwealth" at the United Nations . Among other
things he said (Exhibit N)
"On July 25, 1952, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico was formally installed in response to
the wish of an overwhelming majority of the people of Puerto Rico pursuant to a compact
between them and the Government of the United States. Puerto Rico became a
Commonwealth in free and voluntary association with the United States,... "
False: The United States did not create a status pursuant to a compact with Law 600.
"In the 1948 elections the three alternatives were fully presented to the electorate by the three
main political parties ". The preference of the people, expressed in an election which was as
democratic as any in the world, was unmistakably expressed in favor of the third alternative:
a free commonwealth associated with the United States on the basis of mutual consent.
False: - No plebiscite on the status formulas was ever held in Puerto Rico until 1967. The
1948 election was a general election, authorized by Congress, where the people were
given for the first time the opportunity to elect a governor in Puerto Rico.
'■ Their choice is aptly summed up in the Spanish name for the new body politic, "Estado
Libre Asociado". "On July 3, 1950, the 81st. Congress enacted Public Law 600. This was in
effect, an offer by the Congress to the people of Puerto Rico, which we might accept or reject,
to enter into a compact defining the status of Puerto Rico and the relationship between the
respective communities. "
False: The Constitutional Convention specified that Free Associated State would signify
Commonv.ealth, not a compact of free association. No public hearings were held for Law
600, and the House and Senate Reports on Law 600 specifically say that Puerto Rico's
status would not change.
"Our status and the terms of our association with the united States cannot be changed without
our full consent"
False: Law 600 in no way precluded a future determination by the Congress of Puerto
Rico's ultimate status
"The government of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico will be ready at all times to cooperate
with the United States in seeking to advance the purposes and principles of the United
Nations. "
False: The United States citizens in Puerto Rico do not " Cooperate with the United
States" we are part of the United States and as such, have fought in all wars since World
WarL
Note: As you can see, it is no wonder that people in Washington and in Puerto Rico are confused
about the relationship between Puerto Rico and the United States. Governor Muiioz Marin, having
administered the funds and federal programs from Roosevelt's New Deal, was too powerful among
the people of Puerto Rico for anyone to doubt his words and statements.
198
6. EISENHOWER ADMINISTRATION: (1953-^50)
Puerto Rico's Resident Commissioner, at Munoz' urging, introduces the Femes-Murray bill to
culminate Commonwealth. Its pretentious demands were so outrageous that it was defeated in
Congress.
Note: Munoz's clout with a Republicans President was limited since there was a Pro-Statehood
Republican party in Puerto Rico that kept an eye on him.
7. KENNEDY ADMINISTRATION: (1961-63)
Munoz and his party pushed for a "new compact" with greater powers for Puerto Rico, when
this was proposed to the Kennedy Administration, Harold F. Reiss, a member of Robert
Kennedy's staff said: " If that's what you want, ask for independence and we'll favor it "
(Puerto Rico " Whither Commonwealth? J.Garcia Pasalacqua, Orbis, Vol 15 #3, 1971)
According to Pasalacqua, all efforts between 1959 and 1969, to make permanent the creation
of Commonwealth permanent, failed. (Exhibit O)
1961: The political relationship of the Munoz administration with President Kennedy paid off.
He issued a Presidential Memorandum in 1961, based on information given to him by Munoz,
which called Puerto Rico's relationship with the United States "unique" and in the nature of a
"compact."
Note : From that moment on, the information on Puerto Rico became very confusing, both for
members of the United States Congress and for the Executive branch.
•
8. JOHNSON ADMINISTRATION (1964-68)
• September, 1966: Under the leadership of Statehood Republican Party of PR leader , Miguel
A. Garcia Mendez, many bills for the admission of Puerto Rico in the Union, were
introduced in the House of Representatives. Among them....
H.R.17917- Mr. O'Brien H.R.17920- Mr. Craley H.R. 1 8009 - Mr. Rivers
H.R. 1 79 1 8 - Mr. Saylor H.R. 1 7944 - Mr. Morton H.R. 1 8096 - Mr. Mosher
H.R. 179 19 - Mr. Carey H.R. 17971 - Mr. Wright H.R. 18277 - Mr. Halpem
• As a result, Munoz used his influence in Washington to have a Commission on Status created
to look into the status issue. This Commission was composed of members of Congress and
appointed individuals from Puerto Rico.
Note: During the Commission's work, the Congressmen noted in their fmdings, that PR Law 95
would be a safety net for the people since it provided for a plebiscite by petitions from the people,
if the people wanted a change in status, when the Law calling for a plebiscite in 1967 was passed
by the local legislature, they derogated Law 95 so as to take away that right from the United States
citizens in Puerto Rico. All our efforts to have the law reintroduced and passed have failed. A
plebiscite was held in 1967 where even though commonwealth was defmed with all the privileges
199
of a state of the Union, and the statehooders boycotted the process, statehood received a good
number of votes, it won easily although statehood
• 1967 Plebiscite Ballot: To stop these efforts, and thus control the self determination of the US
citizens in Puerto Rico, a plebiscite was called by Gov. Muiioz Marin. He and his party, the
PPD, described the Commonwealth option with US citizenship and Permanent Union with the
United States. It was described in the ballot in 4 full sentences. Statehood and independence
were described with one line. The Republican party boycotted the plebiscite. (Exhibit P)
9. NIXON AND FORD ADMIMSTRATIONS",^g|^^^.: "fSpflf?!':-"'''-- .■ •""^
When the Republicans are in power, not many mischievous events take place to culminate
commonwealth. President Ford submitted a project for statehood as he leit office.
10. REAGAN ADMINISTRATION: 1981-88:, ; 5^
During Reagan's administration, the PPD governed Puerto Rico and Hernandez Colon was the
govemor. His administration was characterized by attempts to have Puerto Rico act de facto as if it
were an independent country. Hemandez Colon even attempted to sign a tax sparing treaty with
Japan. The argument used with the United States agencies to get authorization to do these thing was
the Kennedy Memorandum. Without the vote of the people, they were making Puerto Rico a
sovereign country step by step. It became necessary to revise the Kennedy Memorandum to prevent
this from happening behind the people's backs.
1989 - Just as Muiioz pre-empted Garcia Mendez, hiistory repeated itself Gov. Hemandez
Colon initiated a plebiscite process in the Senate with Sen.Bennett Johnson to pre-empt
President George Bush from taking an initiative for self-determination. That process was also
aborted.
January 1, 1989 : Govemor Hemandez Colon invites the leaders of the three parties to begin
a plebiscite process in the Senate under the leadership of Sen. Bennett Johnson, preventing
President George Bush from initiating the process, thus keeping tight control. This process
was also aborted.
January, 1989 President Bush mentions statehood for Puerto Rico in his State of the Union
message at our request.
1992 : Bush Memorandum: President Bush sent a Memorandum to all the Federal Agencies,
where he specifies that Puerto Rico is a territory of the United States and should be treated as
such in decision made by the Executive branch. (Exhibit Q)
200
• 1993: Plebiscite Ballot: Governor Rossello calls for a plebiscite in Puerto Rico and has
admitted publicly that he made the mistake of asking the three political parties to define their
options. Commonwealth is again defined with all the benefits of statehood and no obligations.
(Exhibit R)
Note : Outrageous publications against statehood were placed as inserts in local newspapers and
shopping brochures. Some of these seem to have been influenced by Section 936 beneficiaries.
(Exhibit S)
1996: HR 3024: The Chairmen of four Congressional committees send an official reply the Puerto
Rico Legislature regarding the results of the 1993 plebiscite. The Commonwealth option is found
unacceptable. As a result, Congressman Don Young, Mr. Newt Gingrich, the Speaker of the
House and their colleagues, have assumed their responsibilities to help their fellow citizens in
Puerto Rico and introduced a bill for the self determination of the people of Puerto Rico.
We believe that the alteration of the historical facts regarding the political relationship of
Puerto Rico >vith the United States has created the turbulent atmosphere from where we stand
now to solve this status question and has created confusion on what is Commonwealth. We
need your help. Our people depend on you, and the authority vested upon you by the United
States Constitution and the Treaty of Paris to help sort this out
Puerto Rico's status has not changed since 1898 regardless of how our island today may be called.
Yet for some forty plus years, commonwealth proponents have insisted that their status was
legitimate, a status that sought all the benefits of statehood without its burdens. They preached no
taxation but full US benefits, sovereignty without responsibility and American citizenship without
integration into the American system.
That is why this bill is so important. The options are honestly and clearly defined, and will lead the
way for the people of Puerto Rico to be well informed so as to be able to choose a path for self
deteraiination. Besides, it also constitutes a classical document in the sense that no matter what
happens with this bill, its contents will serve as a model for all future discussion on status. However,
already some of our higher ranking politicians are trying very hard to steer this process the wrong
way, as they and their predecessors have done in the past. We find no logical reason to explain why
Puerto Rico's highest ranking statehood politician is asking that our present territorial relationship be
included in a process of self determination, when that possibility has been addressed by this bill. That
will remain if we cannot make up our minds on a final stauis. We urge our fiiends in Congress not to
allow this to happen and to please give us a hand so that this effort will not end up becoming another
futile attempt towards self determination, such as those in the past.
For this reason your committee was well advised to find that the commonwealth option on the 1993
plebiscite was not entitled to ftill credence, given that these promises including guaranteed American
citizenship and permanent union with the United States, could only be achieved under statehood.
Your decision to enumerate the status choices which are constitutionally permissible shows your
rectitude. The choices you have made in this bill are the only ones comporting with both the
Constitution and international law, the only ones that can definitively achieve a process of self
201
determination for Puerto Rico, the only ones the people of Puerto Rico can choose from, and the only
ones that Congress can act on.
First, I wish to make some comments concerning independence or free association. You rightfiilly
recognize that any relationship between a sovereign Puerto Rico and a sovereign United States must
be the product of negotiations between the two, which would be formalized in a pact between the
two nations. Similarly, replacing the US Constitution and its laws with a Puerto Rican Constitution,
is a natural consequence if Puerto Ricans vote for either full independence or free association.
Finally, the matter of US citizenship being replaced by Puerto Rican citizenship is very simple
to solve. We refer you to the Jones Act which gave us US citizenship. (Exhibit C). It specifies
clearly that this type of US citizenship cannot be given to any Puerto Rican who already has
another citizenship.
Second, how could the United States allow for an independent Puerto Rico to be inhabited by nearly
4 million residents with American citizenship? How independent would Puerto Rico truly be if the
United States, is obliged to protect Americans wherever situated? Of course, it's hypocritical that
independence proponents would want their Puerto Rican citizens to also be American citizens.
This brings me to something else on the question of US citizenship. Just what are the motives or
intentions of supporters of the status quo and independence, when they fight to have US citizenship
for all Puerto Ricans regardless of the relationship of Puerto Rico with the United States?
Perhaps they want to retain dual American and Puerto Rican citizenship as a means to obtain
American aid and funding of federal programs here in Puerto Rico ?
The drafters of H.R. 3024 ably dealt with this issue.. Your bill makes it abundantly clear that the
price of independence is, among other things, both the loss of American citizenship and the attendant
federal aid and fiinding that such an honor bestows on citizens, who must bear, in return, the price of
government through federal taxation.
In conclusion, let me say that by your courageous act and faith in the process of self-determination,
you have presented us with an opportunity to fmally fiilfill our destiny.
10
202
Prepared Statement of Pilar Bahbosa de Rosario
Puerto Rico's Litmus Test
in Colonialism:
Formerly and Presently
Puerto Rico has been and still is a trial and error test in colonialism. It
was so under Spain and it is so under the United States of America. Until
1898 we looked up to Madrid in order to solve our problems. Today we
look up to Washington.
In order to understand our present we must learn about our past
struggles for political equality. Under the Spanish monarchy this was called
Colonial or Provincial Autonomy. Under America and her Federal Repub-
lican Union it is called Statehood.
As any other people, our history has continuity and we may state that
our main effort -politically, economically and socially- has been the struggle
to attain our sovereignty. It was so under Spain, during the XIX century,
and it is so under the United States of America since 1900. Political equal-
ity as Spanish subjects was our goal until 1898, political equality as Ameri-
can citizens has been our goal since the outcome of the Spanish American
War.
Our XIX century leaders never accepted an inferior relationship to
Spain, they fought to obtain what monarchial Spain could not grant: popu-
lar and representative democracy. (Spain could not grant that which she
herself lacked).
If Colonial or Provincial Autonomy was a valid option under the King-
dom of Spain, only through Statehood may we be fully integrated into the
United States of America at present. The only other option is for Puerto
Rico to become a republic, be it as an independent or associated one, under
203
a protectorate or fully on its own.
Under Spain our struggle was settled in November 1897, with the
Moret Decree granting autonomy (although partially and belatedly as a
desperate effort to avoid the American intervention in Cuba and the Span-
ish American War).
The 1898 Spanish American War was the last expansionist war fought
by the United States of America and it brought the Manifest Destiny to a
close.
Colonial or Provincial Autonomy failed both in Cuba and Puerto Rico,
although under different circumstances. Spain lost the war, Cuba was de-
clared a republic under the American protectorate (Piatt Amendment) and
Puerto Rico was relinquished to the United States of America by the Treaty
of Paris. Congress, ever since, has had the power to determine its native
inhabitants' civil and political rights
Close to a century under American sovereignty we are still under Ar-
ticle 9 of the Paris Treaty. We are a territory that belongs to but is not a part
of the United States of America. We are, in sum, an unincorporated terri-
tory under the American Constitution.
Nevertheless, our struggle for political equality has been easier under
the American sovereignty. Yet, we are still a trial and error test in colonial-
ism.
The 1952 Commonwealth ("in the nature of a compact") is a territo-
rial form of government. It is the most advanced organic law given by
Congress ever to an unincorporated territory but it is still colonial in na-
ture.
Its uniqueness is dependent upon its peculiarity. It has given all that it
is capable of giving. It has outlived its usefulness. It can not be enhanced.
After November 14, 1993, reacting to the status' consultation about
our reality as a people, former local Supreme Court Chief Justice J. Jose
204
Trias Monge, one of Commonwealth's founders said: "Puerto Rico is among
the longest colonial societies in the world. A sad distinction, which has left
indelible traces upon our values and attitudes."
The eleventh hour has come for Congress and for the Federal Govern-
ment to face their responsibility and express inequivocally if Common-
wealth is "a status of full political dignity, based upon Puerto Rico's per-
manent union to the United States Amcnca., joined by a bilateral compact,
which can not be ammended unless done so by mutual consent, granting
irrevocably American citizenship to the Puerto Ricans" or if the 1950 Fed-
eral Relations Law and the 1898 Paris Treaty's 9th Article are still in effect.
The quoted Commonwealth definition was touted -and voted- as the best
of both worlds by the Popular Democratic Party and its followers on No-
vember 14, 1993.
Lately, a proposition to extend the United States of America Constitu-
tion has been floated. It tantamounts to make an Incorporated Territory of
the island. That is better than Commonwealth, but after close to a 100
years under the American flag (in which Puerto Rico has demonstrated
fully her capacity for democratic self-government, it sounds as too little,
too / late. Besides, the republics of Texas and California plus the Nevada
territory were admitted as states into the Union, without having been incor-
porated previously. National interest was the deciding factor in the afore-
mentioned cases.
Fellow Puerto Ricans: let's not wait for Congress to decide for us.
Those of us that believe in statehood should unite ourselves, so that in the
next status consultation (the centennial of our being a colonial test under
Old Glory) we could liquidate our inferior political status before the XX
century comes to an end. Let us join the Union as partners in full equality,
something which we deserve after having shown Annerica our loyalty.
On June 11, 1993, the Atlanta District Court of Appeals, ruled:
205
"Puerto Rico is still a territory constitutionally. Congress is still the source
of power under the United States Constitution's Territorial Clause" (U.S.
vs. Rafael and Luis Sanchez).
The-Atlanta Court based its judgement upon an opinion by Puerto
Rican bom Judge Juan Torruellas (Boston District Court of Appeals).
Torruellas had ruled in U.S. vs. Andino (1987) that: "Congress simply del-
egated additional authority in local matters to Puerto Rico by the Foraker
Law (1900), the Jones Law (1917) and the Federal Relations Law (1950)
but in no way did Congress alter or change Puerto Rico's constitutional
status as a territory, nor Congress relinquished any of its sovereign power
over Puerto Rico. "
Should we add anything else?
My last question is: if Judge Torruellas' definition is our juridical real-
ity what aie we going to commemorate in 1998? That's THE question!
Fellow Puerto Ricans, I address you free from any partisanship, urg-
ing you to think about our less fortunate societ's members; I address you
free from any social constraint and ask you: How come are we not to liqui-
date Colonialism in the light of the global transformation we see looming
as the XXI century approaches our planet?
Crime, drug addiction, health and education, main concerns of our
times will not fade away as if by magic in the next ten or fifteen years. All
we have to do is look around to see that mere political independence is not
the cure it all for everything. It doesn't even guarantee a better life nor does
it guarantee democracy and freedom!
No matter the tribulations Puerto Rico has endured as a trial and error
test in colonialism under Congress' tutelage, we have enjoyed democratic
rights and freedom under the American flag and we have developed our
own institutions patterned after those of the Federal Union.
The New Progressive Party is the only political party that toils toward
206
full political equality under statehood. Its innovative program is totally
geared to full participation by the people, the true power in a real democ-
racy.
Fellow Puerto Ricans, let's solve our status problem in the next four
years. Our goal has been always political equality. It was so under Spain
(until 1898) and it has been so under the United States of America (after
1898).
Fellow Puerto Ricans: "Forward, always forward" as Dr. Barbosa used
to say! Let's not forget Martinez Nadal's words: "So long as Puerto Ricans
remain true to their own personality, traditions and language the Puerto
Rican soul will not fade away." To end let me quote the beloved Baldorioty's
thought:
I hate colonialism because it embodies the death of
spirituality, being the degradation of man by man himself.
English version by:
Rene Torres Delgado
Associate Professor of Fine Arts
University of Puerto Rico at Rio Piedras
FINAL PUBLICATION BY
LA OBRA DE JOSE CELSO BARBOSA
207
Prepared Statement of Wilson M. Loubriei.
INGENIERIA
HISTORICAL BACKGROUND OF THE STATUS SINCE 1938
It was through the mass media that I learned that Con^essman Don Young will be
holding hearings in San Juan, Puerto Rico to solve the Wand Status. I undefstand that R Is
necessary for your Commission to have an overview o( the developmeni of the Puerto Rico status
since 1938. 1 want to share wHh you notes of how Influential has been the role of the different
polMcal parties in the solution of this cnjcial problem for the wil being of Puerto Rico.
I must say that one of the forces behind this proooM hti aKwyi been alnca 1038 the
Popular DemoCTstte Party. The Popular f)emocfaHe Party grew out of an Independent mowement
known as the Independent Sodal Action (Acci6n Social IrtdependitMata) that was formed from a
division of the Liberal Party under the leadership of MuftoK Marin and otfnr Independence advocates
such as Dr. OHberto Concepcl6n de Orada, Dr. Franciaoo SuaonI, Eaqra. BataJEir QuHtdnez Ellas,
JosA L. Fenu Pesquera, VIoerte Oelgel Polanco, Emeato Ramot AnIonM, Samuel R. QuMS6nez,
Mr. Antonio Colorado, and others wefl known IndependanUalas of the Unas. They beleved In the
dlsapperance of tfw cotossus of trte sugar oine Incwalfy.
The Popular DemeoiBtto Party won the 1940 gatwnt atodkint; tNs aooounted to the fid that
Esq. Oarda fiMndec and Mr. Piudende Rivera Marttnoz fl«n the SodaNst RepubNcan CoaWkm
atorig with Eaq. Ramirez Santbaftai orgMiind tht TripNlMi Party, Tbay won the Senate and
needed one vole to a)ntrd the House of RflpraMnlillvN aivd Or. Arriigi Totrana, eleded by the
Tripartisia Party (SooiaHst faction), dU nd keep hit MMt. IfMlNd ht pamd k on to the Popular
DernooFBtto Party thus giving tha Papular DatTMoratlQ Party taW oortlrd o( tha l^lalat^
flrat, few years of the forty years they hiM been In power all by themaafMS-Basldes thoy also had
ooritrd of the Senate Ibr eIgM addUonai yaais.awBn tiwugh the gowtnar belonged to the New
Progress Party.
The Popular DemooraUo Party look power In spKa of the tad thai the Sodaht RepubHcan
Party CoaRtton; statehooders advocates for Puerto Rtoo, had the minority of the vdes and had eleded
Esq. Bolivar Pagin, ResMer« Commissionar in Washlnglon. During this period the governor of
Puerto Rkx) was appointed by the United States Conyreaa.
As soon as they came In power a eatatuM known aa the FNa Hundred Aotm Law was
passed and then they expropMed the land owned by the people on ttw sugar cane ktdustiy thus
bifHcting hann to an bxiiBtiy thai oouM haw been another aaaat to our economy at presenL
By 1944, the PPD had already (fistrlbuled the tend they sMpreplated from the sugar cane mills
adMniiMion to ihe PuMte rueo peaaania, M«h tht hu0» amouii cf monay IM
of the Puerto Rico Treasury DefMrfment dbring IfM Second WorM War, Iha Party won the efedJone
by a hndrtd w«i the atogan The aialus Is nd an laaua*.
. .«"J<y.MiAgMarinprodafcnedffwtne<f>efafatehoodafsnBrlndependentad>(oca(e>
ur. umene ConcapcMn de Ofada, Esq. Batacar QuiA6nac EUaa Em JmA Palbi rumsuiMim
DrJF^j^^-S^^am,^^
Democratkj Party. A ye» liter they ofBanbrt Ih. Puerto Rhan Independenoe Party XL
208
punxne to openty begin the stiuggie for Mependenco. Only MuAoz Marin, Esqrs. Ge«ge< Poianco,
Samue) R. QuiA6nes, Ernesto Ramos Antonini, Or. Fem6s Isem, Mr. J. Font SaidaAa, Mr. Antonio
Cokxado. Esq. Jaime Benttez, among others, continued the struggle for lrxieper)derx:e without
the consent of the people of Puerto Rico.
The foiiowing actions are the most significart dues of the struggle for independerice as per
my interpretetion:
1 .They established a poficy to make Spanish the only medium of instruction in al schools
in Puerto Rico. English became a second langiage.
2 The ResMent Commisk>ner by that time, Dr. Femos Isem, of the Popular Democratk:
Party, joined efforts with Congressman Murray to present the Femos-Murray Bil ^dch had the
purpose to determine the final poliih^al destiny of Puerto Rk», Alaslca and Hawaii.
Reforms of this nature dealkig with the Agenda on ttw sovereignly of Puerto Rkx> like the
MuAoz-Femos Bill provoked Senator Johrtson's expresskm, and I quote "That If Puerto Rk» ever
achieves an kieperxient status, It will have to face its polltkal responsibitty honorably eithers urvJer
Statehood or Indeperviertce. Any other status wouM mean lack of self respect or else wouU be
deceitful to its people".
3. In order to keep the kleal of Independertce alive, the Popular Derrwcratk: Party passed
and approved the Minority Partk:ipatk)n Act. It aimed at earmarking pubUc funds to minority parties.
There was and stM is only one minority party we krKw of wtdch has existed for 40 years In Puerto
Rkx>, the Independence Party.
In 1956, the Congress a9«ed to grant the Puerto Rkan cokxiy the opportunity to self-
govemment under ttw commonwealth status. The leaders of the Popular Party translated this
concept as Free Associated State, in Spanish 'Estado Ufore Asociado*. Ever since this date the
Popular Democratk: Party leaders dainied that there is a bilateral pact betw«an the Commonwealth
Puerto Rkx> and the United States of Amerka. They also guaranteed at this time that this status
wouM pave the way to Puerto Rkx>'s future polltk:al devek>pment, either as a State or as an
Independent courrtry. However, as of this date the Popular Democratk: Party leaders have made
no effort akxig this line although they have been in power for over forty years and they have had
mandates to do so.
On the contrary, they have sustained the farce of the Free Associated State.
Naturally, we are no state, but with the appikatkxi of the terni 'state' In this concept they
have kept statehooders in their rank and fBes. Likewise they have done the same wHh the
Indeperidence advocates wAien they insist on using the term free*. In Spanish free' is equivalent
to lOire*. 'Libre' also means 'no strings attached" arxl this comept is meaningful to the foBowers of
the IndependerKe movement on the Islartd. That is why we find statehooders as well as
Independence Party foHowers casting baHots in favor of the Popular Democratk: Party. We must
put an end to this piay-uporv words. We must also put an end to subUmal messages whk:h carry
the ambivaierKe whk:h makes us neither a State nor a free country. It Is ttiis ambivalence whbh
keeps us standing still wfwn It comes to unraveling our politk:al status. How k>ng v4l Puerto Rkx>
stand this poiltkal maneuvering?
In the 60^s a new IndepetKtent mowemettf developed in the University of Puerto Rk». It was
better known as the Twenty two' (22) Independent University studerte'. Leaders and members of
this organizatkxi were amorxi others Rafoel Hemindez Col6n (former governor of Puerto Rkx>),
Mrs. Vkitoria MuAoz Mendoza (daughter of MuAcz Marin), Esq. Cokxado (Fomwr Reskient
Commisskxier), Esq.Marcos RIgau (stn a member of the Senate), Esq. Juan Garcia Passalacqua
(former apecWakle to Roberto SAnchezVMIa ex- Oowemor of Puerto Rteo), I iermenegikto Ortiz
209
QuJMnea (former Secretary of Transportation & Public Depaitmetil), Sarnuel De la Rosa, Esq.
Luis F. Camacho (fbnner President of the Lawyere Association), Esq. Noel Col6n Martinez (weH-
icnown SociaQst Party Leader), Samuel Sllva Gotay and Fufi Sartori (who recently rejected the
American citizenship), and others.
In 1970, the AguasBuenas Document was enacted bfy Celeste Benitez, Resident
Conunisioner Carv&late mnning at present for ttw Popular Democratic Party, also favoring
E.LA.(the free associated state for Puerto Rico).
In 1972 Rafael Hernandez CoMn was elected Governor of Puerto Rico. He Icept his tnain
washing strategy in ^vor of an independent assodeted republic. From that moment on, he began
to use the term 'nationaT In all aspects of the Puerto Rican endeavor espedafly in sports activities
when he referred to Puerto Rican teams representing the colony in diffeiwit parts of the Wortd
wtiere they participated.
During the governorship of Esq. Carios Romero BarceM, there was an outpouring of
written articles authored by Independent Party advocates and also foliowers of the Popular
Democratic Party some of them refer to ' The New Thesis' by Rafael Hernandez Col6n in 1 980 Is
nothing but a description and attempt to an Associated RepuMc for Puerto Rico.
Popular Democratic Party Senator Marco Rigau's testbnony in favor of the Associated
Republic before the U.SA. Congress on the ' Compact of Association, Defining the Associated
Reput>lic of Puerto Rico's relationship with ttte Untted State ' is a shinning exampte of this
nationalistic feeling.
According to the Puerto Rican Electoral l.awthe validity of the challenged votes is
determined by the Supreme Court if they decide an election. So it happened in 1 980 and the
Popular Democratic Party obtained control of the House of Represeritattves.
When Hernandez Col6n came back to power in 19843s Gowerrwr of Puerto Rico he
continued his indoctrination process toward the Independent movement. He even Interxled to
establish commercial contracts with Japan thus resuUng in a reprimand letter from the Secretary
of State of the United State of America advising him that Puerto Rico was stlO a territory of the
U.S JV. and bOateral pacts could only take place between independent nations and this was not
the case of Puerto Rk».
To further move away from the Amerfean scenario he dM not attended the meetings held by
the NatkxnlAssociatkxi of Governors representing the various states of the U.S A Instead he
estabfished relatkins with Central and South America and Spain governments. A Fair was hekl In
SeviHa, Spain and a Paviiikxi was built to represent Puerto Rk» at a cost of over thirty miBkxis
dollars ($30,000,000) and was later soM for four mifflon dollars (K000,000). The King of Spain
visited Puerto Rteo on an invitatkxi of the governor of Puerto Rkx>, however, the PresMent of the
United States was never equally invited.
He eliminated the use of English as an offfcial language of Puerto Rkx> with the approval
of the Legislature controlled t>y the Popular Democratk: Party leaving only the Spanish as the
oflfeial language of Puerto Rkx>.
In 1988 the Supreme Court of Puerto Rico mled in favor of the actual Mayor of San Juan
Hector Luis Acevedo as a result of the challenged votes on the general elections.
In 1991 Governor Hemdndez Col6n conducted a referendum whfch only hinted at leading
the people of Puerto Rkx> to a Republk: status. It highlighted the fdkwving:
1- The inalienable right to determine our politkal status on a free and democrats basis.
210
2- The right to choose a status wflh fid political dgnity without any cokxiial or territorial
subordination to the fuN powers of Congress.
3- The right to vote for the three status altematives El^., Statehood or Independence
4- The \Mnnlng formula in a status consultation to the people of Puerto Rico would require
ever fitly (50) percent of the votes casted by registered voters.
5- To guarantee under any status formula our right to maintain our culture.our language,
self Identity, including our international representation in sports.
6- The right to our American citizenship under any status formulae.
As you can infer from the aforementioned , none of the rights offered by the Popular
Democratic Party established the option of permanent union with the U.SJV. This by itself was
the basis for their defeat in the refererxium. The Puerto RIcan people have always struggled on
behalf of their American Citizenship and Permanent Union with the U.S A Eviderv:e of this
struggle is dearty depicted in the drafting of many Puerto Rlcar^ wtw have joined arid given their
Hves along with other U.S. mainland sddiefs in the batbefleids of Europe, Corea, Vietnam, Middle
East arxl others.
In 1983 during the plet>isctte process, the Popular OerrMxxatic Party indoctrinated the
American citizens of Puerto Rico with the slogan ' E.LA. is the best of two worlds" The best of
Statehood? Must tt be because wtiat else except Statehood can guarantee the people of Puerto
Rico:
1- American citizenship
2- Permanent union with the USA.
3- Parity of Federal funds withoul fling tax responsability. Even wKh Statehood you
must pay taxes.
4- Extension of the suppiemenlary Social Security benefit.
The best of the IndependefKe:
1- Bilateral pact with the U.S A. to guarantee fiscal autorvxny for Puerto Rioo.
2- Protection to the agricultural products of Puerto Rico.
3- Restablishment of fuD tax exempt benefits to 936 enterprises.
At this moment I have to ask : Are these offeririgs of the Popular Party possible? Under
what relation with the U.S>V. this play with words win lead us to? Is K possible that the people of
Puerto Rico can vote for the President of the U.SA. with the best of two worids?
Faithfull to their tradition after obtaining the best of two worids an special E.LJV.
48 percent of the votes in contrast to the 46 percent obtained by the statehooders the leaders of
the Popular Democratic Party such as Ms. Celeste Benltez, Senator Anibal Acevedo Vll^, Senator
Faz Alzamora, Cor>gressman Severe Colberg, Mayor of Porwe Chummtta Cordero among others
have already forgotten wtiat they have offered to the good people of Puerto Rico during their
campaining activities for the best of two worids arxi switched to their recurrent play-uporv words
strategy, with the same repetitive cliches arvi polKical Jargon like culture.language.setf-Mentity.
They have not taken in conskleration that there are voters among tt»eir rank and file wt» are
statehooders.
211
Once again the status agenda remains stancHng stffl in the hearts and minds of the Puerto
Rican people. Fixxn the psychological point of view, H dbtutba our collective aetf Image and at the
same time it constitutes our never ending problem. Furthemfiore K is part of our daily or everyday
agenda at home , at VKxk, in our leisure time. It enshrowds us in a continuous division as brothers
and sisters of this Enchanted piece of land.
In order to stop all this continuous manipulation of circumstances and people, Ibelieve
that ttwfe is ordy one way to finnaly cope with ttw F>uerto Rico status problem, t suggest that the
plebtecite process which constitutes the purpose of this hearing late into consideration Statehood.
Independence or the Associated Republic as the only options or unique alternatives in the process.
The last option is the so much protected one by leaders of the stature of Mrs. Celeste Benhez
(President of the National Democratic Party), Mr. H6ctor Luis Acevedo (Mayor of the Capital
city), Esq. Rafael Hernandez Col6n (Former governor of Puerto Rico), Mr. Hermenegiido Ortk
(Former Transportation Administration Agency Oliector), Mr. Marcos RIgau (Senatorial Leader),
Mr. Rafael (Churumba) Cordero ( Present Ponce city mayor) and others. Besides in 1990 at the
Popular Democratic Party Convention held at Ponce, Puerto Rico it was approved the Amendment
presented by present Congressman Carlos VizcarrorKlo; in those days President of Pro-E.LA, to
withdraw Puerto Rtco from the colonial and territorial subordination to the U.SA. Congress in other
words the Associated Republic.
Since 1938 the Popular Democratic Party has been woridng at first tcwvards Independence
and from 1952 tin today for the Associated Republic, as had been demostrated in this Historical
Backgrourxl of the Puerto R ico's Status without the conseiTt of the Puerto R lean people. The leaders
of the Popular Democratic Party are saying they won the 1 993 pleblsdte which cannot be tnje. In the
ballot they promised ONLY what they consider the best of both the Statehood and the Independence
this is not only unreal but also unconstitutional.
I strongly believe that the present ELA cannot be included In the decolonization process.
Since there is no way to benefit from the statehood without accepting our responsibilities as full-
fledged citizens, tike our feltow americans in the mainland do when they pay their dues and taxes
everyyear. I can neither understand American citizenstiip under any of these two formula- the
Associated Republic or the Independence.
I respectfully suggest that the fonnula which obtains over fifty percent (50%) of the votes in
the polling places in the 1998 Plebiscite become the winning folmula and that it be accepted as the
will of the Puerto RIcan people.
Finally, I respectfully recommend the United States Congress to mate the petition a reality
for the sate of this already politicaUy exhausted colony. Othenvise the U.S A wU continue to be
immersed and entangled with the colonial status of Puerto Rico the only existing colony in the worid;
where three million U.S A citizens are living, in spile of the fact that the U.SA is the finest
Democracy presently in existence worldwide.
I hope that this IHistorical Background of the Status of F>uerto Rk» wifl help the Commisskm
to prepare a Bill that is constitutional and also just for all options so in the 1908 plebiscite we Puerto
Ricans will vote for the kind of government that to our believe will be better for our betaved island.
Pueitofiteo deserves a better future.
/'
'1. Sincerely,
Wilson M. Loubriel
President
Pro-statehood Engineers Association
212
Prepared Statement of Angel Israel RIVER.^ Ortiz
My name is Angel Israel Rivera Ortiz, university professor having a PhD. in
Political Science, State University of New York at Buffalo, 1976. Although I
currently chair the Department of Political Science of the Faculty of Social Sciences
of the University of Puerto Rico at Rio Piedras, I am submitting this statement on
my own name and, therefore, it should not be taken as representing the views of
other faculty members in the Political Science Department.
First of all, I wish to express my overall support to the initiative of the House of
Representatives Subcommittee on Native Americans and Insular Affairs to begin a
new process for Congressional discussion and for consultation to the people of
Puerto Rico regarding the future political and juridical status of the Puerto Rican
nation. On my view, however. Bill H.R. 3024 needs important amendments in
order to secure a fair play for all political options and groupings concerned.
Similarly, some revisions are needed in order to guarantee a high probability of
success in its aim to propitiate full self government for Puerto Rico through a
process of ^ee self-determination in accordance with US and international law.
On Sovereign Free Association
In the first place, the wording referring to the option oi free association should be
amended and clarified. In its present form, H.R. 3024 conveys the idea that free
association and independence are two forms of separation from the United States.
Although such language is based upon the reality that each of these options entails a
distinct sovereignty and an international status for the Puerto Rican nation, it fails
to incarnate their full socio-political and economic implications within the context
of globalization and free trade agreements. i
In fact, in the coming 21st Century both, free association and independence, will
be framed within the context of ample interdependence between sovereign entities.
Therefore, even what has been labeled «complete independence» will not
exclude close economic and political associations among certain states. These
relationships constitute, in reality, the opposite of separation. Unfortunately,
therefore, H.R. 3024, in its original form, adopts a separatist language more
compatible with international relations prevalent in the 19th Century and the early
20th Century than with the international climate of the 1990's.
Such language does not seem to be neither realistic nor appropriate in view of
present international conditions or of those that might probably develop
throughout the first decades of the 21sf Century. Even nowadays, for example,
although Mexico is legally defined as an independent country it is not, by all means,
separated from the United States. Rather, the Mexican State is now moving
continuously in the direction of close economic interdependence and association
with the United States, a process which brings about important political
implications regarding the actual content of so-called separate sovereignty.
Hi
213
In order to confer to the bill a more contemporary and realistic language, it
should refer, in my view, to «a distinct sovereignty for Puerto Rico» under both,
independence and free association, instead of using the phrase «separate
sovereignty». This may also be expressed by declaring that under any of these two
options Puerto Rico would be a «distinct autonomous political unit with
international recognition as a sovereign State». It may be further clarified that the
relations of the new Puerto Rican State with the United States shall be conceived
«as those of an entity which is not within the internal political system of the
U.S.A.» Federal statehood, on the other hand, will be differentiated from the other
two by conveying the idea that it shall be the only option within the US internal
political system.
There is another critical reason for excluding from the bill a separatist language.
As any one having in-depth knowledge about the political culture of most Puerto
Ricans will confirm, the labeling of free association as a form of «separation from
the United States» is bound to produce the political miscarriage of that formula.
Free association, defined as a form of separation, will not be adequately
differentiated in the minds of most Puerto Ricans from the status of
«independence». This will be particularly so if free association is presented as
devoid of any mechanism to permit Puerto Ricans who desire to continue being
citizens of the United States to do so after free association is implemented, either
through exceptional procedures or by means of a dual or reciprocal citizenship
clause to be included in the Bilateral Compact of Sovereign Free Association
Between Puerto Rico and the United States of America.
I have participated, together with Professor Ana Irma Seijo, from the Political
Science Department, in a national Puerto Rican survey on the political culture of
Puerto Ricans conducted during the late 1980's. I have also been codirector of the
Puerto Rican component of the World Values Study together with Jorge Benitez
Nazario, another faculty member. The latter study was conducted late in 1995 under
the coordination of Ronald Inglehart, Program Director the Center for Political
Studies of the University of Michigan at Ann Arbor. From my knowledge about the
analyses prepared so far on the basis of survey data related to political status
questions on both studies, I would expect that free association, if defined as a form of
separation or of «independence», will most probably be derailed ab initio,
impeding its serious and objective consideration as a realistic alternative for the
Puerto Rican people.
On the other hand, however, if free association is defined as a sort of improved
Commonwealth, un Estado Libre Asociado culminado, it might be a significant
formula in any status related referendum. «Estado Libre Asociado», the official
name in Spanish for the current non-sovereign Commonwealth status, is, in fact, a
more appropriate denomination for Sovereign Free Association than for a non-
incorporated and non-sovereign Commonwealth of the United States under the
jurisdiction of the territorial clause of the US Constitution. Hence, to retain the
name Estado Libre Asociado under sovereign free association is not only reasonable
214
but also will secure fair play for the formula, distinguishing it from independence.
Of course, the wording utilized in the final law approved by Congress should
distinguish free association — the real Estado Libre Asociado — from the current
non-incorporated territory to avoid other confusions.
As you know, the pro-statehood New Progressive Party succeeded in defeating a
referendum on Puerto Rico's Democratic Rights supported by the Popular
Democratic Party in 1991 with the slogan: Dile no a la separacion («say no to
separation» from the United States). Therefore, to retain the separatist language in
H.R. 3024 may probably result in accusations that the bill was worded in that fashion
with the malicious intention of structurally castigating Free Association through
metropolitan steering of its political failure in any referendum. The proposed law
would then lose legitimacy in the view of many Puerto Ricans who would claim
that it impairs fair play and is biased in favor of the statehood option. Whether
those supposed intentions have been actually present or not will not be as
important as the fact that the bill might be denounced as illegitimate in the United
Nations and the Organization of American States (OAS), an occurrence which does
not seem to be, of course, in the U.S. national interest. My concrete proposal is to
offer in the bill three distinct paths: one leading to full independence, one leading to
sovereign free association with a specific wording that distinguishes it clearly both
from current Commonwealth status and independence, and one leading to
statehood.
In order to prevent political groupings in Puerto Rico to misrepresent the
content of any formula during the pre-referenda election campaigns, it should be
made clear that rights earned as US citizens by individual Puerto Ricans, notably
veterans' benefits and Social Security benefits, to which we are entitled because xue
have contributed to the US Social Security System through compulsory salary
deductions, shall be preserved and protected under any one of the three formulas.
On Independence:
Regarding the independence formula, I think that H.R. 3024 might be
significantly improved if its definition is placed within the context of regional free
trade and economic integration processes. If international processes ripen during the
21st Century as they now promise to evolve, independence for Puerto Rico shall
definitely mean a separate or distinct sovereignty with reference to the US internal
political system but not separation regarding the external economic and political
system that may develop in America if the United States leads an effort to create an
hemispheric free trade zone or American Common Market, something that shall
behoove US interests vis-a-vis the new economic competition with Asia and
Europe. Particularly, 1 think Puerto Rico could play an interesting role as an actor
propitiating the integration of the whole Caribbean Basin zone to a Western
Hemisphere Free Trade association (WHFTA) led by the US. Although this could
happen under any of the three political status scenarios, it would be easier under
independence or free association because, then, as a distinct sovereign, Puerto Rico
215
could be a member of NAFTA on its own right and could also belong to other
regional integration international organizations such as the Organization of
Caribbean States. As a distinct sovereign entity, Puerto Rico would be accepted by
Caribbean and Latin American countries as an actor in itself, not as a US official
representative. This will not be possible under federal statehood for obvious
reasons, as federated states do not have an international status allowing them
separate membership in international organizations and in free trade agreements.
Hence, my suggestion is that descriptions about the status of independence in the
Bill H.R. 3024, besides other clarifications, should make explicitly open the notion
that the United States might contribute to the process of admission of the new
republic to the NAFTA agreement. Of course, the same elucidation may be included
with reference to the free association option.
Both under independence and free association bilateral US-Puerto Rico free trade
should be maintained even if Puerto Rico is excluded from a customs union with
the United States. But a customs union might be desirable and practicable, however,
under both free association and independence. This could be left to be worked out
between both sovereign entities (the US and Puerto Rico) rather than specifically
describing Puerto Rico, both under independence and free association, as being
outside the US customs territory, as is presently done in H.R. 3024 Section 4.a.l.G.
On the Path Towards Statehood:
Some people in Puerto Rico — perhaps many — think that H.R. 3024, in its
original version, is a sort of dream bill for statehooders. As it is now, the only
political status in which Puerto Ricans may retain US citizenship is statehood. In
stipulating this, the bill completely ignores that, as an international status, free
association is flexible enough as to permit dual and reciprocal citizenship accords
between any two associated sovereigns. Furthermore, the bill in its present form
defines both independence and free association as forms of separation, thus
contributing to ignite inveterate fears and psychological conditionings which could
negatively affect the probabilities for massive voting in Puerto Rico favoring any of
the two alternatives, as already mentioned above. Moreover the "path within the
sovereignty of the United States leading to statehood" is too flexible, ambiguous and
imprecise enough as to grant credence to the suspicion that the bill is quite biased in
favor of statehood. If this scenario is maintained, Puerto Rican society is bound to
polarize itself with the consequent instability, something which is undesirable for
all parts involved, particularly if viewed within the context of the insecure political
situations prevailing in Cuba, Haiti and the Domican Republic.
Ambiguity concerning statehood is particularly evident regarding Section 4.a.2.G
which states that «Puerto Rico shall adhere to the same language requisite as the
other states». This phrase may be read as having the following different meanings
in Puerto Rico:
216
1. Puerto Rico shall adhere to the same language requisite that Congress in the past
has demanded from other states, i.e. that English should be the principal
language for conducting government proceedings in the state and recording
public documents and trials in state courts, as well as the main vehicle for public
education, public broadcasting and the like.
2. Puerto Rico shall adhere to the same language requisite that Congress is inclined
to demand nowadays from a new state: none. Because there is no official
language at the federal level, the state of Puerto Rico, or any other new state,
may adopt whatever official language the majority of the people wish to adopt as
the main means of communication in government, the state courts, public
schools, universities and public broadcasting on radio and TV stations.
3. Puerto Rico as a state could have the right to determine its own official language,
but if the US English movement subsequently succeeds in having the federal
government adopt English as the only official language for all public activities
throughout the United States, then Puerto Rico shall adhere to the same
language requisite as the other states; i.e. English only.
Given the ambiguity of this section in H.R. 3024 everyone should expect that, if
not amended, during the referenda campaigns the New Progressive Party (pro-
statehood) will claim that Puerto Rico shall have full powers to determine that both
English and Spanish will be official languages and that Spanish may be adopted as
the main vehicle for education. The Popular Democratic Party and the Pro
Independence Party will for sure claim that this is not true and that Puerto Rico
shall have to adhere to English. Confusion is bound to reign supreme.
My recommendation is, therefore, that H.R. 3024 be amended so that section
4.a.2.G. includes a clear definition on this issue. Among the many possible
wordings, I propose the following two. Which of them better reflects the intentions
of H.R. 3024?
G. The U.S. Congress recognizes the Puerto Rican People as a distinct Hispanic
nationality and a distinct society with a cultural background which differs from the
dominant culture in the other fifty states. Hence, as a sovereign federated state in
the American Union, Puerto Rico shall have the right to adopt Spanish as the main
vehicle for state government proceedings and I'or public education at all levels. Of
course, English will be required as a second official language in the state and as the
legal means of communication between the state government and the federal
government. The federal district court will continue to use English as the main
language for all trials and proceedings. State courts may either use English or
Spanish but English should be used in civil cases in which one of the parts is not
conversant in the Spanish language. Of course, citizens shall enjoy the same
freedom they enjoy in the other fifty states to conduct private communications,
public broadcasting and family life in the language of their preference.
217
or
G. The U.S. Congress recognizes the Puerto Rican People as a distinct Hispanic
nationality and a distinct society with a cultural background that differs from the
dominant culture in the other fifty states. However, because the English language is
the main vehicle for official communications of the federal government and of the
other fifty state governments, the Puerto Rican state shall adhere to the use of
English as the main official language for all state governmental proceedings,
including the state legislature, state courts, and public schools and universities. This
shall not impair the freedom of the Puerto Rican People to use the Spanish
language or any other language besides English in conducting private activities, in
oral communications in the work-site in both public and private jobs not related to
classroom teaching, or as the principal language in mass media broadcasting and in
family life. State laws shall also protect this same right to all residents of Puerto Rico
who do not speak Spanish as their main language.
As you may easily deduct from the above alternative propositions, I am
convinced that, to be workable in practice, and to avoid the sort of problems facing
Canada in its relations with Quebec, any statehood scenario for Puerto Rico should
assume that U.S. federal structures must be flexible enough as to admit into the
American Union a state whose population constitutes a distinct — though not so far
sovereign — nation, and a distinct society different from American society. The
quebecois secessionist movement has been stimulated precisely because the national
government in Canada has denied Quebec official governmental recognition as a
distinct, different society within the Canadian federation. Any serious consideration
of statehood for Puerto Rico would have to be viewed within the context of a U.S.
Federal System which is not opposed in principle nor practice to multiculturalism
or plurinationalism. Within that framework, however, the US Congress should
formulate very clearly what are the specific language or culture-sharing
requirements that the Union wishes to request of Puerto Ricans if they really want
their Island to be incorporated to the United States as the fifty-first state of the
Union. Solving the Puerto Rico status problem is, therefore, an exercise in free-self-
determination not only for Puerto Rico but also for the United States, for the
American People. The latter must have the right to decide whether or not they want
to open-up — at least theoretically — their Federal Union to American nations of
Hispanic language and culture by establishing an important precedent in that sense
in the case of Puerto Rico. On the other hand, whether statehood within the U.S.
federal system presupposes or not that a different nation must abandon its own
essential traits in order to assimilate to the U.S. mainstream cultural milieu prior to
admission into the Union, should be made known with optimal clarity and fairness
to the Puerto Rican people if the U.S. wishes to prevent future predicaments such as
an after-statehood massive secession movement.
We have collected in the University of Puerto Rico some survey data which
clearly demonstrate how most Puerto Ricans do cherish their Puerto Rican distinct
national identity.
218
In a question asking for group identity in the Puerto Rican national survey of the
World Values Study (N= 1,164 respondents) the alternatives that were most
frequently mentioned were: "Puerto Rican, and that's all, first, second and third,"
and "Latin American and Puerto Rican."
Another alternative labeled as "North American of the Puerto Rican Ethnic
Group" was only chosen by a very small minority, even among pro-statehood
Puerto Ricans. Among the latter, 51.2% identified themselves as "Puerto Ricans and
that's all, " and 20.4% identified themselves al "Latin American-Puerto Ricans."
Only an additional 6% of them chose to identify themselves as "North American of
the Puerto Rican ethnic group" and 4.4% chose the "Caribbean and Puerto Rican"
reference-group. The rest distributed themselves among different categories with
racial or ethnic preponderance ( "white and Puerto Rican," "black and Puerto Rican,"
"mulatto and Puerto Rican"). Among respondents saying they support
Commonwealth status, 60.5% identified themselves as "Puerto Ricans and that's
all," and 18.2% recognized themselves as "Latin American-Puerto Ricans." Only
3.8% were self-identified as Caribbean-Puerto Rican and 3.8% as "North Americans
of the Puerto Rican Ethnic Group." Among pro-independence respondents 56%
identified themselves as "Puerto Ricans and that's all," 16% as "Latin American-
Puerto Ricans," 6.6% as "Caribbean-Puerto Ricans, " and 0.0% as North Americans of
the Puerto Rican ethnic group."
When asked whether they value more their national identity (being Puerto
Rican) or their citizenship (being a U.S. citizen) responses were distributed among
pro-statehood, pro-commonwealth, and pro-independence respondents as shown in
Table 1. The Table excludes those not identifying themselves with any one of the
traditional status formulas so that N=959.
Table 1 (see final page) shows that although U.S. citizenship is very important for
Puerto Ricans, Puerto Rican national identity is even more intensely valued by
many. After almost 100 years of U.S. sovereignty, and many billions in U.S. federal
transfers, 76% of pro-independence Puerto Ricans, almost 60% of pro-
commonwealth people and even 43% of pro-statehood respondents definitely
expressed that they consider more important in their lives being Puerto Ricans than
being U.S. citizens. Only 26% of those who commit their votes to statehood within
U.S. sovereignty do regard their U.S. citizenship as more important than their
Puerto Rican nationality!
What these data suggest, in my view, is that Congress, in considering a path
leading to statehood should take into account the wishes of most Puerto Ricans
concerning the maintenance of a different nationality as well as our commitment to
adhere to our own nationhood and to the Spanish language as our preferred means
for communication among Puerto Ricans. A failure to recognize lh\sreality by
Congress could only mean self-deception as well as deceiving the American People
regarding the Puerto Rican issue. And if the aforementioned reality is, in fact,
deemed by Congress as incompatible with federated statehood within the US
8
219
Federal Union, Congress should state so very clearly. Not to do so before the
celebration of a referendum under the auspices of the US Congress in pursuance of
H.R. 3024 would be tantamount to deceiving the Puerto Rican people and the
"Puerto Rican Statehood Movement". If errors are committed in this area of US-
Puerto Rico relations, instead of attaining a solution to the Puerto Rican status
problem a new nationality problem will ensue for both the US and Puerto Rico
even if «full self-government» is formally conceded to the Island through a
status change from Commonwealth to Statehood. Such a new problem might be
further compounded in the future through Puerto Rican leadership linkages with a
possible movement led by Hispanics within the continental territory of the United
States seeking for "Latino Power" within the US political system.
Inclusion or Exclusion of the Non-incorporated Territory (Current Commonwealth
Status) in the Referendum Proposed by H.R. 3024
My first preference is that the extant Commonwealth status should not be
included in the ballot as an alternative because it is not a political status leading to
full self-government nor decolonization. In its present form, H.R. 3024, in Section
5.C.2. clearly states that if referenda turn out to be inconclusive, then the current
Commonwealth status shall be maintained as an non-incorporated territory under
the territorial clause of the US Constitution (Article FV, Section 3, Clause 2). The
Congress, then, could exercise its powers to decide the disposition of the territory
and the condition of its inhabitants.
Just in case the subcommittee or the Resources Committee finally resolve the
inclusion of Commonwealth status in the ballot as defined by H.R. 3024, I would
like to add another specification to its definition. Not only should it be clearly
defined as a non-incorporated territory under the territorial clause, but it should
also be clearly stated in the ballot that, if it occurrs that the majority or a plurality of
the votes cast are in favor of the current status, this will imply that the US Congress
could decide the disposition of the territory and the condition of its inhabitants.
I think we Puerto Ricans have a right to express our preference and to decide
our future. But if there is no majority, or a plurality or majority of the people opt for
the present situation in which Puerto Rico does not enjoy full self-government,
after several referenda are celebrated, then Congress should exercise its powers to
determine the disposition of the territory according to the Treaty of Paris of 1899 and
Article IV, Section 3, Clause 2 of the US Constitution. Perhaps one way to do it
without excluding some form of Puerto Rican participation would be for Congress
to trasfer sovereignty to a democratically elected Constitutional Convention
empowered to conduct negotiations with the US Congress. The Convention could
then proceed to work out a mutually acceptable solution which, after approval by
both the Convention and the US Congress, could be submitted for ratification by the
Puerto Rican people in a referendum.
220
On the Distribution of Funds for the Referendum
In Section 7.b.2, H.R. 3024 refers only to political parties as instruments for
campaigning or providing for the education of the voters regarding the ahernatives
to be presented in the ballot in the political status referendum. I would like to
suggest an amendment to the wording of this section so that there is a possibility for
distributing a fraction of the funds to bona fide movements organized precisely with
the purpose of educating the people with reference to the status alternatives to be
presented to the voters or as defenders of any particular formula. The emergence of
new groups is foreseeable in view of the elimination of the existing Commonwealth
as an alternative and the inclusion of Free Association, as well as ensuing from a
possible decision by any one of the three existing parties not to participate.
Therefore, H.R. 3024 should include a provision defining bona fide movements
given the fact that the existing process for formal inscription of new political parties
is costly and time consuming. Congress could require a minimum of signatures by
members of any political movement in order to grant official recognition and each
of the alternatives could be permitted a top limit of not more than three distinct
political parties or political entities (movements) to officially support and
propagandize the formula with access to public funds. These provisions would add
flexibility to H.R. 3024 and could be extremely importance to promote ample
democratic participation as well as to avoid a monopoly of the process by the three
traditional Puerto Rican political parties.
On procedure:
Just a final word on procedures. Although, as mentioned above, any process for
defining a full self-government status for Puerto Rito implies mutual self-
determination and everyone directly involved in discussions or negotiations — or
public hearings — , both from the American and Puerto Rican sides, should have the
right of expressing his or her sincere feelings, appropriate care should be taken in
order to avoid projecting the image or appearance that US Congressmen are
inclined to harangue the Puerto Rican people in favor of any one formula or
solution. Failing to do so, could only complicate the process unnecessarily and
provoke claims on the basis of international law, particularly in the case of
statehood. If a majority vote is obtained for incorporation to the metropolis which is
suspect of not being a wholesome, free exercise of self-determination by Puerto
Ricans because US politicians have been propagandizing statehood on the grounds
that federal funds cuts are going to have a very negative impact on the lives of the
inhabitants of Puerto Rico and, hence, the only way to avert an economic
catastrophe is for Puerto Ricans to choose statehood, the whole process might be
considered illegitimate according to international law standards.
10
221
Therefore, exercising prudence and self-restraint is the best antidote against such
an unfortunate outcome. Right now, the fact that the sub-committee has produced
H.R. 3024 at a time so close to the 1996 general elections is affecting the credibility of
the seriousness of this initiative. Hence, posposition of this process to the next non-
election year is highly recommended.
11
24-926 - 96 - 8
222
W
u
z
z
z
<
u
1-1
UJ
u
N
0
UJ
UJ
<
3 O H
&M Z <
D
LU
o
B£
UJ C
O 0-
U UJ
u
u
<
z
o
UJ < t
-J 1^ <
< ifl PS
o
H
(A
Z a
(A
CD ®
m (A <Q
60 C o
2^«
OWE
CO M
o
%
n vq o
c4 ^ Tj!
r— ^ (T)
IT)
II
z
vX5
r^ IX) fls
rH <S S
CO
ON
o q t^
B S §
in
o
t: 2J
< - 5
EQ K n
Ift
ON
00
ri
S
00 "Ik F>
a\ \o IT)
0)
c
0)
1/1
3
C/5
m
u
c
o
B
B
o
U
01
c
o c
^^ c
«
60
<S
C
01
u
0)
(X
o
(A
0>
'C
c
-a
c
o
(/)
<
223
MOVIMIENTO DE RENOVACION NACIONAL
M O R E N A
Apartado Postal 7772
Ponce, P.R. 00732
February 9, 1996
The Hon. Don Young
House of Representatives
Washington, D.C. 20515
■Sir:
Having been notified of your pronouncements with
regard to the Puerto Rican status problem it is our wish
to inform you the facts about the Independence Movement
situation in Puerto Rico and our position with regard to
the subject.
First of all: No matter what electoral results may
inform you or anybody, there are no less than half a
million Puerto Ricans who not only want, desire, and have
a right to Freedom and Independence but who will also
oppose any and all efforts, by whoever and to the last
consequences, to continue denying us those inalienable
rights .
Second: Regardless of any and all convenient political
posturing, the United States has no right whatsoever to
continue occupying the land History and Life have given
our people to grow, live, develop, and enjoy life in.
Dispassionately stated, the United States, due to its own
history, should be the least imperially minded nation in
the world.
Therefore: The United States should, in all conscience
and decency and as soon as possible, divest itself of this
colony and withdraw from our national life.
To this effect, during the next few months, we shall
be presenting each and every member of the Senate and the
224
House of Representatives of the United States, each and
every State Governor, and the People of the United States
through the main national newspapers with a plan for the
transfer of all political powers to Puerto Rico and the
eventual recognition of our right to Liberty and Freedom.
This proposed plan will include the following:
1- A proposal for a Joint Resolution of Congress
establishing the Independence of Puerto Rico as Public
Policy of the United States and the establishment of a
process by which the People of Puerto Rico will advene to
their independence within five (5) years;
2- The process will entail the election of a Puerto
Rican National Assembly that will, through its specialized
committees and in close cooperation with the Congress
appointed standing committees, handle the transfer of all
political powers to Puerto Rico in an orderly, just, and
sensible manner within the time frame set for such
process ;
3- At some previously established time during that
process, all Puerto Ricans will be given the choice to
either remain U.S. citizens or to opt for the Puerto Rican
citizenship. This is the only fair process for neither
should the right to U.S. citizenship of those who want to
keep it, nor the rights of us Puerto Ricans to Liberty and
Freedom be subjected to plebiscites and/or majority
decisions .
We think it fair for you to be duly advised of our
position and resolve for, sometime soon, you may soon be
called upon to discharge your duty as a freedom loving
american. For the Movement of Puerto RijEr$?i National
Renewal I remain.
w.c. to Hostosian National Congress
225
Prepared Statement of Noel Colon Martinez
Distinguished members of the Committee on Native American and
Insular Affairs
My name is Noel Col6n Martinez and I am here representing the
Congreso Nacional Hostosiano, a coalition of organizations and
individuals favoring the independence of Puerto Rico. Attached to
this written statement you will find a list of the organizations
and individual members of said Congreso.
You have before you a translation of a text originally
submitted in Spanish, Puerto Rico*s sole national language. It is
not possible to assert that you want to advance a process of
political self-determination, while at the same time you are using
English in these proceedings, a language which over 60% of the
population does not understand.
We now wish to point our several observations regarding
project H.R. 3024, titled "A Bill to Provide a Process Leading to
full self-governement for Puerto Rico", submitted on March 6, 1996.
We acknowledge that said Bill, co-sponsored by the Houses President
Newt Gingrich and a substantial number of Congressmen, represents
an initiative which could contribute to the process geared to free
Puerto Rico of its colonial relationship with the United States.
The Congreso Nacional Hostosiano takes favorable note of the
fact that this Bill finally recognizes that Puerto Rico is at
present an unincorporated territory of the United States. Said
admission will be a piece of evidence in the international
deliberations and consultations regarding Puerto Ricos status. In
the language of international law it constitutes and unequivocal
admission by those signing athis Bill that Puerto Rico is still a
226
colonial territory.
Even though neither the United States nor England supported
resolution 43 47 (1988) of the United Nations, declaring that the
1990 *s would be the International Decade for the Eradication foe
Colonialism in the World, this does not imply that the United
States Congress can refuse to comply with such a clear-cut mandate.
Futhermore, this historic vote is a reflection of the solid
consensus of the international communitty regarding this matter.
The United States Goverment should not start the coming
centuiry without solving the Colonial status of Puerto Rico. Its
moral leadership will continue being questioned. Its own
international callings to respect other peoples self determination
will go on being mocked if the United States Government can not put
into practice what it preaches outside. In the near Latin American
and Caribbean context, the presence of a colonial enclave is still
a thorn hurting the democratic sensibilities of the peoples and
leaders of the region.
Acceptance by those signing the project that the Puerto Rican
archipelago is still subject to congressional powers under the
Territorial Clause (Art III, Sec. 3, Clause 2) has significant
international consequences. This statement is inconsistent with
the representation given by the United States delegation to the
United Nations in 1953. Therefore, Congress should instruct the
United States delegation at the United Nations to permit the
corresponding bodies of the forum designated to resolve
international disputes, to again assume jurisdiction over the case
and to participate in the elaboration of a decolonizing process
227
which complies with the requisites established by said forum.
Under the terms of the Treaty of Paris and the jurisprudence
established in the so-called Insular Cases, The United States
Congress is the one called to implement the decolonization process.
Bill H.R. 3024 does not comply with that international
responsability. Once Congress accepts, as the signatories of this
Bill have, that this is a matter of colonial status, what
immediately follows is to transfer political powers to the country
subjected to the indignation of colonialism.
In such cases where a majority of those concerned favor
independence, said transfer implies immediate recognition of the
new republic. Although the Congreso Nacional Hostosiano favor
independence, we believe that it will be the product of
deliberation and a democratic process. We acknowledge, just as was
declared by the Decolonization Committee of the United Nations in
1978, that free sovereign association is also a decolonization
option for Puerto Rico. Both are viable options based on the
recognition of a different sovereignty which would allow Puerto
Rico full participation in the international community.
We believe Congress should facilitate a process in which
Puerto Rico will choose from among the options the international
community has found to be useful for getting out of the move of
colonialism.
On the other hand. The Congreso Nacional Hostosiano does not
acknowledge the political integration of Puerto Rico to the United
States as an option for decolonization. To us, statehood would be
the culmination of a long colonial period. We believe, however,
228
that those Puerto Ricans favoring statehood should be given full
participation in the process of transfering powers. If at the end
of the process the statehood option wins and Puerto Rico is
admitted as a state, as independence advocates we reserve our right
to opt for secession and to continue fighting for independence by
all means deemed necessary.
Bill H.R. 3024 does not provide a procedural solution to the
present impasse. With the threat of the loss of U.S. citizenship,
this Bill strives to force Puerto Ricans to vote for statehood, an
option rejected by 53% of the electorate in 1993) to then make the
United States deny what it does not want to offer: statehood
proper. By the absurd logic of this bill, the decolonization
process must go through that disagree able and dangerous stage.
That is a mistaken approach.
Besides, Bill H.R. 3024 seeks to condition the exercise of the
right to self-determination to the future actions of a Congress
which has historically given very little time and interest to the
solution of a problem of which it is ignorant and about which it
has stated imperialist positions on more than one occasion.
The right approach was proposed by Representative Ronald
Dellums some years ago. His project was titled "Bill to Confer
Sovereign Powers to the Commonwealth and to Provide for The Self-
Determination of Puerto Rico". We include a copy of said document
along with this statement for your consideration and we formally
request that it be part of the official records for the
deliberations of this Committee.
According to the terras of Section 1 of said project, it is
229
declared that it will be the policy of the United States Congress
to respect the sovereign rights of the Puerto Rican nation.
Congress also acknowledges that Puerto Rico is a Caribbean and
Latin American nation with full rights to its political sel-
determinat ion .
In Section 2 of said project it is established that Congress
shall proceed to transfer the political powers which the three
powers of the United States Government hold over Puerto Rico at
present. Said powers, as described in Title II of the project,
would be bestowed to a Constituent Assembly. The Constituent
Assembly is empowered to deliberate and approve the political body
which will later negotiate with the United Sates Government all the
aspects of the chosen procedure required by the bilateral agreement
of both nations.
Title III of the project instructs that a Negotiating
Commission of the United States and Puerto Rico be created. The
negotiators for Puerto Rico would be designated by the Constituent
Assembly, while the United States counterpart would be chosen by
the President of the United States, in counsel with the
congressional leaders.
The Congress of the United States cannot carry out processes
of free political determination in a territory under its absolute
power and control as the present bill points out. Since 1977 the
Puerto Rican Bar Association concluded that "the inconditional
presence of United States military bases in Puerto Rico, the
massive federal aid through programs of social wealfare, and the
lack of powers of the people over its natural resources, such as it
230
stands today, decidedly affect the process of free
determination. . . "
If we are truly talking about and act of free determination
and acknowledgement of Puerto Rico^s sovereignty, then it follows
that the liberation of the Puerto Rican political prisoners is in
order, and that it be clearly established that only the persons
born in Puerto Rico, and the off spring of parents born in Puerto
Rico currently living in Puerto Rico shall have the right to vote.
Finally, and adequate international supervision must be guaranteed
throughout the process of self-determination.
If the avove is not adequately attended to, the Puerto Rican
community the international community, and the democratic
conscience of the United States people will conclude that this is
a fake process which merits no respect.
The members of The Congreso Nacional Hostosiano have a firm
and unwaivable compromise to achieve Puerto Rico*s independence,
and we are absolutely sure of our final victory, with the support
of the United States Congress, or without it.
We Puerto Ricans would like that the imperialist prepotency
and arrogance which accompany in the acts of this sub-committee
will not bring further division and anxiety to our country.
«
i
231
■^■^>^ i ' .iit
Government of Puerto Rico
House of Representatives
Honofoble
Zaido Hernandez Torres
Speaker
March 1-1996
Hon. Elton Gallegly
Chairman
Subcommittee on Native American
and Insular Affairs
U.S. House of Representatives
Hon. Congressman:
I have had the opportunity to peruse your Committee response to Concurrent
Resolution 62. I wish to express my deep appreciation of the effort made to respond
to the Legislature and people of Puerto Rico, and of the obvious dedication and hard
work that was put into analyzing the alternatives to solving Puerto Rico's status
problem.
With Concurrent Resolution 62 the Puerto Rico Legislative Assembly was
seeking precisely to address to Congress our people's just claim, to be told whether
our aspiratiotis for self governement will be granted, and how will it happen.
Your Committee have acted responsibly and performed a sterling service to the
people of Puerto Rico and to American Democracy, under the Right to Redress for
Citizens' Grievances.
We are pleased that the analysis of the claims for "enhancements to
Commonwealth " has yielded the obvious result that the proposal presented before the
voters was misleading and Utopian. It was highly unfair to the people of Puerto Rico
to promise them an ideal status full of privileges and prerrogatives, without the
corresponding responsibilities, and without any sense of what the possible
consequences might be.
The process proposed in this bill is highly fair open and honest. It provides
realistic alternatives and an implementation procedure that ensures the self-
determination of the Puerto Rican people. We will be able to choose between the
Capitol, San Juan, Puerto Rico 00901 tel; 725-3449 • 721-6040 exis. 247 • 297
232
Permanent Union to the United States and a separate full Puerto Rican sovereignty.
It provides for consultation of the people as the transition process goes along. The
alternatives offered will be permanent, valid under the United States Constitution and
International Law, and will invest our people with true sovereignty, unlike the current
so-called Home Rule under Commonwealth.
As speaker of the House, I welcome this response on behalf of the Legislative
Assembly. We stand ready to work hand in hand with your Committee in all activities
necessary to carry out the proposals in this bill and initiate the definitive solution to
Puerto Rico's colonial problem.
Sincrely,
I
Hon. icaida Hernanqlez Torres
Speaker
Puerto Rico House of Representatives
233
AA<.
v. .<. ,-.■'
Cyan luem, K.yu«t/e> K^A!ttMf
■jTo/ime^ ^aaejvioj^ o/^ cyuej^Oy ,yuco
March 12, 1996
The Honorable Don Young
Chairman
Committee on Resources
U, S. House of Representatives
Washington, D. C. 20515
Dear Congressman Young:
Thank you for your letter of February 14, 1996 enclosing
the recent published book, "Hispanic Americans in Congress", which
certainly shows that Puerto Rico has been close to Congress for
many years, demanding, first, Puerto Rico's right to U. S.
citizenship and, next, its incorporation as a state of the Union.
This was the original position of Commissioner Federico
Degetau, representing the Republican Party of Puerto Rico in 1900.
Later on. Commissioner Tulio Larrinaga raised the issue of
the non-compliance of Congress with its promises and insisted in
requesting U. S. citizenship for Puerto Rico. Commissioner Mufioz
Rivera, also, insisted in maintaining that Congress had not kept
the promises for Puerto Rico and, finally, voted for U. S.
citizenship, which was granted in 1917. Puerto Ricans understood
that this was an implicit promise for statehood. Later, Santiago
Iglesias introduced a statehood bill. Finally, Bolivar Pagan,
Jorge Luis Cordova Diaz, and Baltasar Corrada del Rio were all
statehood advocates.
We are very happy and, indeed, deeply grateful to you for
drafting Bill, H.R. 3024, which you have introduced in Congress,
as Chairman of the Native American Insular Affairs Subcommittee,
which finally opens the road to Puerto Rico to make a decision
on its ultimate political status, including statehood as an
alternative, which was the implicit understanding under which the
people of Puerto Rico welcomed the American forces of General Miles
in 1898.
0^€ 3^a3> 366^08 ^cuv Jouzrv 0{oejcA> ^uui^ 00936-ff^OS 3^e// Sf9 j793-JfPMr
234
The Honorable Don Young
Page 2
March 12, 1996
Thank you very much. Congressman Young, for your brilliant
leadership in trying to settle the status problem of Puerto Rico
in the dignified manner that becomes the United States Congress
and the people of the United states.
Sincerely,
LuAs A. Ferre
I
1
4
235
'UKfi^^ mb
March 13, 1996
The Honorable Elton Gallegly, M.C.
Chairman, Subcommittee on Nat've American and Insular Affairs
U.S. House of Representatives
1522 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515
Dear Mr. Chairman:
Thank you for your letter of March 8, and please accept my congratulations for your co-
sponsorship of H.R. 3024, the UniXed States-Puerto Rico Political Status Act. This bill, I
believe, constitutes a clear and commendable response to my October 17, 1995 testimony in
Washington, DC. before a joint hearing of your Subcommittee and the House
Subcommittee on the Western Hemisphere.
You may recall my exhortation on that occasion; I spoke the following v\/ords, in reference
to Puerto Rico's political status plebiscite of November 14, 1993:
/ urge that you reaffirm the long-standing commitment of the Congress of the United States
to Puerto Rican self-determination; reaffirm that commitment by formally advocating that
self-determination be exercised without delay, in a permanently definitive manner.
Just five months later, that call has been emphatically answered.
I salute you for the leadership and for the statesmanship that you have exhibited by co-
sponsoring legislation that upholds the highest principles of authentic self-determination:
H.R. 3024 offers the people of Puerto Rico a responsible, dignified, eminently-viable
mechanism for emerging at last from the bottomless quagmire of indefinition with which we
have grappled throughout the entire 98 years of United States sovereignty over our territory.
In accepting your invitation to present testimony when your Subcommittee on Native American
and Insular Affairs conducts its March 23 hearing on the United States-Puerto Rico Political
Status Act, I extend kindest regards and shall look fonvard to greeting you personally next
week in San Juan.
Sincerely,
■idcoSy^Jd
Pedro Rossello
236
WlS^^ui^bt
p. 0. Box. ;447
Ponce, PueAXo iUco 00 733 -J 44 7
UoAch 4. 1996
Hon. Hep. Elton GaZzgly
U. S. Hoii6z oi RepAuejUivtivz
fiki&IUnaton, VC 20515
Hon . Kep. :
(lie oAz pfLoud to p/LUuit ouA. MnceAz uttih thaX. thz pzoptz' a
cho-icz be cUvtded into thuz thxeje. poLLU.c£di concZiiux)ni ioA. the.
tnue. expneAiiion oi oux democnaof:
Statehood
KitJiOCAJVted Republic
Complete Independence
Thank you.
SinceAely yoau.
yp^^C^^/,O^.H^ /TTZ^^^^^'^ C}^^^^
inJ<^^
I
•
237
238
REPUBUCA ASOCIADA
PUERTO RICO "PRIMER A REPUBLIC A
ASOCIADA DE LOS ESTADOS UNIDOS"
CUARTA OPCION AL STATUS EN ISSUE
UNICO CREADOR : MANUEL E. ROMAN VALENTIN - REPUBUCANO
APARTADO 417 MAYAGUEZ, PUERTO RICO -00681 TEL. (809) -834-2764
January 23. 1996
The honorable Don Young
United states House of
Representatives ^
Washington, D. C. *
Sir:
RE: Hearings for February 1 996
Puerto Rico's Political Status
in Puerto Rico
I respectfully request an opportunity to express the concepts of the ASSOCIATED
REPUBLIC, the only democratic independence, to be included in this Congressional Hearings.
Resolution 23 of Puerto Rico's Conventional Constitution of 1952 , the people of Puerto
Rico retains the right to propose and to accept modifications in mutual consent between the people
of Puerto Rico and the United States of America in our relationship with the United states.
Public Law 600 of 1950 recognizes our right toward the maxim of self government.
As the Chairman of this Congressional Hearings and Congress consider the
appropriate course of action to a future plebiscite on Puerto Rico's political status, it is
essential that the dignity and self respect of the people of Puerto Rico be a matter of the
highest consideration to our future relationship with the United states.
ALENTIN
CANDIDATO A GOBERNAE)OR 1996 y PRESIDENTE DE PUERTO RiCO
NONflNACION DIRECTA
239
REPUBLICA ASOCIADA
PUERTO RICO " PRIMERA REPUBUCA
ASOCIADA DE LOS ESTADOS UNIDOS "
CUARTA OPCION AL STATUS
UNICO CREADOR: MANUEL E. ROMAN VALENTIN - REPUBUCANO
APARTADO 417-MAYAGOEZ. PJL 00681- 417 - TEL. (787) 834-2764
10 de maizo de 19%
Honorable Repfesenlante Don Young
Presideole de la Comision de Recursos
de la Camara de Represwitantes
de los Estados Uiiuk)s
Vistas en San Juan, Puerto Rico.
Estimado Representanle Dchi young:
FcHiencia en espanol sobre d status politico
de Puerto Rico d 23 de maizo de 1996
1)
INTRODUCX30N
Muy buenos dias senor Presidente de la Comision de Recuisos de la Camara de Representantes
de los Estados Unidos de Amerira y senores amgresistas de esta Comision.
Bienvenidos a Puerto Rico, ' LA ISLA DEL ENCANTO ' para cdetnar vistas sobre d status
politico de Puerto Rico en mtestras reladones politicas con los Estados Unidos de Amenca.
TRATADO DE PARIS DEL DL\ 10 DE DIOEMBRE DE 1898
Los Estados Unidos de Amenca le pagaron a Espana VEINTE MILLONES DE DOLARES FOR
PUERTO RICO Y POR OTRAS BLAS POSEIDAS POR ESPANA (Leyes
Fundamenlales de Puerto Rico, Nueva Edidrai Revisada. Pagina 1 18)
Kfi nombre es MANUEL E. ROMAN VALENTIN. Aguadeno, Repubbcano. veterano de Korea
y Vietnai. Pensionado oon veinlocho (28) anos de sercacio militar y Guardia Nadonal Aerea de
Puerto Rico Y UNICO CREADOR DE LA REPUBUCA ASOCIADA. UNICA INDEPENDENCL\
DEMOCRATICA.
El 6 de octubre de 1996 notifique a la ComisiOT Estatal de Elecdones mi CANDIDATURA
para GOBERNADOR, NOMENAQON DIRECTA, Y PRESIDENTE DE PUERTO RICO. ' PRIMERA
REPUBUCA ASOCL\DA DE LOS ESTADOS UNIDOS. CUARTA OPQON AL STATUS, de ser
la Hbre detenmnadon dd pueblo de Puerto Rico en las decdones de noviembre de 1996.
240
Hofxxable Represeulante Don Young Pagina 2 10 de maizo de 1996.
2) El Estado IJlnB Asodado de Puerto Rico tiene forma de gobienio REPUBLICANA DE
REPUBLICA: Poder Ejecutivo, Legisladvo y JudidaL Tiene soberania intema, derecbos de
coosdtucidn. de I^islacion, de gobiecno.y de jurisdiccirai.. jj
3) DEFINiaON DE " COMMONWEALTH ", REPUBUCA
■ THE COMMONWEALTH OF PUERTO RICO ', REPUBUCA DE PUERTO RICO pero en
asodacion permanenle con los Estados Unidos. Obligaciones y debeies, como puertoniquenos y
chidadaDOS americanos, en nuestras lelaciraies politicas con los Estados Unidos.
4) El concepto de la REPUBLICA ASOCIADA es sometido a ustedes para sa coosideraciaa j set
inchrida en d (Hoximo plebisdto. La soberania actual (REAL) de Puerto Rico estara en los Estados
Unidos como dudadadanos americanos hasta que d pueblo de Puerto Rico la remmde.
5 DEFINiaON BASICA DE LA REPUBUCA ASOCL\DA EN " ISSUE ' EN EL 96
PUERTO RICO " PRIMERA REPUBUCA ASOCIADA DE LOS ESTADOS UNIDOS
UNICA INDEPENDENCL\ DEMOCRATICA, HASTA QUE PUERTO RICO SEA ESTADO 51
O HASTA QUE SE RENUNCIE LA CIUDADANL\ AMERICANA HACIA UNA INDEPENDENCL\
ABSOLUTA. CUARTA OPQON AL STATUS EN LAS ELECOONES DE NOVHMBRE DEL %.
H GOBERNADOR SE CONVERTDUA EN PRESIDENTE DE PUERTO RICO. ELECOONES
PRESIDENCL\LES CADA CUATRO (4) ANOS). EL VOTO PRESIDENCL\L Y VICEPRESIDENTE DE
LOS ESTADOS UNIDOS DE SER APROBADO POR EI. CONGRESO.
NUESTRAS DOS NAQONES . PRESIDENTES. CONSTTTUaONES . IDIOMAS.
OUDADANIA COMUN. MONEDA, MERCADO. SEGURIDAD Y DEFENSA COMUN. BASES
MIUTARES. EL ESTADO LIBRE ASOdADO A SU MAXIMO DESARROLLO POLITICO Y
ECONOMICO. DE SER LA LIBRE DETERMINAQON DEL PUEBLO DE PUERTO RICO.
6) OTRAS DEFTNiaONES
El derecho politico del pud)lo de Puerto Rico a letener o a remmdar la cuidadania de los Estados
Unidos de America. D derecho politico de los dudanos de los Estados Unidos con residenda en
Puerto Rico por un ano a reteocr o a icnundar la CUIDADANIA PUERTORRIQUENA. Ley Jones de
1917). Articuk) 5, Nucvo articulo incertado por Ley dd Congreso de 4 de marzo de 1927)
{
241
Honorable RefHesenlante Don Young Pagina3 lOdeoctubiede 1996
7) RESOLUaON^O^^ERO 23 DE LA CO^^VENaONCONSTITUYENTEDE PUERTO RICO
de 1952:
El pu^lo de Puerto Rico r^ene el d«echo de proponer y ac^tar modificacioneis en los
tenninos de sus leladones cxm los Estados Unidos de America, de modo que estas en (odo tiempo sean la
expiesion de acuerdo Ubiemente concertado enlie el pueblo de Pu»to Rico y los Estados Unidos de
America.
8) La Ley PubHca 600, aprobada el 3 de julio de 1950 aut(»iz6 al pueblo de Puerto Rico a
oiganizar una forma republicana de gobiono de acuerdo con una consdtudon de su propia selecdon.
con la natuialeza de un * convenio *. Tambiai leconocio el doecho que el pudblo de Puerto Rico
tiene al gobieno propio. Fue aprobada por el pueblo de Puerto Rico en el referendum de 4 de junio de
1951. La Ley 600 fue firmada por el Piesidente de los Estados Unidos Hairy S. Truman.
9) Eh 1952 PUERTO RICO, El ESTADO LIBRE ASOCLMK) DE PUERTO RICO, se
convirli6 en una REPUBLICA ASOCIADA DE LOS ESTADOS UNIDOS bajo las definidones de
REPUBLICA y de "comoKxiwealtfa". como pueitoniquenos y ciudadanos de los Estados Unidos .
10) DEFlNiaONES DE REPUBUCA (ENCYCLOPEDIA AMERICANA ( pagina 391, vohimen 23)
a) Forma de gobiemo en que el poder de soberania reside en d pueblo sea un cuerpo inl^ro de
cuidadanos activos o con mayoria de ellos. Cuaquier gobiemo organizado de esta forma es considerado
una repubtica. El pueblo puede toier soberania formal y no soboania actual (REAL
b) La forma de gobiano republicana puede existir con un minimo de libertad actual e igualdad.
(Puerto Rico tiene forma de gobiemo republicana: Podo* Ejeculivo, Legislativo y Judicial).
c) REPUBLICA. Tambien se refiere a cualquier estado que fue commonwealtfa.( Encyclopedia
Americana, a,b y c) pagina 391, vohimen 23. inchiyendo la definicion de COMMONWEALTH))
d) Pais o r^ion en ei cual el pods' qecutivo del estado y los miembios de la legislatiira soa
elegidos por d pueblo. Acualmente la mayoria de la naciones del mundo. inchiyendo a los Estados
Unidos y Rusia, son rqniblicas ( NUEVA ENQCLOPEDIA STANDARD, pagina R. 173)
11) La investidura de la dudadania americana no ahao el 'treaty status* de Puerto Rico ni
tampoco tuvo como consecuencia su incorporacion a la Union. Su ^ecto recayo sobre las
personas no sobre d tenitorio DecisiMi dd Tribunal Supremo, Caso Balzac VS. people of Puerto
258. U.S. 298 (1922).
242
H(MKKable Represoitante Don Young pagina 4 10 demarzode 1996
12) PROJECTO DE LEY DE INDEPENDENCIA PARA PUERTO RICO DE 1 936
REFERENDUM: INDEPENDENCIA SI O NO en noviembre de 1937.
El 24 de febrero de 1936 el Senador Tydings presento en el Senado de los Estados Unidos este
piojecto ofieciendole a Puerto Rico la independencia en attemtiva con el status quo coloniaL
a) De triunfar U indqjoidencia se crearia un "COMMONWEALTH OF PUERTO RICO "
b) A los seis (6) meses de inaugurado cl " commonweabfa los chidadanos de los Estados
Unidos residentes en Puerto Rico y todos los naturales de Puerto Rico naddos en Puerto Rico, tendrian
que escogCT entie ser cuidadanos de Estados Unidos o de Puerto Rico.
c) despues de cuatro (4 ) anos de establecido el * commonweahb de 1937 se reconoceria a
Puoto Rico como una tepublica indqxaidiente: PRIMER REFERENDUM ABORTADO.
13) ACTA DE LA ESTADIDAD PARA PUERTO RICO DE 1977 Y OTROS PROPOSITOS
Se som^io el 14 de enero de 1977 por d Presidente de los Estados Unidos, Gerald ILFonL
Fue aprobada por El Senado y la Camara de Repiesentantes o&eciendole al pueblo de Puerto Rico la
estadidad , bajo la Constitucidn de los Estados Unidos, si el pueblo la deseaba y de ser la libie obcion
del pueblo de Puerto Rico. ( se incluye)
14) Desde 1952 al presoite todas las elecciones genaales ban sido plebiscitarias. Los Piesidentes
de los paitidos politicos de la estadidad, estado libre asociado e independencia (socialista o comunista)
ban sido los unicos candidatos para gobemador de Puerto Rico. Solicitan donativos para sus formulas
de status. Dichas fonnulas no ban estado en " ISSUE * desde 1952 al piesente.
15) El puebto de Puerto Rico ha expresado su libre d^enninacion hacia las ties foimula de status,
en las elecciones desde 1952 al piesente. Cualquier independencia lenundandosc la
ciudadania de los Estados Unidos seria rechazada por la gian mayoria del pueblo de Puerto Rico.
16) PLEBISOTO DE 1993.
a) Fue un cngano al pueblo de Pueblo de Puerto Rico y al Congreso de los Estados Unidos y
discriminacion politica. No sc incluyo la unica independencia democratica. REPUBUCA ASOCIADA,
PUERTO RICO " PRIMERA REPUBUCA ASOOADA DE LOS ESTADOS UNIIXXS ". CUARTA
OPCION AL STATUS.
243
Hongnble Represenlante Den Young Pa^oa 5 10 de tnaizo d 1996
b) No fue tm mandaln al Coogreso de los los Estados Unidos. No obtuvo mayoria del
dncuenthmo pcvcienlo ( 51 %), o mas.
c) Fue una violadon a la RESOLUaON NUMERO 23 DE LA CWNVENQON CONSTITU-
YENTEDE PUERTO RICO. NO SE INCXUYO LA CUARTAOPaON AL STATUS
16) PUERTO RICO ES UNA NAQON CON SUCIUDADANL\PUERTORRIQUENA.
NAQON: Conjunto fwinado ptv individuos a los que la unidad de temtoiio de cxigen e histcxia.
de cultura, de costumbres o de idioma inclina a la comiinmidad de vida y ciea la conciencia de un
destino comun. ( THrnrmann Encickq>edico VOX
17) CUIDADANL\ PUERTORRIQUENA RECONOODA POR LA LEY JONES DE 1917
Todos los ciudadanos de los Estados Unidos que ban residido o que en lo sucesivo lesidieren, en
la isla por un ano, seran ciudadanos de Puerto Rico.( Aiticulo 5, nuevo articulo inrjrtadn par Ley
del Ccngreso de 4 de marzo de 1927)
18) CIUDADANL\ DE LOS ESTADOS UNIDOS, LEY JONES DE 1917
Toda peocxia nadda en Puerto Rico en o despues del 11 deabrflde 1899, sujelaalajuiisdicdon
de los Estados Unidos. que en la fecha en que esta Ley entie en vigcx lesida en Puerto Rico u otro
tetdtorio bsgo la sobentnia de los Estados Unidos y que no sea cuidadana de los Estados Unidos, bajo
nialqiiW otra ley, se declara por la presente cuidadana de los Estados Unidos ( Ley de Nacionalidad
de 1940-Publica N° 853- Congreso 76-^Hobada d 14 de octubre de 1940. para comenzar a legir
noventa dias despues-Artiiculo 202))
Miirhisimas gradas por habenne concedido este tumo para deponer sobre el status pofitico
en nuestras idaciones pofiticas con los Estados Unidos. ^ .
DEPONENTE, MANUEL ROMAN
CREADOR DE LA REPUBUCA ASOCIADA
244
REPUBLIC
391
Hmfaen of tropical genera or of tropical
lamlici. Some migrant genera that once ei)-
je^ an almost cosmo|>olitan diitribution. failed
• lorvive in northern climes where only their
bail remains acquaint us with the extent of
ha former range.
Poot, C. H.,
tmti tnJ CtHoda (New York
llklUrnohr— Po
Greece. — ^Tlie title of the first work in system-
atic poBtical philosophy, Plato's Pulitcia (writ-
ten in me first half of the 4th century B.C.) is
translaied as Refiiblic. In this work, Plato de-
velops his conceiiiion of a good society : a ripdiy
or^auiied cify siaic, rviai liy a miliury and tn-
tellcctiuil aristocracy, culminating in a philosopher-
kiiig. The people, those who have lo work for
the necessities of life, liave no |>oliiical rights.
Nothing could lie farther removed from the mod-
ern idea of a rcpuhlic — and itill, tlie title is justi-
fied, for the whole rigid hierarchy is devised to
insure the Stability aiul the welfare of tlie whole
rather than of any S|>ccific group or person. Cich
mcuilicr of the stale is siipix)»cd to jierform only
that fuiiclion which is licsl suited to his cluir;4Clcr
aiul ability. P<iliti«il ine<|ualiiy to Plato corres-
REPUBLIC, a f^rrp nf fovfrnmenl in wliicli.i ponds to the naiiinil inc<|ualiiy of human faculties
BUTtign power rests with the people, "ciiiicr vi'ilTT /' and needs. The hitler justifies the former and
it tniire body ot active atiiens or wlin i riLlJui
. N.y., IS
Turllri tf Iht Unitrd
I9J9): Smith, H. M..
Unitrd SlUfl n>d Ctmoda
Ittet. N.y., l9-)6)- Schmidi. K. P., ind I>avi«t, D.
It, fifU Book ai Snstri of the Umiird Slain »nd
(mtdt (.Vcw York 1941): Bocert. C il., "Am^>hiliiani
ai Intiki of Ihe World." vol. 2. The Atiimtl kimgdom
{in York I9S4): l.ord. R. L. E., BrilUh RefKlet and
impUktiu (London 1954): Rok, W., RrMilri lod
isM^Miu */ Soullirrn Afriea (lumdon 1Vi4): l'0|«,
t\L,KttiiU Wvrld (Untlun |056).
AkTHUK I.nVEKIICE.
m of it On the basis of popular sovereignty,
:it lovemment is exercised by directly or nidi-
ftnly e!ect«l magistrates or representatives. Any
■prtrnment which is orpaniied in this form is
gttidtred a republic even iliough the people may
B only lormjil And noCatTTITn yjvi;n!i|jiiiy
Ihe degree oi popular sovcrcitTliy .lllilT^
(Btidpation of the people in llie govcrnnienial
'Pncess varies considerably from one republic
femother and even within the same republic at
it different periods of its developnieiit. The
a^lican form of government may exist with a
■nnim of actual freedom and equality; suf-
ffijt ind franchise may be confined to s rel.-iri%-e!y
nail leaion of the population, and the repub-
.ku institutions (assemblies, parliaments, cotin-
'ah, elections, etc.) may in reality l« dnminnted
!k powerful factions, social classes, even indivi-
Lk. A republic, therefore, may or may not be
'idotweracy.
\ Chancing Meanings of Republic. — Tn the
isfiiial tradition of the West, prior to the
'Wrican and French revolutions, the term re-
jiiic could referjo any stale which "w'as a cnni-
•prwealth. That is to say, wTTlCIl W.ns MOI rtitrtTTTy
I tynfi[ or""despot but was governed in the com
Da interest rather than in the interest of one
jnon or clique. In this sense of commonwealth,
^nnarchy or an aristocracy could l>e c.illcd u
k^lic if the government created and prumoied
^4i common interest and welfare, and ihe term
{Mid be applied to states in which political rights
iSDt jTtatly restricted. Thus Jean Ootlin, one
W tbe most influential political tlieorists of the . .... , . -. ... ..
'Ski century, discussed under the title "republic" \ creaied the idea
jkoiorMrchy, the aristocratic, and the popular, republic as a speci
m. Barot) de La Brede el de Xfontesoiiieu, in '
hL'Ejpr^i des Lois (Spirit of Ihe Lau-i, I7J8),
Ifaed a republican government as a state in
'either tl>e collective body of the people,
pnicular families should be possessed of the
power." It is only at the time of the
and French revolutions that republic
the connotation of a free state with con-
Alionally defined and guaranteed civil rights
UlVrties of the indix'idual, and only during tlie
|l and early 20tli century were the manifold
■riaioni of the suffrage IcKally aliolished in
ttinnced countries of the \Vejiem uorld.
uk° change in the meaning of ilie term re-
If^rtflecit the development of freedom in I
dvilizaiion. The fo/louing historical'
m»y illa^irate this process hj- discussing
stages and types of republicanism.
the few who know how to rule liest must rule tlie
many in the interest of all. Plato's Refmblic is
therefore a critique of tlie egalitarian Athenian
democracy of the Periclean fieriod where the com-
mon people ruled, according to Plato, such a
st.ite could not projierly be called a republic, for
iJie welfare of all could not tlius be preserved.
The classical Greek city states of the Sih and
4lli centuries B.C may lie called republics iniofar
as the government was normally and directly
elected by "the people." but within this jfeneral
framework surli wi<le differences prevailed as
that between the egalitarian democracy of Peri-
clean Athens and the aristocratic-military oli-
garcliy of Si>arta. Everywhere, "the people " con-
stituted only a part of the adult population — a
minority even in democratic Athens — slaves,
resident aliens, and -women were not considered
citizens with political rights. The fact that the
Greek city stales developed on the basis of an
uiifree pO||iilation sliarpeiied the conflict among
Ihe various factions of the small citizen body,
es|ieci:dly lictwcen the aristocratic and democratic
groups, and added inlrrnal to national disunity.
Violent competition for the hegemony of Greece
and for power within the cily State led to constant
warfare, until the Greek city-states succumlied
to the Maccdoni:in conquerors (338 B.C). The
weak remnants of local independence granted by
the M;iceiloni:in kings were finally lost when the
Romans defeated the last alliance of Greek states
in 146 B.C
Rome. — At the very time of the Roman con-
quest of Greece, ihe Roman republic itself entered
the |>liase of its final crisis. It was Rome which
as well as the reality of the
fie form of the state. 'The word
IS derived from Ihe Latin res publico, meaning
something which pertains (belongs) to the people.
uliicli is the common concern (cause) of the
people. The term thus contrasts with res privaia
or familiaris. that which is a private or family
matter and concern. The fact that the Roman
Siaie in its history-making form emerged after
the overthrow of the early kingship (about 510
B.C) determined the definition of "republic" as
opposed 10 monarchy and despotism: the rule of
the kings was regarded as governmeni in the
interest oi a f|irixaie) [icrs/'m or famil}- railier
thin in the common inlcrest of the |«:«|/lc I!ul
the repul.lif. w/iicli orii-inaterl in the ovtrihr'.w
of the monarch>' and which l«came the (iride and
greatness oi Uttmt did not ha\e any dt-mf<raiic
connoiaiion. The kingship was overilirown l>y the
aristocracy, and during its almost four hundred
245
rrprooi
dtictd, rtprodueatf. To produce again
or anew; to renew the production of;
to generate, tj offspring; to portray
or represent; to bring to the memory
or imaginaiion. — reproducer, re—
pro-du'ier, n. One who or that which
reproduces.— reproduction, rf-pro—
duk'shon, n. The act or proetsi of
repnxiutang; the process whereby
new individuals are generated and
the perpetuation of the spedea en-
sured; inat which is produced or pre-
sented anew. — reproducilre, tl—
pro-duJt'tiv, a. Periainuig to repro-
duction; tending to reproduce,
reproof, rj^rtJf, n. (O.F. rtprutvt,
reproof.) The expression of blame
or censure addressed to a person;
blame expressed to one's face ; censure
for a fault; reprehension; rebuke;
reprimand.
reprove, ri-prdir', v.t. — rtpravid, rt-
provmg. [Fr. riprauvtr, to blame, to
censure; O.Fr. rtpravtr, from L.
reprobart. KCPROBATZ.] To chide;
to reprehend; to express disapproval
of (to rtprovt sins); to serve to ad-
monish.— rcprovablc, ri-prtJ'va-bl,
a. Worthy of being reproved ; deaerr-
ing reproof or censure. — reprovml,
h-pril'val, n. Aa of reproving; ad-
monition; reptoof. ■ reprover, ri—
prd'ver, n. One that reproves, —
reprovingly, ri-pr<5'ving'li, adv. In
a reproving maruer.
reptile, rep'tn, a. (Fr. nttilt, from
L. rtptilu, creeping, mm rtpo,
rtptum, to creep; akui to iirpo, to
creep. SDtPtKT.J Creeping; moving
on the belly, or with smail, short
legs; groveling; low; mean; vile. — n.
In a general sense, an animal that
moves on iti belly, or by means of
small, short legs; a crawling creature;
specifically, zool. an animal belonging
to the dais Repulia; a groveling,
abject, or mean person. — rcptUlao,
rep-til'i-an, a. Belonging to the class
of^ reptiles. — n. An animal of the
class Repulia; a reptile.
\f/ republic ri-pub'lilc, n. (Fr. r(lpu-
tliqut, L. rupublica — ru, an anair,
interest, and publica, fem. of pubHcui.
...^^public RlAl, PimucJ A commog-^/
— i|«~ wealth j" a political cbmmunitfin
wnjch the supreme power in ine
state is vested either in certain
privileged members of the com-
munity or in the whole community,
and thus varying from the most
exclusive oligarchy to a pure democ-
racv. — Federal reouklici. of which
the United States and ;>witzerlancl
are examples, consist of a number
of separate states bound together
by treaty, so as to present the aspect
of a single state with a central gov-
ernment, without wholly renouncing
their individual powen of internal
self-Bovemment. — republican, ri—
pubU-kan, a. Pertaining to or having
the charaaer of a republic; eon-
sonant to the principles of a republic.
— «. One who favora or prefers a
republican form of government;
[cap.] a member of the Republican
party in U. S. politic}.— Rid Rt-
publican. R£0. — rcpubllcuilsm, ri»
pub'li-kan-izm, n. Republican system
of government ; [cap.] principles and
policies of the Republican party
(U.S.); republican principles,
republication, re-publi-ki'shon, n.
The act of republishing; a new
publication of something before
published.
republish, ri-pub'lish, v.t. To pub-
lish anew; to publish again, as in a
new edition.
repudiate, ri-pu'di-af, ti.r. — rtpudi-
attd, rrpudiatmf. [L. repudiOt repU'
diatum, to divorce, to cast off, from
rtpudium, a casting off, a divorce.)
To cast away; to reject; to discard;
to disavow; to divorce; to refuse
to acknowledge or to pay, as debt.—
repudlailoo, ri-pii'di-a'shon, n. (L,
rtfudiatio.] The act of repudiating;
rejection ; disavowal ; divorce ; refusal
on the pan of a government to pay
debts contracted by a former gov-
ernment.— rcpudlaior, ri'pu'dfa*-
ttr, n. One who repudiates.
repugnance, repuynmncv, ri*pug'-
nans, ri-pug'nan-si, n. [Fr. ripu-
pianct; L, rtpufnantia, from npugno,
to resist— re, against, and pugno, to
fight. PUCNAaot/s.) The state of
being opposed in mind; feeling of
dislike lor some action; reluctance;
unwillingness; oppositicm in nanue
or qualities; contrariety. — repug>
nant, ri-pug'nant, a. [L, rteufnaru,
rtpufnaniii, ppr. of rtpufno.] Stand-
ing or being in opposition; contrary;
at variance: usually followed by lo
(a sutement repiitnant to common
seme); highly distasteful; offensive
(a course repugnant te him). — repug-
nantly, ri-pug'nant-li, adv.
repulse, ri-puls', n. (L, ripulsa, from
reptlh, repulium — r«, back, and ptllo,
to drive. MTU..] The condition of
being repelled or driven back by
force; the act of driving back; a
check or defeat; refusal; denial. ^^.i.
— repuiitd, repuliing. To repel; to
drive back; to refuse; to reject.—'
repuUcr, ri-puls'ir, n. One that
repulses. — repulsion, ri-pul'shon, n.
(L. ripulsio.] The act of repelling;
phyiia, a term often applied to the
action which two bodies exert upon
one another when they tend to
increase their mutual distance. —
repulsive, ri-pul'siv, a. Acting so
as to repel; exercising repulsion;
tending to deter or forbid approach
or familiarity; repellent; forbidding.
— repulilvcly, ri-pul'siv-li, adv. In a
repulsive manner. — repuldvcncta,
ri-pul'siv»nes, n.
repurchase, re-p<r'chei, v.t. To buy
back; to regain by purchase. — n. The
act of burring again; a new purchase.
repute, ri-put', v.t. — reputed, reput-
ing. (Fr. riputer, from I_ repuio, to
count over — re, and puto, to reckon,
10 estimate (as in compute, impute,
etc.). ptTTATlvi.) To hold in thought;
to reckon, account, or coiuider aa
such or such; to deem.^^. Reputa-
tion; character, attributed by public
report, especially good charaaer;
honorable name. — reputed, ri-pu'-
ted, p. and a. Generally considered;
commonly believed, regarded, or
accounted. — reputedly, ri-pu'ted-li,
adv. In common opinion or estima-
tion^—reputablej^rep^u^ta^blj^a.
Being in good repute; held in
esteem; not mean or disgraceful,—
reputably, rep'u*ta*bli, adv. In
a reputable manner. — reputation,
rep-u-ta'jhon,n. (L. rrpuraiio.) Char-
acter by report; opinion of character
generally entertained; character at-
tributed; repute; ia a good or bad
sense; often favorable or honorable
regard ; good name.
request, ri-kwest', n. (O.Fr. rejueiti
(Fr. requite), from L. requinta, •
tiling required, a want, from requiro,
requuttum re, again, and quaere,
quatnium, to seek. qt;EST.] The
expression of desire to some person
for something to be granted or dor.e;
an asking; a petition, prayer, ec-
treaty; the thing asked for or re-
quested; a sute of being esteemed
and sought after, or asked for (an
article in much request). .'. Requeit
expresses less eameatnesi than <r-
treaty and wpplication ; and supposes
a right in the person requested to
deny or refuse to grant, in this
differing from demand.— v.t. To
make a fequest for; to solicit or
express desire for; to express a
request to; to ask.
Requiem, ri1twi>em, n. [Ace case
of L, requies, rest, respite, relaxation
— re, again, and quia, rest, repose.)
[usually cap.] A funeral dirge or
service, containing the words '/?<•
quiem aeternam', etc., sung for the
rest of a person's soul; a grand
musical composition performed in
honor of some deceased person.
require, ri-kwir', v.t. — required, re-
quiring. (O.Fr. requerre, reqtderre,
requirre (Fr. requerir), from L. re-
juiro, requ'rere, to ask for. RZQUZrr.J
To detnand; to ask as of right and
by authority; to insist on having;
to ask as a favor; to call upon to act;
to request; to have need or necessity
for; to need or want (the matter
require} great care, we require fcxxi);
to find it necessary; to have to: with
infinitives (you will require to go). —
requirement, ri-kwir'ment, n. The
act of requiring; demand; that which
requires the doing of something; aa
essential condition; something re-
quired or necessary. — requisite, rek'-
wi«rit, a. [L. reqmtituj, from requrro.]
Required by the nature of things or .
by circumstances; necessary. — it.
That which is necessary; something
indispensable. — requiiitely, rek'wi—
zit-li, adv. In a requisite manner;
necessarily. — requlsltenesa, rek'wi—
zit-nes, n. — requiiitlon, rek'wi'Zish'-
on, n. (L, requiiitio.] An application
made as of a right; a demand; a
demand for or a levying of neces-
saries by hostile troops from the
people in whose couintry they are;
a written call or invitation (a requiii-
lion for a public meeting); state of
being required or much sought
after; request. — v.t. To make a
requisition or demand upon.
requite, ri-kwit', v.t.^equited, re-
quiting. (From re, back, and quit.
qurr.J To repay either good or
evil: m a good sense, to recompense
or reward: in a bad sense, to retaliate
on. — requlier, ri-kwi'tdr, n. One
f3te, fSr, fire, fat, f^U; mi, met, hir; pine, pin; note, not, mdvc; tube, tub, bull; oil, potmd.
246
FOd ir.u'ihL'lATE RELEASE JANUARY 14, 1977
Office of the White House Press Secretary
THE WHITE HOUSE
TEXT OP A LETTER FROM THE
PRESIDENT TO THE SPEAKER OF THE .
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
AND THE PRESIDENT OF THE SENATE
JANUARY 14, 1977
Dear Mr. Speaker: (Dear Mr. President:)
I submit herewith to the Congress the Puerto Rico
Statehood Act of 1977.
The purpose of the Act is to extend to the people of
Puerto Rico the opportunity to achieve the status of
statehood if they should so desire. • r
Since 1900, Presidents and Congresses have debated the
question of statehood for Puerto Rico.
Some progress has been made in providing the people of
Puerto Rico with greater autonomy and a greater measure •
of self-government. But these great people are still
not represented with a vote in either the House or Senate
They are still not represented in the election of a
President.
Full equality for the people of Puerto Rico cannot come ■
without full representation.
The social and economic progress to which they aspire
cannot come without the political equality of statehood.
("Any change in the status of the Commonwealth must be
/ accomplished by the mutual consent of the people of
^Puerto Rico and the United States.
?
As Congress considers the appropriate course of action ^^
relating to the permanent status of Puerto Rico, it is ^
essential that the dignity and self-respect of the greaty
people of Puerto Rico be a matter of the highest
consideration.
Accordingly, the legislation I propose would establish,
within the framework of the United States Constitution
and the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico,
a sequence of steps reflecting the historic procedures
by which present states entered the Union, while recog-
nizing the special circumstances of the Commonwealth of
Puerto Rico and the aspirations of the citizens of the
Commonwealth.
First-, -In recocnitlcn_of- t.hfr ■-fact--thart-statehcmcir •""
for Puerto Rico would require the resolution of'
many complex issues. Congress would establish a
Joint U.S. -Puerto Rico Commission to enable the
people of Puerto Rico to participate effectively
in determining the terms and conditions for Puerto
247
•Rico-' 3 proposed admission to statehood. By pro-
viding a forum for the reaching of a broad under-
standing of the Issues and Implications Involved
in admission to the Union, this Act would ensure
that the advantages and disadvantages and the
rights and responsibilities of statehood are fully
presented to the people of Puerto Rico — before
deciding whether their Commonwealth should become"
a state.
Second, Congress, after receiving the Commission
Report, would set the terms -and conditions of , .; .
statehood. ■ ■. - •• " '_ * . '^i. ...
Third, the Act provides "for an island-wide
referendum among the people of Puerto Rico on
whether the Commonwealth should become astate. .■";.■
Fourth, the Act proposes that "If the referendum
passes, delegates to a Constitutional Convention
will meet to frame a Constitution for the proposed.
state. • ■ ■ ■ ■ ; ' - ■ •
Fifth, the new constitution would be presented to
the people of Puerto Rico' for ratification. : ,. •
Sixth, the proposed State constitution/ if ratified/
would be submitted to the President of the United '
States and to Congress for approval. • — '•
Seventh, upon approval of the proposed Constitution,
the voters of Puerto Rico wouldelect two Senators
and five Members of the House of Representatives.
Eighth, "the Governor of Puerto Rico would certify
the results of the election to the President, and
the President v/ould proclaim Puerto Rico a state. ,
After more than three-quarters of a Century of discussion
about Puerto Rico, it is time to act and act positively.
By passage of this Act the representatives of the people .
of the 50 States wlll'say to the people of '-Puerto Rico : '
Join .us as equals. •■ "■- /'' '• ■".:'.;!■;'' .'"''■.■•
I urge the Congress to act. ' ■'•■••
Sincerely, ' • ■ ._....
GERALD R. FORD
248
m ■ r m"^ WW* •_ T\ O • ^ — — '
Hearing Weighs New Plebiscite on Puerto Rico
%j n» N*« van r.mr*
SAN JUAN, PR. March 23 -
Opening another chapter In the long
and complex relailon.^hlp between
Ihls Island territory and the United
Slates, a Republican Congressman
led a hearing today on a bill he said
could bring cither sovereignly or
statehood to Puerto Rico by 2010
Several hundred Puerto Rtcans
demonstrated outside the hearing at
the Government Receptions Center
In Old San Juan, waving (lags and
holding placards, ranging Irom
"statehood now" to "commonwealth
forever ' Inside, their political lead-
ers defended their status preference
before the often heated session of the
House Subcommittee on Native
American and Insular Affairs.
The hearing, led by Representa-
tive Don Young, Republican of Alas-
ka, focused on a bill he filed two
weeks ago to call a referendum in
Puerto Rico before the end of 1998.
the year that will mark a century of
United States rule over the Island.
and ask vtiters to choose among
statehood, sovereignty or free asso-
ciation Free association would In-
volve a pact between Pueno Rico
and the United States, which could be
terminated by either side
The governing New Progressive
Party, which favors statehood, has
hailed the bill, which has the support
of some 36 representatives. Including
Speaker Newt Gingrich
Guv l*edru J Russcllo. the leader
of the statehood movement, urged
the subcommittee to remove the
"stigma" of territorial status from
Puerto Rico
"Literally, (or generations, we
have been exerting nursclves — ear-
nestly and In ttnud falih — nnly lo
discover, again and again, that our
body politic has been going around In
circles. ' the Governor said In testi-
mony hclore the sutKommlitre
But the opposition f^pular Demo-
cratic I'nrty, which (avors Improv-
ing upon the existing commonwealth
status, mounted an embittered re-
sponse to the measure. Party leaders
have accused Mr Young, who Is
openly pro-statehood, of filing .1 bill
that IS weighted heavily in favor of
the New Progressive Party
Popular DcmtKrats voiced anger
at a bill calling for a new plebiscite
when a plurality of voters chose com-
monwealth over statehood in a No
vember 1993 status plebiscite held by
the New Progressive Pany Govern-
ment. Commonwealth got 48.6 per-
cent of the vote, narrowly defeating
statehood by two |>ercentage points.
Independence finished third with 4.4
percent of the vote.
The president of the Popular Dem-
ocratic Party. Hector Luis Acevedo.
refused to participate In a new plebi-
scite In spite of Mr Young's willlng-
ncs*" lo include a commonwealth dcf-
Init.un. set by Congress, m u luturr
rclerendum
"The Popular Democratic Party
rr|ecls this undemocratic bill, and In
the unlikely event that II be ap-
proved, shall not participate In any
such sham plebiscite as Is tried to be
Imposed here." said Mr Acevedo.
who icstllled In Spanish belore ihe
English speaking committee mem-
tiers "because it is the language o(
my people * Committee members
listened via simultaneous transla-
tion
The subcommittee held public
hearings In Washington on the 1993
plebiscite results last (all But In
February Mr Young and three other
representatives said the relerendum
lelt the status issue "open and unre-
solved."
Mr Young and other members o(
the subcommittee said they ob)ected
to the winning commonwealth dellnl-
tlon because several aspects o( It
cannot be entorced. Among other
things. Ihe winning definition called
for "Irrevocable" United Slates citi-
zenship, permanent union with the
United Slates, and fiscal autonomy
Commonwealth advocates gener-
ally hold that a bilateral agreement
exists bemeen Pueno Rico and the
United Stales, under which the Island
Is self-governing, retains a scpar.nic
cultural Identity, and Is exempt (nun
paying federal taxes, among other
points
Statehood and Independence advo-
cates say the existing common-
wealth status Is tantamount to colo-
nialism Residents of Puerto Rico
are governed also by federal law and
couns. are subject to the military
draft, and are sllll Ineligible to vote
In the presidential elections. The Is-
land of nearly four million residents
elects one non-voting representative
to Congress, the resident commis-
sioner
The Young bill makes clear that
only statehood carries the guarantee
of continued American citizenship
and a permanent link to the United
States
If passed, the Young bill would
enact the United States-F>uerto Rico
Political Status AcL calling on Puer-
to RIcans to choose statehood or sov-
ereignty, either through free associa-
tion with the United States or inde-
pendence. If one of the options u ins a
ma)orlty of the vote, the Islaml will
undergo a transition phase nf .-it luast
ID years during which the status
change must be ratlllcd Iwitc by
Puerto RIcan voters and Congress
249
Sunday, March 24, 1996 Houston Chronicle
Bill to bring sovereignty or statehood
to Puerto Rico by 2010 is introduced
New York Times
SAN JUAN, Puerto Rico - Open-
ing another chapter in the long and
complex relationship between this
island territory and the United
States, a Republican congressman
led a hearing Saturday on a bill he
said could bring either sovereignty
or statehood to Puerto Rico by 2010.
Several hundred Puerto Ricans
demonstrated outside the hearing
at the Government Receptions Cen-
ter in Old San Juan, waving flags
and holding placards, ranging from
"statehood now" to "commonwealth
forever."
Inside, their political leaders de-
fended their status preference be-
fore the often heated session of the
House Subcommittee on Native
American cind Insular Affairs.
The hearing, led by Rep. Don
Young, R-Alaska, focused on a bill
he filed two weeks ago to call a
referendum in Puerto Rico before
the end of 1998, the year that will
mark a century of United States rule
over the island, and ask voters to
choose among statehood, sover-
eignty or free association.
Free association would involve a
pact between Puerto Rico and the
United States, which could be termi-
nated by either side.
The governing New Progressive
Party, which favors statehood, has
hailed the bill, which has the sup-
port of some 36 representatives,
including Speaker Newt Gingrich.
Gov. Pedro J. Rossello, the leader
of the statehood movement, urged
the subcommittee to remove the
"stigma" of territorial status from
Puerto Rico.
"Literally, for generations, we
have been exerting ourselves -
Associated Press
Rep. Don Young, R-Alaska, has
filed a bill calling for a referendum
in Puerto Rico betore the end of
1998 that would ask voters to
choose among statehood, sover-
eignty or free association.
earnestly and in good faith - only to
discover, again and again, that our
body politic has been going around
in circles," the governor said in
testimony before the subcommittee.
But the opposition Popular Demo-
cratic Party, which favors improving
upon the existing commonwealth
status, mounted an embittered re-
sponse to the measure. Party lead-
ers have accused Young, who is
openly pro-statehood, of filing a bill
that is weighted heavily in favor of
the New Progressive Party.
Popular Democrats voiced anger
at a bill calling for a new plebiscite
when a plurality of voters chose
commonwealth over statehood in a
November 1993 status plebiscite
held by the New Progressive Party
government. Commonwealth got
48.6 percent of the vote, narrowly
defeating statehood by two percent-
age points. Independence finished
third with 4.4 percent of the vote.
The president of the Popular
Democratic Party, Hector Luis
Acevedo, refused to participate in a
new plebiscite in spite of Young's
willingness to include a common-
wealth definition, set by Congress,
in a future referendum.
"The Popular Democratic Party
rejects this undemocratic bill, and in
the unlikely event that it be ap-
proved, shall not participate in any
such sham plebiscite as is tried to be
imposed here," said Acevedo, who
testified in Spanish before the En-
glish-speaking committee members
"because it is the language of my
people." Committee members lis-
tened via simultaneous translation.
The subcommittee held public
hearings in Washington on the 1993
plebiscite results last fall. But in
February Young and three other
representatives said the referen-
dum left the status issue "open and
unresolved."
If passed, the Young bill would
enact the United States-Puerto Rico
Political Status Act, calling on Puer-
to Ricans to choose statehood or
sovereignty, either through free as-
sociation with the United States or
independence.
If one of the options wins a major-
ity of the vote, the island will under-
go a transition phase of at least 10
years during which the status
change must be ratified twice by
Puerto Rican voters and Congress.
o
BOSTON PUBLIC LIBRARY
3 9999 05984 180 7
I
ISBN 0-16-05351
9 780160"535130
0000
Live Music Archive
Librivox Free Audio
Metropolitan Museum
Cleveland Museum of Art
Internet Arcade
Console Living Room
Books to Borrow
Open Library
TV News
Understanding 9/11