U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

40–445 u WASHINGTON : 1997

PUERTO RICO STATUS

HEARING

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED FIFTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

ON

H.R. 856

A BILL TO PROVIDE A PROCESS LEADING TO FULL SELF- GOVERNMENT FOR PUERTO RICO

MARCH 19, 1997—WASHINGTON, DC

Serial No. 105–16

Printed for the use of the Committee on Resources

(
(II)

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 T. GILCHREST, Maryland

KEN CALVERT, California

RICHARD W. POMBO, California

BARBARA CUBIN, Wyoming

HELEN CHENOWETH, Idaho

LINDA SMITH, Washington

GEORGE P. RADANOVICH, California

WALTER B. JONES, JR., North Carolina

WILLIAM M. (MAC) THORNBERRY, Texas

JOHN SHADEGG, Arizona

JOHN E. ENSIGN, Nevada

ROBERT F. SMITH, Oregon

CHRIS CANNON, Utah

KEVIN BRADY, Texas

JOHN PETERSON, Pennsylvania

RICK HILL, Montana

BOB SCHAFFER, Colorado

JIM GIBBONS, Nevada

MICHAEL D. CRAPO, Idaho

GEORGE MILLER, California

EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts

NICK J. RAHALL II, West Virginia

BRUCE F. VENTO, Minnesota

DALE E. KILDEE, Michigan

PETER A. DEFAZIO, Oregon

ENI F.H. FALEOMAVAEGA, American

Samoa

NEIL ABERCROMBIE, Hawaii

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

ADAM SMITH, Washington

WILLIAM D. DELAHUNT, Massachusetts

CHRIS JOHN, Louisiana

DONNA CHRISTIAN-GREEN, Virgin Islands

NICK LAMPSON, Texas

RON KIND, Wisconsin

LLOYD A. JONES, Chief of Staff

ELIZABETH MEGGINSON, Chief Counsel

CHRISTINE KENNEDY, Chief Clerk/Administrator

JOHN LAWRENCE, Democratic Staff Director
(III)

C O N T E N T S

Page

Hearing held March 19, 1997 ................................................................................. 1

Text of H.R. 856 .......................................................................................................

Statement of Members:

Burton, Hon. Dan, a U.S. Representative from Indiana ............................... 00

Christian-Green, Hon. Donna, a U.S. Delegate from the Virgin Islands ..... 00

Deutsch, Hon. Peter, a U.S. Representative from Florida ............................ 00

Gutierrez, Hon. Luis, a U.S. Representative from Illinois ............................ 00

Prepared statement ...................................................................................

Lagomarsino, Hon. Robert J., a U.S. Representative from California ......... 00

McCollum, Hon. Bill, a U.S. Representative from Florida ............................ 00

Miller, Hon. George, a U.S. Representative from California ........................ 00

Romero-Barcelo ́, Hon. Carlos A., a U.S. Resident Commissioner from

Puerto Rico .................................................................................................... 00

Serrano, Hon. Jose ́, a U.S. Representative from New York .......................... 00

Vela ́zquez, Hon. Nydia, a U.S. Representative from New York ................... 00

Young, Hon. Don, a U.S. Representative from Alaska; and Chairman,

Committee on Resources .............................................................................. 00

Prepared statement ...................................................................................

Statement of Witnesses:

Acevedo-Vila ́, Anibal, President of the Popular Democreatic Party ............. 00

Prepared statement ...................................................................................

Berrı ́os-Martinez, Ruben, President of Puerto Rican Independence Party . 00

Prepared statement ...................................................................................

Farrow, Jeffrey L., Co-Chair, The President’s Administration Working

Group on Puerto Rico ................................................................................... 00

Prepared statement ...................................................................................

Ferre ́, Luis, President of the New Progressive Party .................................... 00

Prepared statement ...................................................................................

Rossello ́, Pedro, Governor of Puerto Rico ....................................................... 00

Prepared statement ...................................................................................

Zeder, Fred M., II, Rancho Mirage, CA (prepared statement) ...................... 00

Additional material supplied:

Administration Shelves Plan To Give Guam More Autonomy, by Peter

Baker (Washington Post) .............................................................................. 00

Hill Panels to Probe China Influence Buying Allegations, by Robert Suro

(Washington, Post) ........................................................................................ 00

House Concurrent Resolution 2 (PR) .............................................................. 00

Introducrion of the United States-Puerto Rico Political Status Act—Hon.

Don Young (Congressional Record) ............................................................. 00

Letters between Clinton, Young could bode ill for ‘bilateral’ pact, by

Robert Friedman (STAR Washington Bureau) ........................................... 00

Memorandum on the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, George Bush ............ 00

Oversight Plan for the 105th Congress, Committee on Resources, and

Legislative History ........................................................................................ 00

Press Releases of Committee on Resources .................................................... 00

Puerto Rico’s New Self-governing Status (Dept. of State Bulletin ............... 00

Resolutions adopted by the General Assembly (UN) at its Eighth Session 00

Resolutions from the Popular Democratic Party ........................................... 00

Signs of Policy Shift on Status of Guam Appeared After Contributions

to Democrats, by John Pomfret (Washington Post) ................................... 00

Summary of the United States-Puerto Rico Political Act ............................. 00

Updated United States-Puerto Rico Political Status Act, by Hon. Don

Young (Congressional Record) ..................................................................... 00
Page

IV

Additional material supplied—Continued

Zeder, Fred M., II: Understanding Free Association as a Form of Separate

Sovereignty and Political Independence in the Case of Decolonization

of Puerto Rico ................................................................................................ 00

Communications submitted:

Clinton, President Bill: Letter of January 21, 1997, to Chairman Don

Young ............................................................................................................. 00

Romero-Barcelo ́, Hon. Carlos, and Hon. Robert A. Underwood: Letter

to Hon. William J. Clinton dated January 13, 1997 .................................. 00

Young, Hon. Don: Letter to Hon. William Jefferson Clintom of December

11, 1996 .......................................................................................................... 00
(1)

UNITED STATES-PUERTO RICO POLITICAL

STATUS ACT

WEDNESDAY, MARCH 19, 1997

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES,

Washington, DC.

The Committee met, pursuant to call, at 11:07 a.m. in room

1324, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Don Young (Chairman of the Committee) presiding.

The CHAIRMAN. The Committee will come to order.

It is a pleasure to welcome the witnesses here today as the Committee on Resources considers H.R. 856, the U.S.-Puerto Rico Political Status Act.

I am going to ask the audience if you would please try to restrain

yourselves. This is going to be a hearing that may take a great deal

of time. I want to offer as much courtesy as I can to the witnesses

who appear today.

STATEMENT OF THE HON. DON YOUNG, A U.S. REPRESENTATIVE FROM ALASKA; AND CHAIRMAN, COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES

The CHAIRMAN. Today, we begin an important part of the congressional consideration of legislation to resolve Puerto Rico’s political status by hearing from some of our colleagues in the House,

the Governor of Puerto Rico, leaders of the three political parties

of Puerto Rico and the Clinton Administration.

Last month, the top leader of the Puerto Rico Legislature presented copies of House Concurrent Resolution 2 asking the Congress to authorize a political status referendum to be held before

the end of 1998. This legislation responds to the legislature’s request to provide the necessary framework leading to full self-government for Puerto Rico.

I thank the witnesses from Puerto Rico for traveling to Washington to personally present their views on this legislation to the

Committee. Your views today, and others later in Puerto Rico, are

a crucial part of development of final legislation to resolve Puerto

Rico’s political status.

Next month, the Committee will go to San Juan and Mayaguez

to hear from the people of Puerto Rico.

We will start today’s hearings with a Members panel, whose comments I know will be very helpful to the Committee. I want to

mention that the Committee has received a statement regarding

this legislation and Puerto Rico’s political status from a former
2

member of this Committee, Bob Lagomarsino. I would like to ask

unanimous consent to submit his comments.

[Statement of Mr. Lagomarsino follows:]

STATEMENT OF HON. ROBERT J. LAGOMARSINO, A U.S. REPRESENTATIVE FROM

CALIFORNIA

On January 23, 1997, the Legislature of Puerto Rico adopted Concurrent Resolution 2. This measure called upon the 105th Congress to establish a self-determination process which will enable the Congress and the people of Puerto Rico to complete the decolonization of the territory which began in 1952. It was in 1952 that

an earlier joint self-determination process approved by Congress and the people pursuant to U.S. Public Law 600 culminated in establishment of internal constitutional

self-government for Puerto Rico.

The Chairman of the Resources Committee and all the co-sponsors of H.R. 856

are to be commended for responding in a timely and bipartisan manner to the Legislature’s request by introducing this historic legislation on February 27, 1997. I support the bill without reservation, and in my own view every Member of Congress

who joins the sponsors of this bill in securing its early approval will be serving the

national interest in a very significant way.

For far too long Congress acquiesced in the deferral of self determination for Puerto Rico. I had always hoped we could deliver on the American idea of equality and

full self-government for the 3.8 million U.S. citizens of Puerto Rico when I was in

Congress. Of course, that could only be accomplished by offering the people of Puerto Rico accurately defined choices between the status quo, statehood or separate nationhood, and then determining if Congress and the people can agree on the terms

for implementing the option chosen.

While that somehow never seemed possible in the past, I believe H.R. 856 will

accomplish this goal. Thus I welcome the opportunity to submit this statement in

support of the measure.

THE MOMENT OF TRUTH FOR THE UNITED STATES AND PUERTO RICO: MORE PERFECT

UNION THROUGH STATEHOOD OR AN END TO UNION THROUGH SEPARATE NATIONALITY?

In the U.S. system of constitutional federalism, statehood is the most perfect form

of political union. For any territory within the sovereignty of the U.S. and having

a U.S. citizen population, only statehood constitutes full self-government based on

the principle of equality with all other citizens. Short of statehood, the less perfected

but next most complete condition of political union is that of an incorporated territory to which the U.S. Constitution and political rights have been extended to the

fullest extent possible for a non-state area within U.S. sovereignty. Historically, this

is the conventional path to statehood.

Unincorporated status with internal self-government under a local constitution,

including the ‘‘commonwealth’’ structure of local self-government, is the status

which occupies the next lower position in the scheme of political union under the

constitution. While the federal constitution applies in full to the states, and incorporated territories can achieve ‘‘virtual statehood’’ through integration into the constitutional process on the broadest level possible, under the territorial clause and

the court-invented legal status theory of the Insular Cases an unincorporated territory is integrated into the union in a far more narrow sense. Downes v. Bidwell,

182 U.S. 244 (1904); Dorr v. United States, 195 U.S. 138 (1904).

Thus, even where statutory U.S. citizenship is extended and there is elected local

government under a constitution or an organic act, only ‘‘fundamental rights’’ under

the federal constitution apply of their own force in an unincorporated territory. Balzac v. People of Puerto Rico, 258 U.S. 298 (1922). Otherwise the U.S. Constitution

and federal law apply only temporarily to the extent Congress determines in its discretion under the territorial clause. Reid v. Covert, 354 U.S. 1 (1957).

These U.S. Supreme Court decisions establish that the unincorporated ‘‘commonwealth’’ relationship is temporary by nature, and disenfranchisement and less-thanequal discriminatory treatment of citizens of the territory is deemed constitutionally

permissible. Harris v. Rosario, 446 U.S. 651 (1980). Even in the organized and locally self-governing unincorporated territories, including Puerto Rico, the plenary

nature of the territorial clause power reduces the operation and effect of the principles of limited government, national uniformity, and rule of law as practiced in

the states.

The only more imperfect form of union than that of the unincorporated U.S. territories is that of unorganized possessions (Example: Wake Island). While residents

of incorporated and unincorporated territories and possessions can enjoy many of
3

the blessings of American citizenship to the extent Congress determines, including

economic benefits and security through various degrees of political union with the

United States, only statehood confers a condition of permanent and constitutionally

guaranteed equal citizenship and full self-government.

Thus, for the population of any territory which wishes to remain within U.S. sovereignty, completion of the process of integration through statehood is the only path

to full self-government. The only alternative within the framework of the U.S. Constitution is to continue indefinitely in a less than fully self-governing status, which

is plausible only as long as Congress deems that to be consistent with the national

interest and the people concerned do not themselves make the choices required to

seek a change of status.

The only other path to full self-government for the peoples of the unincorporated

U.S. territories is to seek though self-determination to achieve equal citizenship and

full self-government based on separate sovereignty, nationality and citizenship. The

options of separate sovereignty in the form of simple independence or free association are the two forms of full self-government through nationhood recognized under

both international and U.S. law. See, Compact of Free Association Act of 1985 (U.S.

Public Law 99-239).

UNDERSTANDING THE CONSTITUTIONAL PROCESS FOR SELF-DETERMINATION

Obviously, there is a cultural dimension to the process for full and compete

decolonization of Puerto Rico. However, the process for sustaining cultural identity

and achieving social integration in our nation will continue to be played out through

the evolution of American civilization at the cultural level.

Without minimizing the importance of the cultural reconciliation that is essential

to successful decolonization, it must recognized that as a political transaction

decolonization is accomplished through the legal and constitutional mechanisms by

which the inherent sovereignty of our people is established, recognized and exercised. Until the ultimate status of the people of Puerto Rico is resolved through sovereign self-government based on either statehood or separate nationality, the manner in which sovereignty is exercised in the case of Puerto Rico will be dysfunctional

to the extent that it is constitutionally incomplete and less than equal.

To promote recovery by Puerto Rico and the nation as a whole from the dysfunctional dynamics of the colonial relationship, it is necessary to recognize that in our

political economic system prosperity and a higher quality of life must never be taken

for granted. Rather, as Ronald Reagan told the General Assembly of the United Nation in 1987, all the things we identify with the ‘‘good life’’ in America are the product or results of the rights we have under our constitutional system.

These includes equal justice under the law, freedom of expression and conscience,

limited government, consent of the governed, rule of law, an ordered scheme of liberty and due process. Once these rights are secured we must exercise them vigorously and meet the responsibilities of citizenship in order to preserve the national

interest and pursue individual happiness.

In the case of Puerto Rico, however, the full rights of citizenship have not yet been

secured, and the residents of Puerto Rico have not yet experienced in their homeland the full responsibilities and rewards of equal citizenship. The conditions that

have prevented completion of decolonization in favor of a recognized form of sovereign self-government have been more political and legal than cultural.

Full decolonization has been delayed for so long that the failure to resolve the underlying political status issue has become the most problematic element of the overall process of cultural and economic integration as well. In other words, the incomplete political status process is impeding the social, economic and cultural process

of decolonization and reconciliation.

Thus, in 100 years the people of Puerto Rico and the other peoples of our nation

as a whole have developed strong and positive cultural and economics inter-relationships, but the failure to resolve the political status question in a legal and constitutional sense is preventing the achievement an ultimate social reconciliation which

can be sustained through either statehood or separate sovereignty in accordance

with the wishes of the people.

In order for the people to express their wishes as to which political status will

be adopted to sustain their identity as well as their relationship with the U.S., there

must be a constitutionally valid process in which the options are defined clearly.

That is what H.R. 856 will provide.

Thus, rather than focusing here on the cultural dimension of the decolonization

process, it is imperative that we examine more closely the legal and constitutional

mechanics of the process. For it is through these mechanisms that the people will

be empowered to express their will at the political, as well as the cultural, levels.
4

This is how the true identity of a people is translated through self determination

into full self-government.

Definitions of status options that are not realistic or which can not be implemented disempower the people and undermine the decolonization process. That is

what happened in 1993, and the following discussion reflects my judgment that H.R.

856 will establish a process that will produce results which both Puerto Rico and

the Congress will be able to understand. This will provide the basis for completion

of the decolonization process that began with adoption of the local constitution

under P.L. 600 in 1952.

It is significant, therefore, that, like the provisions of Public Law 600 which established the process for approval of the local constitution in 1952, H.R. 856 would establish a multi-staged process for completing the next—and final—phase of

decolonization. Thus, H.R. 856 recognizes that until the decolonization process is

completed the political union between the U.S. and Puerto Rico is defined constitutionally as impermanent, and both of the two parties to the present political relationship retain the right of self-determination with respect to its future.

Recognition that there are two parties to the self determination process—Congress and the residents of the less than fully self-governing territory, is entirely different from and contrary to the assertion of a ‘‘bilateral’’ relationship between an

‘‘autonomous’’ Puerto Rico and the U.S. based on an unalterable pact. The notion

of a formal and legally binding ‘‘bilateralism’’ between the Congress and an unincorporated territory with the framework of the federal constitution is untenable.

Indeed, putting aside for the moment only the cultural bonds which exist after

100 years of close albeit impermanent political union, the U.S. has the sovereign

power constitutionally, as well as a right under applicable international law, unilaterally to terminate the relationship at any time in favor of independence for Puerto

Rico. Nevertheless, the U.S. clearly intends, prefers and—in the absence of currently

unforeseen circumstances—is committed to resolution of the status of Puerto Rico

through a cooperative self-determination process.

Thus, as a legally non-binding but voluntarily assumed obligation consistent with

international standards of self-determination recognized by the United States, every

Congress and every U.S. President since 1952 has recognized that the current status of Puerto Rico can be terminated in favor of permanent union or separate nationhood on terms approved by Congress and the people of Puerto Rico. As a consequence, only if Puerto Rico exercised the right of self-determination in favor of

unilateral action on its part to terminate the relationship without an agreed succession process would the excellent prospects for a very orderly and cooperative process

perhaps be changed.

In addition to demonstrating that decolonization and a permanent status have not

been achieved, the willingness of Congress and the President to recognize an ongoing right of self-determination for both parties to the existing temporary form of

political union confirms the need to include in any further self-determination process the same multi-staged decision-making mechanism as Congress employed in

P.L. 600. For just as Congress recognized in Section 1 of P.L. 600 and must continue

to recognize, the principle of consent of the governed applies in this case to both

the people of the United States as a whole and to the people of Puerto Rico.

It is required, therefore, that in resolving the status of Puerto Rico the Congress

must exercise the right of self-determination on behalf of the U.S. citizens in the

nation as a whole, while the U.S. citizens of Puerto Rico whose status and relationship with the U.S. will be decided also have a right to self-determination. For as

a distinct body politic in an impermanent political union with the United States, the

U.S. citizens of Puerto Rico also must have the opportunity to express freely their

wishes as to the status of Puerto Rico.

Because H.R. 856 is grounded firmly in the historical process through which the

people of an unincorporated territory can achieve full self-government through a legitimate process of self-determination, I strongly endorse and support its enactment.

Upon approval, it will enable Congress and the people of Puerto Rico to enter the

next century on a path to liberty and equality.

SELF-DETERMINATION BASED ON DIGNITY AND MUTUAL RESPECT

Within the evolutionary cultural process in our society there can exist many peoples and many nations in the cultural sense. Respect for this ethnic diversity and

dignity, cultural pluralism, and transcendence of ethnocentricty in its negative

forms is one of the difficult but essential lessons through which any civilization

comes of age. The learning of this lesson through conflict and reconciliation, a

drama played out in our open society for all the world to see, has been but another
5

of the ways in which the United States of America has been a leader of world civilization in this century.

Again, the resolution of Puerto Rico’s political status remains the last act in the

drama of decolonization and social reconciliation for our citizenry of the territory

and the nation as a whole. In addition to the political and social dimensions of this

process, economic integration is also an element of the evolving relationship. Luis

Munoz Marin realized that continued political union with the U.S. was in Puerto

Rico’s economic interest, and that has been proven in recent years.

Whether self-determination leads to statehood or separate nationhood, Puerto

Rico would do well to stay with market-oriented reforms and private sector led development which have emerged after years of command economics and government

managed markets. Only the market-driven economic model can be sustained without undue dependence on the discretion of Congress—which didn’t prove too reliable

in the case of the experimental economics of Section 936. Through strategic economic diversification Puerto Rico will recover from the Section 936 corporate welfare

scheme which was the economic engine of the colonial status quo—perpetrated in

the name of the poor for the benefit of the powerful.

In this cultural and economic context, the social integration between the people

of Puerto Rico and the other peoples of this great nation has been one of the most

enriching and rewarding of the major cultural processes which have shaped the

American experience as our nation come of age in this century. It is a complex and

challenging process, and there have been miscalculations and mistakes made by federal and territorial leaders which have not served well the people of the territory

or the nation as a whole.

However, in the territory and in the larger nation we have never given up on finding a solution, and while the momentum toward an ultimate status has been slowed

at times it has never been broken. Now as the century draws to a close, it is time

for the anachronistic political, legal and constitutional relationship between Puerto

Rico and the nation as a whole to be brought into alignment with the more evolved

social, cultural as well as economic relationships.

Thus, as noted above, in drafting legislation to prescribe a self-determination

process it is necessary to focus on how to resolve the political, legal and constitutional status of Puerto Rico in both procedural and substantive legal terms, rather

than in cultural and ideological terms.

Having underscored that point, I also want to note that it has been suggested to

me on numerous occasions that there is little which is philosophically resonant

about the legal mechanics of the constitutional process for self-determination. The

lack of a poetic dimension to the politics of solutions instead of protest is something

that has been pointed out to me frequently.

I could not disagree more. For in my mind the Declaration of Independence, the

Preamble of the U.S. Constitution, and the Preamble to the Constitution of the

Commonwealth of Puerto Rico all contain the poetry of freedom.

Some people may be more moved or have their passions more aroused by the literature of political alienation and cultural anger over past grievances. However,

that kind of vitriolic self-indulgence and ideological solipsism often is a luxury that

can be afforded by those who like to taste of fruit of freedom but have never had

to pay for it.

Perhaps we all need to stop and remember that in this century Puerto Rico’s best

and bravest have joined the best and bravest from throughout our nation and gone

in harm’s way so the rest of us can continue to live free. To honor their sacrifice,

we have a duty to do the hard and sometimes tedious work of democracy and selfdetermination within the ordered scheme of liberty under our constitutional documents of freedom.

Even if it is not always as glamorous or exhilarating as making pedantic pronouncements or reciting poetry about abstract notions of political philosophy, we

owe it to those who saved all of us from the common enemy to resolve the status

of Puerto Rico because that is what they would want us to do.

So the next time some cultural separatist or ideological elitist condescendingly

notes that there are no poems about the constitutional process for resolving the

legal and political status of Puerto Rico, we should remember that in liberating

strife the blood of Puerto Rican born Americans has mixed with that of Americans

of all other backgrounds in the sands of Somalia and the muddy soil of Sicily. Apparently, these heroic people who made everything we have in America possible

found the literature in the documents of our democracy inspiration enough to march

into the gaping jaws of annihilation to preserve liberty for our common patria-pueblo.

You want poetry about the difference between perpetual colonial status and constitutional equality? Have you read the words to the ‘‘Star-Spangled Banner’’ re-
6

cently? Are you longing to hear the poetic expression of dignity through full participation in democracy? Try listening to a group of kids sing ‘‘...God shed His Grace

on thee, and crowned thy good with brotherhood, from sea to shining sea...’’ That

does not mean we have never fallen short of that ideal in the past, but it expresses

what America—including Puerto Rico—has the potential to become if we all take

the solemn work of democracy seriously.

COLLAPSE OF THE ‘‘UNALTERABLE BILATERAL PACT’’ DOCTRINE OF COMMONWEALTH

Recognition by Congress in Section 1 of P.L. 600 of the principle of consent was

‘‘in the nature of a compact’’ involved joint consent only with respect to the process

for approval of the constitution. When the people voted to approve the terms of P.L.

600 on June 4, 1951, the agreement which was ‘‘in the nature of a compact’’ was

that the constitution would be approved in the manner prescribed by P.L. 600. It

was an agreement to organize local constitutional self government through the P.L.

600 procedure to which both parties consented.

Contrary to what has been asserted for forty years by those who seek to deny both

the U.S. and the people of the right to further self determination, the agreement

‘‘in the nature of a compact’’ related to the process of approval of the constitution

by joint consent and did not convert the relationship into a permanent form of union

that can be altered only by ‘‘mutual consent.’’ Those who espouse that ideological

doctrine do not want the people of the U.S. as a whole, or the people of Puerto Rico

in their own name and right, to have a choice to change the current status.

This attempt to convert the commonwealth structure for local self-government

into a political status straight-jacket for Puerto Rico has become an impediment to

completion of the decolonization process that began in 1952. The adoption of local

constitutional self government at that time was a historically significant stage in

the decolonization process, but it was not intended to be the final stage. Those who

argue that the current status is the best that the U.S. and Puerto Rico can do merely usurp the power and diminish the meaning of the local constitution as an instrument through which the continuing right of self-determination can be redeemed.

Indeed, adoption of a local constitution in 1952 was historic because it enabled

the people of Puerto Rico to act in their own name and right as to the internal affairs of the territory, as well as in legal and political relations with the national government. This, of course, was on the basis of U.S. sovereignty and within the framework of our American system of constitutional federalism, meaning that Congress

retained its territorial clause authority and responsibility until the decolonization

process commenced in 1952 was fulfilled through statehood or separate nationhood

for Puerto Rico.

Through the institutions of internal self-government established in 1952 Puerto

Ricans were empowered, among other things, freely to express their wishes regarding a permanent and fully self governing political status. Thus, establishment of the

‘‘Commonwealth of Puerto Rico’’ structure for local constitutional self-government in

1952 was a great democratic self-determination accomplishment, one which afforded

the residents of the territory the ability to govern their own internal affairs and

achieve an ultimate status consistent with a recognized form of full self-government

through informed self determination.

That this decolonization process would be fulfilled in accordance with the U.S. federal constitutional process was entirely consistent with the continuation of U.S. sovereignty, nationality and citizenship in Puerto Rico as provided under the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico approved by Congress and with the consent of the people in 1952. Indeed, in 1953 the U.S. circulated to the General Assembly of the United nations a written legal statement which informed Puerto Rico

and that world that under the commonwealth structure of local self-government

Puerto Rico was subject to ‘‘...compliance with the applicable provisions of the Federal Constitution, the Puerto Rico Federal Relations Act and the acts of Congress

authorizing and approving the Constitution [of Puerto Rico], as may be interpreted

by judicial decision.’’

On that basis, the U.N. General Assembly accepted the U.S. decision to cease reporting to the U.N. on the status of Puerto Rico. See, G.A. Resolution 748 (VIII),

September 27, 1953. The Committee on Resources documented these matter quite

thoroughly in House Report 104 713, Part 1, so I will not elaborate further here.

However, the attempt of some Puerto Rican leaders and political groups to create

‘‘bilateralism’’ within the U.S. federal system has been perpetrated under a ‘‘nationwithin-a-nation’’ interpretation of the commonwealth structure of local constitutional self-government which must fail.

That doctrine of an illusory bilateralism between the people of Puerto Rico and

the larger national community is the product of tortured intellectualism which has
7

been harnessed in service to paternalistic and anti-democratic attitudes. Those who

do not trust the people, or do not want them to have a free choice, have used the

myth of an ‘‘unalterable bilateral pact’’ to perpetuate their own power and prevent

the decolonization process from being fulfilled.

Having been involved in the question of Puerto Rico’s status for many years as

a Member of Congress, I continue to study developments in the relationship with

keen interest. My sense is that with the end of the Cold War and the demise of

the command economics-social engineering policies epitomized by the Section 936

tax credit provisions, the time for completion of the decolonization process for Puerto

Rico finally is at hand.

For so many years it seemed that those who sought fulfillment of the promise of

self-determination might never overcome the influence of those whose economic and

political power was derived from the ‘‘invisible’’ colonialism of the Section 936 tax

credit regime. However, the neo-colonialist nature of that political-economic model

was revealed when Congress exercised its territorial clause power to unilaterally

eliminate one of the pillars of the ‘‘unalterable bilateral pact’’ ideology.

No one can take any personal pleasure whatsoever in the disillusionment of all

those honest and patriotic Puerto Rican born Americans who were misled into believing in the revisionist interpretation of commonwealth. It is no coincidence,

though, that the advocates of the mythological version of commonwealth in many

cases also profited from it. For those who chose self-interest over self determination

for their own fatherland, the path to redemption and reconciliation is to choose one

of the legitimate paths to full self government as defined in H.R. 856.

In this regard, I recently was told of the article in El Nuevo Dia which quoted

former Governor Hernandez Colon as comparing Resources Committee Chairman

Don Young to the Spanish General Palacio, who was described in the article as a

tyrant who inflicted brutality on the people of Puerto Rico. The occasion of the

former Governor’s remarks was the 107th birthday of Roman Baldotioty de Castro,

who espoused autonomy for Puerto Rico.

This causes me to ask, who is the oppressor? Who are the victims?

During the 1996 elections, Mr. Hernandez Colon told the people that the election

should be viewed as a referendum on the Young bill, and that the voters should support candidates who stood with him in defense of the bilateral pact doctrine. By historic margins the voters elected candidates who are willing to roll up their shirt

sleeves and work with Congress to forge acceptable self-determination legislation

based on the Young bill—without pandering to those who will not recognize that the

‘‘unalterable bilateral pact’’ doctrine has been discredited ethically as well as politically.

Who, then, is seeking social justice and self-determination by the truest course?

Who seeks most directly and without device or presupposition to empower the people of Puerto Rico to achieve decolonization? Who accepts the verdict of the people

and who resists the democratically expressed will of the voters?

It is one of the confirming symptoms of prolonged albeit benevolent colonialism

that those who thrived financially or wielded great power under the less than fully

self-governing status develop elaborate theories to justify the continuation of that

status. Thus, a whole host of lesser known commentators have become the spin doctors of commonwealth, administering almost daily doses of the tortured logic of the

bilateral pact theory of ‘‘autonomy.’’

What would Luis Munoz Marin do if he were alive today? What about Roman

Baldotoity de Castro? Would they turn their backs on a U.S. Congressman who

thinks it is time for Puerto Rico and Congress to determine if Puerto Rico should

become a state on the basis of equality or a nation based on separate sovereignty?

Would they insist on a form of ‘‘autonomy’’ that does not protect the rights or the

dignity of the people of Puerto Rico?

Has ‘‘autonomy’’ as Mr. Hernandez Colon defines it become the enemy of the people’s inherent sovereignty and their right to make a choice between equal citizenship or separate nationality? Has the vision of Mr. Munoz Marin which started the

process of decolonization in 1952 been hijacked by those who can not believe the

hour has come to fulfill that vision?

Are the apologists, protectors and defenders of the accommodations made to colonial realities in the name of ‘‘autonomy’’ in 1952 so completely beguiled by their own

rationalizations for the current status that they are resisting completion of the

decolonization process now that the it is possible to do what could not be done in

1952?

Who is really playing the role of Palacio in this more enlightened era? Who seeks

to retain power at the expense of liberty?

Who is withholding the keys to freedom from the people? Who is telling them that

what they have is the best they can hope for? Who is telling them that waiting for
8

the political elite to bestow enhancements is safer for the people than taking control

of their own destiny? Who are the victims of the bilateral pact myth? Who was diverted from the path

to decolonization by the schizophrenic doctrine that gave the current status one

name in Washington and another in San Juan? The answers to these questions are now self-evident. We all were victims, even

as we all were beneficiaries in some degree. However, for the people of Puerto Rico

and the nation as a whole the point of diminishing returns on our political, economic

and social investment in ‘‘commonwealth’’ was reached even before Section 936 was

repealed. It is just as self-evident that statehood, if chosen freely by the people in a legitimate act of self-determination, is not a form of ‘‘annexation.’’ Similarly, living under

the false doctrine of empowerment which is not recognized or respected by the colonial power is not ‘‘autonomy.’’ Rather, statehood is just as valid, ethical and patriotic way to sustain the individual and collective dignity and identity of the people of Puerto Rico as separate

nationality. The love which people born in Puerto Rico have for patria pueblo can be expressed

through either statehood or nationhood. If the U.S. Congress is ready to recognize

that reality, why are some in Puerto Rico unwilling to do so?

Mr. MILLER. Mr. Chairman, if I might, I would like to submit the

comments of Former Governor Hernandez Colon.

The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, it will be submitted for the

record.

[The statement of Mr. Colon may be found at end of hearing.]

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Lagomarsino served on this Committee as

Ranking Republican on territorial issues for a decade and dealt

with insular issues for almost 20 years and was intimately involved

with Puerto Rico’s political status. In reviewing Mr. Lagomarsino’s statement, one should remember

he introduced legislation in 1988 authorizing a referendum on

Puerto Rica’s political status and was heavily criticized by some for

raising what many considered to be a very difficult issue that

should be left alone. The only hearing on Lagomarsino’s Puerto

Rico political status referendum legislation in the 100th Congress

was a forum in the Capitol sponsored by Senator Strom Thurmond

and former Senator Spark Matsunaga. However, Bob Lagomarsino’s foresight and leadership regarding

Puerto Rico’s political status was affirmed the next year in 1989

when President Bush asked the Congress in his first State of the

Union address to authorize a referendum on Puerto Rico’s political

status. In addition, a number of the same voices who criticized Lagomarsino’s 1988 call for a referendum on Puerto Rico’s political

status began early in 1989 to urge the Congress to pass a bill for

a federally authorized status referendum. However, no Puerto Rico political status legislation was enacted

into law during President Bush’s term in office. That was in spite

of tremendous efforts by individuals like Bob Lagomarsino, who of

course was in the Minority at that time, and many others on both

sides of the aisle in the Capitol. The 1989 to 1991 legislative initiatives of the House and Senate

to resolve Puerto Rico’s political status were unsuccessful primarily

because they did too little or required too much. In contrast, I believe the three-stage process in the United

States-Puerto Rico Political Status Act provides a manageable and

practical approach to resolving Puerto Rico’s political status. Budgetary, legal, political concerns are dealt with as necessary in the

appropriate stages of the process and are consistent with past

precedents of the United States in dealing with the evolution of ter-
9

ritories to permanent forms of full self-government. Perhaps most

importantly, the legislation incorporates the principles of self-determination for the United States and Puerto Rico, as both the Congress and the people of Puerto Rico must approve of each stage in

order for the political status process to advance.

In 1998, we will observe the 100th anniversary of the United

States administration of Puerto Rico. During this century, the residents of Puerto Rico and the United States have enjoyed the benefits of U.S. sovereignty and nationality in Puerto Rico as an unincorporated territory, including increasing levels of self-government

and statutory U.S. citizenship since 1917.

However, the time has come to complete the self-determination

process so that a recognized form of full self-government can be established for the islands. The degree of local constitutional self-government established under Federal law in 1952 has allowed the

Federal-territorial relationship to evolve, but it can’t be sustained

forever in the absence of an informed act of self-determination in

which the options are defined accurately.

Currently, Puerto Rico remains in political, but not permanent,

union with the United States and is governed under the territorial

clause authority of Congress defined in article IV, section 3, clause

2 of the U.S. Constitution. Surely after a hundred years of U.S.

sovereignty Congress also has the responsibility under the territorial clause to define the terms under which it would be willing

to bring the 3.8 million U.S. citizens of Puerto Rico into the more

perfect State of the Union enjoyed by the citizens of territories

which have achieved statehood such as Alaska and Hawaii.

Similarly, Congress has a responsibility to define the basis upon

which it would approve termination of Puerto Rico’s territorial status in favor of separate nationhood as an independent country or

a separate sovereign in free association with the United States.

Only when these options for full self-government—as Congress is

willing to consider them—have been accurately defined can the

people make an informed choice.

The current process and status definitions embodied in the

United States-Puerto Rico Political Status Act is a result of the

record established in the last Congress through hearings in Washington, D.C. on October 17, 1995, and in San Juan, Puerto Rico, on

March 23, 1996, as well as the deliberative process of subcommittee

and Committee actions during the balance of 1996. These cumulative efforts resulted in the legislation being placed on the Union

Calendar at the end of the 104th Congress and the introduction of

an updated U.S.-Puerto Rico Political Status Act, H.R. 4281, which

served as the basis for and with text identical to the that of the

current H.R. 856.

The year of 1997 is the year to act, to empower the people of

Puerto Rico in 1998 to choose their final political status destiny. No

more excuses and delays to the resolution of Puerto Rico’s political

status. Puerto Rico has demonstrated the ability to function democratically under local constitutional self-government for 45 years.

Even more significantly, the people of Puerto Rico have overwhelmingly and loyally supported this Nation in every armed conflict

with enormous personal sacrifice for nearly a century. They have

earned the right many times over to seek separate nationality and
10

citizenship or full and guaranteed U.S. citizenship as a permanent

part of the United States.

Now we have a moral obligation to deliver, finally, to the Americans of Puerto Rico the blessings of liberty and democracy which

General Miles proclaimed to have brought upon arrival of the

United States in Puerto Rico in 1898. This can be accomplished

through a federally authorized status referendum in 1998 as provided in the United States-Puerto Rico Political Status Act, H.R.

856.

I am very proud to be the cosponsor of this legislation along with

Mr. Miller.

I yield to him for an opening statement.

STATEMENT OF THE HON. GEORGE MILLER, A U.S.

REPRESENTATIVE FROM CALIFORNIA

Mr. MILLER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I ask unanimous consent that my statement be placed in the

record, and I will yield to Carlos Romero-Barcelo ́ of San Juan for

the purpose of an opening statement, and then my understanding

is we will go to the questions.

[The statement of Mr. Miller follows:]

STATEMENT OF HON. GEORGE MILLER, A U.S. REPRESENTATIVE FROM CALIFORNIA

We are here this morning to receive testimony from the three political parties in

Puerto Rico as well as the Administration regarding H.R. 856, the United StatesPuerto Rico Political Status Act.

This issue and its resolution is of great importance not only to the 3.4 million U.S.

citizens in Puerto Rico but to All of us as Americans. It tells us that this Congress

has a moral obligation to seriously consider all aspects surrounding status. This bill

will mandate that a vote be taken in one year’s time to decide a political status option for the future. The options in the bill are between the current status of commonwealth, admittance into the union as the 51st state, or an independent nation.

This is not a symbolic exercise. We can not demand a vote by Federal law and

then refuse to carry out the wishes of the voters. If you are not willing to offer commonwealth, statehood, or independence, then we must not proceed further with this

bill. To the voters of Puerto Rico I pledge that I will do all that I can to make sure

that what is written into law will become reality if you so chose and within a reasonable transition period.

As many of you know I was not a cosponsor of similar legislation last year, I am

however, a cosponsor of H.R. 856 because important changes have been made. A

major concern is that the political parties have the opportunity to submit what they

believe to be appropriate definitions for their status option. A request went out from

Chairman Young and myself, and I expect to see definitions at the end of the

month. These will be given serious consideration and Congress will ultimately determine the definitions.

During the hearing and mark up process, I will address the transition time frame

for I believe the ‘‘minimum of 10 years’’ now in the bill is far too long. The voters

of Puerto Rico deserve to know that we are serious in offering this status plebiscite,

and that the transition to a new status, should that be chosen, will occur expeditiously.

I want to commend my colleagues, Chairman Young and Resident Commissioner

Romero-Barcello for keeping this important issue before us. I also serve on the Economic and Education Opportunities Committee with Carlos where he has taught me

much about the way education programs are extended in Puerto Rico.

I thank all those here this morning and look forward to what I’m sure will be

a lively and enlightening debate.

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Puerto Rico is recognized.
11

STATEMENT OF THE HON. CARLOS A. ROMERO-BARCELO ́ , A

U.S. RESIDENT COMMISSIONER FROM PUERTO RICO

Mr. ROMERO-BARCELO ́. This morning I got up and looked out the

window and saw it was snowing; and I commented to my wife, joking, perhaps that this was an omen to have a hearing on the status

of Puerto Rico.

I would like to begin my remarks today by commending you, Mr.

Chairman, for your initiative in scheduling this hearing of H.R.

856, the United States Puerto Rico Political Status Act, and for

your commitment to the force of government in ending the disenfranchisement of the 3.8 million U.S. citizens of Puerto Rico.

I want to thank our Ranking Minority Member, Mr. Miller, for

his efforts to have the opportunity to decide freely, without ambiguity and decisively what the island’s political relationship with

the 50 States should be. The leadership on this issue has been instrumental in allowing us to reach the point where we are today.

Last, but not least, I want to publicly thank the 80 Members

from Congress on both sides of the aisle who cosponsored this legislation. Their support is certainly appreciated and needed.

Mr. Chairman and fellow Members, it was almost 100 years ago

that in 1898 Spain ceded Puerto Rico to the United States at the

end of the Spanish-American war. In 1917, Puerto Ricans became

U.S. citizens, a citizenship we have cherished and valued ever since

and a citizenship that we have defended with our lives and with

our blood.

Then, in 1952, the island adopted a local Constitution and gave

us a name of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, a purely cosmetic

change that did not in any way affect the island’s status as an unincorporated territory of the United States, subject to the authority

and powers of Congress under the territorial clause of the Constitution. In international terms, Puerto Rico remained a colony.

Many of the advocates for commonwealth have testified in the

congressional hearing on March 4, 1950, that the proposed changes

to the island’s status, quote, ‘‘did not change the fundamental conditions of Puerto Rico’s nonincorporation and only permitted Puerto

Rico to develop its own self-government.’’

Since that moment, a former Chief Judge of the Supreme Court

and member of the Puerto Rico Constitutional Assembly and one

of the legal architects of the Commonwealth commented, even after

1952, Puerto Rico clearly continued suffering colonial status; and

he said Puerto Ricans have the distinction of having the longest

history of colonialism in the whole world. What a sad distinction

to be commended.

There is a famous Chinese saying that a journey of a thousand

miles must begin with a single step. But to reach the destination

a traveler must be headed in the right direction.

H.R. 856 is not only the most important step we have taken in

this journey to resolve the disenfranchisement of the citizens of

Puerto Rico, it is also the first measure affecting self-determination

to come before the House since the Alaska and Hawaii admission

acts of the 1950’s.

I have devoted most of my adult life to leading my people in this

long journey. As former Mayor of San Juan, Puerto Rico’s capital

city, Governor and now Member of Congress, I have heard my peo-
12

ple’s voices and shared their dreams and aspirations. These voices

resonate loudly in the island, although to most Americans living in

the continental United States they might seem as distant echoes,

reflecting the deep unease and disenchantment with the current relationship that would deny them equal treatment in Federal education programs that they desperately need to succeed in today’s

competitive world.

Young couples ask me why they have to move to the States in

order to search for opportunities that are not available in Puerto

Rico.

Veterans who have fought in all of the Nation’s wars in this century ask me why they cannot vote for the President that, as commander-in-chief, may tomorrow also send sons and daughters to

fight and die. The elderly ask about support programs that are less

than if they resided in New York, Illinois, California, Florida, or

any State of the Union.

I have heard a mother ask why her son died in Vietnam and

gave his life for a country that denies her and her grandchildren

the right to participate on equal terms.

The answer to these questions is clear. We are unequals because

we are not partners. We are unequals because we are submerged

in a colonial relationship in which our economic, social and political

affairs are controlled to a large degree by a government in which

we have no voting influence and in which we do not participate.

We are unequals because we cannot vote for the President of the

Nation of which we are citizens and because we do not have a proportional voting representation in the Congress that determines

the rules under which we conduct our daily lives and the rules that

influence and determine our future.

Mr. Chairman, this great Nation of ours, the example and inspiration of democracy throughout the world, inspiration in the peaceful revolt in Tiananmen Square and the revolt of Poland against

Communism, revolt in Russia, the Soviet Union against Communism and other nations of Eastern Europe and throughout the

world, cannot continue to uphold a policy that denies political participation and disenfranchises 3.8 million of its own citizens. We

cannot continue to hide our heads in the sand like ostriches and

pretend nothing is happening. The lives and well-being of 3.8 million U.S. citizens is at stake here. Their dignity and democratic

heritage is the issue.

I am encouraged by the fact that we have been able to gather

so much bipartisan support for this legislation in so little time. As

a matter of fact, Senators Bob Graham and Senator Larry Craig

will introduce a similar version of this bill later. The initial support

in the Senate seems to be growing, to be as strong and bipartisan

here in the House.

Mr. Chairman, we are more than halfway through the 1990’s, a

decade that the United Nations General Assembly declared to be

the international decade for the eradication of colonialism. Next

year, Puerto Rico will commemorate 100 years as a U.S. colony.

Should we celebrate or should we mourn? Will we see a silver lining in the sky by 1998 or will we be seeing more of the same?

The United States cannot seek to promote and at times enforce

democracy elsewhere in the world while it relegates 3.8 million of
13

its own citizens to an indefinite second-class status,

disenfranchised, discriminated against and unable to exercise the

most basic right in a democracy, the right to vote and participate

in its government. To ignore the situation in Puerto Rico is to betray the spirit of our democratic values and heritage.

Mr. Chairman, I feel honored with having the opportunity to find

myself in the center of this important process. Once again, I want

to thank you for your lead and your vision in filing this bill and

for holding this hearing. And I look forward to the testimony of our

distinguished panel.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Governor. Thank you for your eloquent statement.

At this time, I would like to call the first panel up.

For the other members, your statements, by unanimous consent,

will be submitted for the record at this time, because I have—in

all due respects, I wanted to try to get this thing moving along because of the other members—we may have a vote here after while.

The Honorable Dan Burton, Luis Gutierrez, Bill McCollum, Jose ́

Serrano, Peter Deutsch, Nydia Vela ́zquez. They all are there? Everybody there but Dan Burton. All right.

Mr. MILLER. Mr. Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN. Yes, sir.

Mr. MILLER. I would ask unanimous consent that at the end of

their testimony those members of this panel who desire to sit with

the Committee be allowed to do so. I know some of them have

scheduling conflicts, but some of them expressed a desire to do to.

The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, so ordered.

Luis, I believe we will go right down the line, if we can do that,

in the way I called you out. Dan Burton is not here, so we will go

with you first.

Mr. GUTIERREZ. I am sorry, Mr. Chairman?

The CHAIRMAN. You are up.

STATEMENT OF HON. LUIS GUTIERREZ, A U.S.

REPRESENTATIVE FROM ILLINOIS

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Chairman

Young, Congressman Miller, distinguished colleagues, distinguished witnesses, I wish to begin by expressing my sincere gratitude to Chairman Young and the members of the Committee for allowing me the opportunity to participate in this hearing today. In

a democratic society, we must allow for differences of opinion, even

strong differences of opinion, to be truly expressed and freely discussed in search of truth.

As a Member of Congress of Puerto Rican origin, and as a Member of Congress with a large Puerto Rican constituency, I feel it is

my duty to participate in the discussion about the future of Puerto

Rico and the future relationship of Puerto Rico and the United

States. The outcome of these discussions will directly affect the

lives of many of my constituents.

As you know, Mr. Chairman, I strongly favor for Puerto Rico the

status we in this country celebrate every 4th of July, the status

that allows us to enjoy the benefits of our Constitution, that allowed us to write and to adopt our own Constitution in the first
14

place, the status we have enshrined in the Declaration of Independence, the status of independence, the inalienable right of all people

on earth.

I also fully respect yet another inalienable right, the right of a

people to self-determination. Therefore, I have never sought to impose my views on the people of Puerto Rico.

Mr. Chairman, the time to resolve the colonial situation of Puerto Rico is now. The time for decisive action on this matter is long

overdue. This is a situation that should never have arisen.

In 1898 American troops invaded Puerto Rico, a non-combatant

in the Spanish-American War. This could have been done in the

long-held American anti-colonial tradition, to rid the island of any

Spanish military and turn the island over to its rightful owners,

the Puerto Rican people. Unfortunately, the United States not only

invaded Puerto Rico, it occupied it and annexed it.

In 1917, while saying that this action did not constitute an offer

of statehood to Puerto Rico, the U.S. granted U.S. citizenship to

Puerto Ricans. You know only too well the rest of the story.

Mr. Chairman, at this time I would like to ask that the rest of

my testimony be submitted for the record. I would just like to make

the following points.

Mr. Chairman, I think that as we enter this debate and discussion about a future Puerto Rico and its relationship to the United

States we need to ensure that all the different political perspectives

and parties and their opinions be offered full and fair consideration—and we need to ensure that we reach consensus, Mr. Chairman, so that no one feels that this process is a process which favors

one status or political option over another as it is presented to the

people of Puerto Rico.

In that vein, Mr. Chairman, let me make a few suggestions.

Number one, Mr. Chairman, I think that if Puerto Rico has a colonial relationship with the United States and you are going to go

into a process of decolonization, then we must distinguish between

American citizenship, which was offered to the people of Puerto

Rico and granted to the people of Puerto Rico, and nationality. Who

are the nationals of the island of Puerto Rico? Who are the nationals of Puerto Rico?

Let me suggest that because there is a colonial situation, that we

should do everything possible, Mr. Chairman, to insure that all of

the nationals, whether they happen to reside on the island of Puerto Rico or whether they reside in the continental United States be

offered the opportunity—all Puerto Ricans be offered the opportunity to participate fully, and to vote in any process of plebiscite

to solve the colonial status of Puerto Rico. And let me quickly suggest a quick definition of who qualifies as a Puerto Rican national.

Those who were born on the island of Puerto Rico and the immediate children of those born on the island of Puerto Rico.

I think later on you will hear testimony that will be supportive

of that definition, because we have a continuing migration in Puerto Rico to the island and back. Mr. Chairman, I lived on the island

of Puerto Rico when my parents returned in 1969 after living 15

years in the United States. I returned there. I graduated from high

school there. I went to college there. I returned there once again,

Mr. Chairman, to be married with my wife Soraida 19 years ago.
15

So I too have been going back and forth and back and forth.

Many Puerto Ricans do that, Mr. Chairman, and many of us are

interested in being able to participate in deciding the future of

Puerto Rico.

Indeed, Mr. Chairman, if we leave it as it is today, everybody

who goes to Puerto Rico 70 days before the plebiscite could register

to vote and participate and then leave the island anytime thereafter. I think we should look for a more expanded franchise, Mr.

Chairman, that will allow more of us to participate.

Because of the limitation of time, Mr. Chairman, let me just say

the following. I think that Don Luis A. Ferre ́, who was here, who

has fought valiantly and with distinction for statehood for Puerto

Rico, should be allowed to see the day when Puerto Rico—when

there is a vote before this Congress should the people of Puerto

Rico so request statehood, where he can see that day where it is

admitted as a State. Let us not wait ten years after such a vote.

Justice delayed is justice denied for Luis A. Ferre ́ and for any of

the proponents of any of the different options.

Let us offer the people of Puerto Rico not another opinion poll so

that we can gauge their sentiment. We think we know what their

sentiments are on the different status options, Mr. Chairman, so I

respectfully say to you, Mr. Chairman, and the members of this

Committee let us make the result of the vote self-executing. Let us

have respect for the people of Puerto Rico. Let us have respect, Mr.

Chairman, for our fine institution, the Congress of the United

States. And should statehood win or independence win or free association win, that those things can be executed.

Finally, Mr. Chairman, if you would allow 30 additional seconds

more, unanimous consent for 30 seconds, I just want to quickly

speak about independence, Mr. Chairman.

I think that if we are going to be fair and we are going to live

in the 21st Century, let us give them, the independentistas from

Puerto Rico, an option that is not burdened, Mr. Chairman, an option that they can go and promote among the Puerto Rican people

that is not burdened, an option that says, you know, maybe Luis’s

mom and dad and Nydia’s mom and dad in Puerto Rico can still

come to the United States of America should there be independence, and maybe they can continue to have their citizenship and

their rights and their Social Security and their military benefits,

because they fought for them, Mr. Chairman, and they gained them

rightfully so, and other kinds of economics so that we can build a

cooperation between an independent Puerto Rico and the United

States.

I would like to see an independent Puerto Rico, Mr. Chairman,

that lives in peace and in harmony and in unity with the United

States of America. And we should offer them such an option that

they can go to the people of Puerto Rico and raise it among them.

Mr. Chairman, thank you so much for your indulgence. And I

submit my complete statement for the record.

[Statement of Hon. Luis Gutierrez may be found at end of hearing.]

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Luis, very well done. Bill McCollum.
16

Mr. MCCOLLUM. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I would

like to request unanimous consent that my statement be submitted

for the record.

The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, so ordered.

Mr. MCCOLLUM. Thank you.

STATEMENT OF HON. BILL McCOLLUM, A U.S.

REPRESENTATIVE FROM FLORIDA

Mr. MCCOLLUM. I have to follow a very eloquent statement by a

native of—at least a person who has a generation going back to

Puerto Rico and has the immediate blood connection that I do not

have, but I have a great interest in this bill. As you know, I am

an original cosponsor.

I have a very large number of constituents in my district. I have

perhaps the second largest, something of that nature, number of

Puerto Ricans in my Congressional district. And I have spent a lot

of time discussing this issue of statehood, independence, and commonwealth with them. I have heard their views. I have been to

Puerto Rico. I am going down there again on April 3 to hold a drug

hearing because I am Chairman of the Crime Subcommittee, and

the drug issue is very important to the people of Puerto Rico, as

it is to all of us. So I have some views. And I just want to express

them briefly.

First of all, I think the idea of making this decision and doing

it now as this bill that you produced describes and sets out is very

important. It needs to be done. We need to let the people of Puerto

Rico speak. It should be their voice. I for one believe that they will

choose statehood when they vote, but they may not. It is their

choice to at least give us their advice. If they do choose statehood,

I think we should grant them that statehood, and I think it should

be swift and there should not be a significant question about it.

And there shouldn’t be any question in their minds when they vote

that that is the sentiment that most all of us have in Congress.

Now when I say that I personally favor something, I want to

make it very clear that this is not my choice. This is the choice of

the Puerto Ricans, not Bill McCollum and not those of us who are

from Florida or Minnesota or wherever. But there is an advantage

to statehood, in my judgment. And let me describe a couple of the

reasons why I think statehood would be an advantage to the Puerto Rican people.

First of all, Puerto Rico is today part of the United States. The

Puerto Rican culture is part of what is uniquely American. And I

think it is understood innately by most of us, if not specifically. Yet

without statehood, something is missing. Every school child in

America is taught about the 50 States. Sure there are the territories, but they are never firmly implanted in the mind of a young

person as being integral to the whole as when thinking of the

United States and each of the States.

I personally want to see the day when every school child learns

about 51 States and thinks of Puerto Rico as much a part of the

American family as Texas or Minnesota. Puerto Rico, in my judgment, will be stronger for this, and our nation will be stronger.

Again, however, my opinion doesn’t matter, and the plebiscite is

the opinion of the people of Puerto Rico.
17

And another area that I think that Puerto Rico would benefit

from would be the economic area. I believe there will be an increase in investment and economic growth if Puerto Rico becomes

a State.

I think that such things as efforts to get support for fighting the

war on drugs, which I have been engaged in for a lot of reasons,

as well as the governor and the officials of Puerto Rico and the

Puerto Rican people, would be much easier in this Congress and

with the Executive Branch of the government.

No longer would some people think Puerto Rico simply is the

gateway for drugs to the U.S. mainland. Instead, people would

think first, as they should now, of the horrors of the drug scourge

on the people of Puerto Rico, equal partners in all we share and

all we do as a nation.

So I do have a strong opinion, but it is understood, in my mind,

again, this is a judgment that should be made under this bill and

would be between commonwealth, independence or statehood by

the people of Puerto Rico.

And one thing I want to add in this comment is something I am

very strongly opposed to. I am very strongly opposed to any suggestion—and I have heard it made, not by the Chairman, but I have

heard it made by other Members of Congress—I am strongly opposed to any suggestions that this bill be amended to include a condition of statehood on Puerto Rico for adopting English as its official language. It is a divisive and a destructive proposal.

English, in my judgment, should be the official language of the

United States, but no State, be that New York or California or

Florida or Puerto Rico, should be singled out and told it must adopt

English as its official language. When and if Puerto Rico become

a State, if and when English becomes the official language of the

United States, it will apply to all 51 States, to Puerto Rico just as

well as everybody else.

I believe the rights of the Puerto Ricans should be respected, the

sovereign rights, just as we respect the sovereign rights of the

other States of the Union and our territories.

So those are my thoughts to you today, Mr. Chairman. I support

the bill in its present form. I am sure it could be modified and improved in some ways, but let’s get on with it. It is time for the people of Puerto Rico to get a chance to voice—one more time. And I

believe this is a critical time and I believe that they will voice it

in favor of statehood. And when they do, it is time to bring it back

here and take that vote in this Congress that will ratify that and

make Puerto Rico the 51st State.

[Statement of Hon. Bill McCollum follows:]

STATEMENT OF HON. BILL MCCOLLUM, A U.S. REPRESENTATIVE FROM FLORIDA

Good morning, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee. I want to thank you

for the opportunity to give a statement as part of your hearings on H.R. 856, the

United States-Puerto Rico Political Status Act. Chairman Young, I appreciate your

efforts on behalf of this legislation and I am proud to be an original cosponsor. It

is certainly my hope to see progress made on this legislation in the 105th Congress.

I have a natural interest in Puerto Rico as there is a significant Puerto Rican

community in my district. However, I have also had the opportunity to visit Puerto

Rico in my capacity as the Chairman of the Crime Subcommittee on drug interdiction matters. I will actually be returning to Puerto Rico in about a month for hearings with the Crime Subcommittee. Meeting people both in my district and in Puer-
18

to Rico has given me the opportunity to hear many points of view on the issue of

Puerto Rican statehood. Although there is a range of views, it is clear that we

should allow the people of Puerto Rico to decide their fate.

As we know, H.R. 856 would require a plebiscite in Puerto Rico where the people

of Puerto Rico would have the ability to decide the future of their beautiful island.

The choices would include Puerto Rican independence, U.S. statehood or maintaining the status quo of commonwealth government under the authority of the U.S.

Congress. A clear majority, as opposed to only a plurality, would be needed for definitive action. If statehood or independence were chosen, Congress would then have

to affirmatively enact legislation in order to pursue the option. If commonwealth

status receives a majority, or if no majority is achieved, then the plebiscite is revisited four years later.

Mr. Chairman, under a plebiscite conducted pursuant to this bill, I am convinced

the people of Puerto Rico would choose statehood. Puerto Rico is part of the United

States. For years the rich Puerto Rican culture has been part of what is uniquely

American. Yet, without statehood, something is missing. Every school child in America is taught about the 50 states. Sure, there are territories, but they are never as

firmly implanted in the mind as being integral to the whole when thinking of the

United States. I want to see the day when every school child learns about 51 states

and thinks Puerto Rico is as much a part of the American family as Texas or Minnesota. Puerto Rico will be stronger for this. Our nation will be stronger. However,

my opinion would not matter in the plebiscite and I believe the people of Puerto

Rico need the option to choose.

The commonwealth status was never intended to be a permanent status. I realize

that some will try to claim otherwise, but I respectfully disagree. Furthermore, we

must remain flexible in improving upon the status quo. If a majority of Puerto

Ricans want statehood, then we should facilitate that.

Certainly there is the possibility that the voters of Puerto Rico will choose to keep

the commonwealth status. That is fine, and there will be chances in the future to

change this decision, but the relationship between Puerto Rico and the U.S. has

been changing of late. It is time to reassess the wants and needs of the island, even

if it is still the desire to remain a commonwealth.

Assuming that statehood is the path chosen, I believe that Puerto Rico would

enjoy increased investment and economic growth as investors would be assured of

economic and political stability in the region. Under statehood, Puerto Ricans would

be guaranteed all the rights, privileges and responsibilities of U.S. citizens. Furthermore, support for such efforts as fighting the war on drugs would be easier to

achieve. No longer would some think of Puerto Rico simply as the gateway for drugs

to the U.S. mainland. Instead, people would think first (as they should now) of the

horrors the drug scourge is bringing to the people of Puerto Rico—equal partners

in all we share and all we do as a nation.

Independence would not bring these gains, but there may be advantages that the

people of Puerto Rico would rather have. Regardless, we need to work on this situation to bring resolution to the issue. Past plebiscites have not been especially helpful, mainly because the unconstitutional option of an enhanced commonwealth was

offered. This time, a clear choice put to the voters in Puerto Rico should provide

a clear result.

One thing I strongly oppose, Mr. Chairman, is any amendment to this bill conditioning statehood on Puerto Rico adopting English as its official language. This is

a divisive and destructive proposal. English should be the official language of the

United States. But no state, be that New York, California, Florida or Puerto Rico,

should be singled out and told it must adopt an official language. If and when Puerto Rico becomes a state, and if and when English becomes the official language of

the federal government, it would apply in Puerto Rico, just as it is in the other 50

states. The sovereign rights of Puerto Ricans should be respected in the same manner as all states already admitted into the Union.

Mr. Chairman, I want to commend you for the patience you have had with this

legislation. I remember that things got a little difficult with it at the end of the

104th Congress when it looked like movement was possible. I strongly urge you to

report H.R. 856 favorably to the full House in the very near future. I will give you

my full support in getting it scheduled for House floor action. Again, thank you for

holding these hearings.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Bill. I thank you—and again, an excellent job. I see we have been joined by Mr. Burton, and I know

he has other things on his mind right now. Mr. Burton, if you

would like to go forth, you have got five minutes.
19

Mr. BURTON. Well, thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I apologize to my colleagues for interrupting these hearings. I will have

a more complete statement I would like to submit for the record.

The CHAIRMAN. Without objection.

STATEMENT OF HON. DAN BURTON, A U.S. REPRESENTATIVE

FROM INDIANA

Mr. BURTON. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you for allowing me

to testify regarding H.R. 856, The United States-Puerto Rico Political Status Act. As a senior member of the International Relations

Committee, I am a cosponsor of this bill, and I have worked with

Chairman Don Young and the Subcommittee Chairman Elton

Gallegly to help them put together a fair and balanced bill. This

bill is based on complete and open dialog with all the affected parties, and is the result of approximately 30 changes, 30 changes,

from H.R. 3024, which was introduced in the 104th Congress.

The status quo in Puerto Rico cannot be maintained. The people

of Puerto Rico have lived for far too long under a colonial status

with second-class citizenship.

This is not a statehood bill for Puerto Rico, as some people seem

to believe. It is not a pro-independence bill. It is not a pro-commonwealth bill. This is a balanced bill that allows the Puerto Rican

people to exercise their right to self-determination. It lets the people of Puerto Rico make an informed choice about their political future.

We have compromised with all parties concerned by changing

from a two-ballot format to a three-ballot format, thereby giving

the citizens of Puerto Rico three options, namely statehood, separate sovereignty, and commonwealth, and giving the options equal

positioning.

I have concerns with this change, given the inherent legal differences among the three options. The purpose of the previous twoballot format was to make certain the voters understood that two

of the options were for a new and permanent status consistent with

full self-determination.

Those two options, statehood and separate sovereignty, would

complete the decolonization process consistent with the commitments the United States made to the people of Puerto Rico and the

United Nations when local constitutional government was established in 1952.

The option to continue the current commonwealth structure of

local government was presented separately on the ballot under

H.R. 3024 because it is not a constitutionally guaranteed or permanent status. Therefore I am afraid it could be misleading to the voters to present the less than full self-governing commonwealth option as a co-equal status with the full integration or separate nationhood status.

However, Mr. Young listened to the concerns of the political leaders of all parties in Puerto Rico, as well as the concerns of his colleagues in the Congress, and granted the change from a two to a

three-ballot format. This example of leadership and show of good

faith has not been reciprocated by opponents of this legislation.

Disingenuousness, deception and in some cases outright falsehoods

continue in their rhetoric and in their deeds.
20

This is unfortunate, because it only adds confusion to the issue.

This confusion has disenfranchised voters and has delayed the

process of Puerto Rican self-determination.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to end with the following observation. I have intentionally not publicly advocated for a particular

outcome with respect to Puerto Rican status. My strong belief in

a free people exercising their right to self-determination remains

unwavering. The complexities of the history and uniqueness of the

island of Puerto Rico do not change that fundamental belief. The

citizens of Puerto Rico should have their day at the ballot box without duress and without any impediment to their ability to act out

their own collective will.

Puerto Rican people also have a great responsibility in understanding their options and choosing the option they most agree

with. They need to understand that there is no free lunch.

If they choose independence, the United States will deal with

them as a partner in peace and a strong ally. If they choose statehood, we will add another star to our flag and welcome them officially as an equal partner into the greatest union known in the history of mankind. But keep in mind that with that benefit comes a

great responsibility. If the Puerto Rican people choose to maintain

commonwealth status, turning away from self-rule, we as a Congress will maintain the supreme administrative control of the island.

These are the options for the citizens of Puerto Rico to choose

from. We as a Congress must facilitate the process in a fair manner. That is exactly what H.R. 856 seeks to accomplish and is why

I am a strong supporter and cosponsor of the bill.

Thanks again, Mr. Chairman, for affording me the opportunity to

testify today before you and the Resources Committee.

[Statement of Hon. Dan Burton follows:] ???

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Dan. And I appreciate your showing

up, even if you are late. I know you have got a lot more responsibilities.

Jose ́ Serrano, New York.

STATEMENT OF HON. JOSE ́ SERRANO, A U.S.

REPRESENTATIVE FROM NEW YORK

Mr. SERRANO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for this opportunity. I

want to thank you and commend you for your work on this bill. I

want to commend my colleague George Miller, the ranking member

of the Committee, for his work and for his support.

The reason I support this bill, Mr. Chairman, is because I believe

that this bill brings about what needs to be brought about, a legislative confrontation between Puerto Rico and the Congress of the

United States, a legislative confrontation that will allow the people

of Puerto Rico to fully understand whether in fact the United

States is willing to take them in as a State or whether it wishes

to begin a process to let them go as an independent nation.

It is interesting to know that since 1898 that question has truly

never been asked in Puerto Rico. We were not asked, as Mr.

Gutierrez said, whether we wanted to be part of this country. We

were simply invaded. And that invasion is the longest running invasion in the world at this moment. It has gone on 99 years.
21

In 1952, the people in Puerto Rico were asked do you want to become a commonwealth, or do you want to stay the way you are. I

was seven years old and I could have answered that question. That

was an easy one then. The question now is: in today’s world, does

the United States want to continue to ask that question, or do our

Congress and our government want in fact to say to Puerto Rico

what they are saying to the world? Do we really have the ability

to continue to preach political changes and changes in government

and in systems and in approaches in the world if we will not allow

the people of Puerto Rico the opportunity to talk about their future?

Now, I have been criticized for being very clear, I think, on what

I think the future should be. The future should be a change from

the present. The present status, to me, is unacceptable. The

present status perhaps at one time served a purpose, an economic

purpose, a political purpose. At one time it was the only game in

town.

The world has changed and this Congress has changed, and that

is, perhaps, why you are sponsoring this bill, because this Congress

has changed in some ways over times.

I believe that Puerto Rico is a colony. I didn’t arrive at the usage

of that word lightly. I wasn’t raised in a family of ‘‘populares’’, people who believed in Luis Mun ̃ oz Marı ́n, but then there are people

sitting behind me who are ‘‘independentistas’’ who come from families of statehooders. And there are people who are ‘‘estadolibristas’’

who come from families of ‘‘independentistas’’. And so it is our situation in Puerto Rico and throughout this nation.

I believe Puerto Rico is a colony for a very simple reason that

I always attribute to my relationship with my own family. I have

cousins in Mayaguez and in Bayamon who cannot vote for a Member of Congress, who cannot vote for a President, who have nothing

to say about the way this country treats them. On the other hand,

they can’t a establish relationship with Columbia or Cuba tomorrow morning or refuse to go to war or trade with Mexico on their

own. They can’t invite the Japanese in to do anything that they

might want to do because we don’t allow it.

Therefore, if they are not free to be a sovereign nation and they

are not equal as a State, there is only one thing left to be, and that

is a colony. We may deny it. It is good politics for us to deny it,

but that is the truth. That is the case.

Now if we take the 1993 results, which we will hear a lot about

here today, and say there was a vote in ’93 that was for commonwealth, well, let me say two things. First of all, no option got a majority, and the options were independence, statehood or a different,

enhanced form of the current commonwealth status. Well, on the

island I could have voted for either of the three, because it was a

change from the present. My point is that everyone who participated in the ’93 plebescite in Puerto Rico voted for a change. No

one voted for the status quo. So I feel that it would be a problem

for us, although we may do it, to present to the people of Puerto

Rico the status quo, because I think the status quo is colonial in

nature and therefore improper for us to present.

Some may think this is too extreme, but when Lincoln was trying

to deal with the issue of emancipation, I don’t think slavery was
22

an option on the table. Either doing nothing or emancipating, but

not reaffirming the present situation at that time. I don’t think this

Congress should reaffirm the present status in any way, shape, or

form. And I believe that the people who support the present status

with changes, should present before this Congress a separate status which would include the changes, but not the present status

with changes, because the present status is what it is.

I also want to commend the authors of this bill, because if and

when this bill passes, you will have accomplished something that

many of us have wanted to see for years. You will have stated in

legal terms Puerto Rico’s relationship to the U.S. And that is a

major victory for all of us who have felt that the present status in

fact, is colonial in nature.

Therefore, Mr. Chairman, I come before you today in the hope

that we can in fact pass this bill, that we can have this vote on

the island, that as we mark 100 years since the invasion we get

the results from that vote and Congress speaks.

I realize that the independence people are very courageous. They

are only have four percent, five, six percent of the vote. They will

bet that statehood will never be an acceptable option for this Congress and they are willing to go to the mat on this one.

The statehooders are very courageous, too, because they will take

all the heat, all the accusations about what statehood will mean to

the culture and the language on the island.

I hope everybody else becomes courageous and understands that

a change is necessary.

Let me end with this point. Many of you, if not all of you, know

that I am a very outspoken critic of our policy in Latin America,

especially toward Cuba. I believe that our country no longer has

any moral grounds to demand elections in any country as long as

it won’t allow a simple election like a plebiscite in Puerto Rico. We

may not have the moral grounds any longer to demand political

changes anywhere if we continue to hold a colony in the Caribbean

in 1997.

I was born on the island. I came to the U.S. because of the relationship between Puerto Rico and the United States, which the created economic situation which sent many of us away from home.

That is why since 1990 I have said that those who were born on

the island and those who are children of people born on the island

should be allowed to vote on this. Not for governor, not for mayor,

not for sheriff or any other position they may create in the future,

but to determine the future of the country. And if not, at the minimum respect that migration by not allowing anyone who was not

born on the island of Puerto Rican parents to vote in the plebiscite.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

[Statement of Hon. Jose ́ Serrano follows:]

STATEMENT OF HON. JOSE E. SERRANO, A U.S. REPRESENTATIVE FROM NEW YORK

Mr. Chairman, distinguished members of the committee and fellow Puerto Ricans

who will later address this Committee:

I want to commend Chairman Don Young, and Ranking Member George Miller

and all the members of this Committee for the bipartisan effort to develop and consider this important legislation. Today is a hopeful day in the history of the relationship between Puerto Rico and the United States. Today we once again begin in this

House the formal proceedings to establish a process leading to full self-government

for Puerto Rico.
23

Thank you for considering an issue that is of critical importance. As one of the

original cosponsors of this bill, I come before you today to speak in support of legislation that is very important to me both as a Puerto Rican, and as a citizen of this

Nation. This Act provides to the Puerto Rican people a right that we as Americans

cherish dearly and seek to share with peoples around the word—the fundamental

right of self-determination.

Ever since Puerto Rico became a part of the United States after the SpanishAmerican War in 1898, the Puerto Rican people have had a dual identity—they are

an island nationality in the Caribbean, and a component of the American nation.

Although we have been in this relationship for 99 years, the fact remains that Puerto Ricans did not choose to become part of the United States. For better or worse,

the incorporation of Puerto Rico in the United States was unilaterally imposed.

The people of Puerto Rico are citizens of this Nation by birth, and have fought

and died in all the American wars of this century, from World War I to Operation

Desert Storm. If these brave young men and women are important enough to serve

our national interest, they surely are important enough to demand and receive the

respect of this Congress in their pursuit of political self-determination.

Out of self-respect, and out of respect for our cherished democratic principles, we

must recognize the right of the people of Puerto Rico for self-determination. Otherwise, the basic tenets of our Nation have lost all real meaning.

Today Puerto Rico is a colony. This means that we accord to Puerto Rico a citizenship with fewer attributes than that of other Americans. In addition, a colonial status lacks the ability to deal freely with other nations and to exercise full sovereignty. A quick study of this makes it clear that the Puerto Rican people are second class citizens. If I were to move tomorrow to the island, I would lose my right

to vote in the election of the President of the United States, two U.S. senators and

a voting Member of Congress. On the other hand, the government of Puerto Rico

has no autonomy on international trade and immigration laws, and cannot refuse

to go to war in the event the United States declares it. In other words, we are neither a full partner in the American nation, or an independent sovereign state. So,

there is no doubt in my mind that Puerto Rico is a colony, even though some confusion exists, internationally and in Puerto Rico, about the official relationship of the

United States with Puerto Rico.

Since 1898 the Puerto Rican people have had three opportunities to express their

opinion as to what sort of relationship should exist between Puerto Rico and the

United States.

In 1952 the people of Puerto Rico were invited either to enter into a Commonwealth relationship with the United States or to retain their then current status.

In this instance, the Puerto Rican people ‘‘chose’’ what was offered to them. Independence and statehood were not options.

In 1967 a plebiscite was held in Puerto Rico on three political status alternatives:

independence, statehood and a continuation of commonwealth status. Unfortunately,

the plebiscite legislation was considered unfair by a substantial percentage of the

electorate. After a contentious plebiscite marred by a substantial boycott on the part

of proponents of independence and statehood, the Commonwealth option prevailed.

In 1993, the Government of Puerto Rico conducted a plebiscite initiated under

local law on Puerto Rico’s political status. In it, none of the three status propositions

received a majority of the votes cast. However, results showed that almost everyone

wanted to change the existing status.

The final tally of the plebiscite results reveals that out of nearly two million registered voters, 1.7 million, (73.5%) of them participated. The results were 826,326

votes for a commonwealth (48.6%), 788,296 for statehood (46.3%), and 75,620 for

independence (4.4%).

Unfortunately and shamefully, up to now we have not abided by the right to self

determination for the People of Puerto Rico. Although we have deplored colonialism

and paternalism by other nations, we continue to practice it ourselves in our treatment of Puerto Rico. I can only hope that with this legislation we will finally end

colonialism in Puerto Rico.

The Puerto Rican people are anxious for this opportunity to freely, fairly and collectively determine the political status of their island. And if I may say so, Mr.

Chairman, there could not be a more appropriate time for this vital democratic exercise of self-determination than right now, going into the millennium.

Section 4, paragraph (a) of this bill, the ‘‘United States-Puerto Rico Political Status Act,’’ provides, and I quote, ‘‘A referendum on Puerto Rico’s political status shall

be held not later than December31, 1998.’’

This commitment is good not only for the people of Puerto Rico, but for the credibility of American democracy in this era of stunning changes. As we in the United

States strive to encourage and foster these developments around the world, it is es-
24

sential that we hold true to our principles at home and provide the people of Puerto

Rico the opportunity to exercise full self determination and decide, a final political

status of our island.

I would like to express my deep satisfaction with the fact that we are holding this

hearing today. I believe that there is, in sum, one great Puerto Rican community.

It encompasses those who reside on the island, and those who live in the United

States. I also believe that there is no question about the effect our status has on

those Puerto Ricans who reside on the fifty states, in terms of their own well being,

as well as in terms of their future prospects for a return to the island. Moreover,

the influence Puerto Ricans in the fifty states can wield, no doubt, will be an important factor in moving the plebiscite process forward in Congress.

Therefore, in due time I will propose an amendment to H.R. 856 that will make

any person that was born in Puerto Rico and is not residing on the island of Puerto

Rico, eligible to vote in the 1998 referendum.

As you all know, since I was elected to Congress in March of 1990, I have been

advocating for this nonresident vote because I am convinced that the right of a people to determine its political status is so fundamental that Congress needs to give

all Puerto Ricans the opportunity to voice their opinions on the issue. Just because

a Puerto Rican leaves his or her homeland to go to the U.S. mainland for economic

or educational reasons should not disqualify them to vote in the referendum. While

former Puerto Rican residents, in general, are not allowed to vote in local elections,

the issue of self-determination is a unique and important franchise that warrants

broader voter eligibility. Unlike general elections which are purely related to local

issues, a plebiscite to determine the final political status of a country will undoubtedly affect both Puerto Ricans living in Puerto Rico and those living on the U.S.

mainland.

It is my hope that we can settle this issue as soon as possible because it would

be a shame for this country to continue Puerto Rico’s colonial status. This bill will

afford all Puerto Ricans an effective, viable process of self determination. As a Puerto Rican, I say, ‘‘Let us decide this issue once and for all,’’ and as an American Congressman I can say, ‘‘Shame on us that we still have a colony in 1997.’’ And, so,

let me say that it is in the interest of the United States to settle this issue, settle

it clearly and leave no question unanswered as to the self-determination rights of

Puerto Rico, with the participation of those of us that reside outside of the island.

This issue is one that touches the heart as well as the mind of every Puerto Rican,

whether they are on the island or somewhere in the 50 states. In Spain, Mexico,

the Armed Forces, etc. they seek information and they are watching closely the decisions we make. It is clear to me that all of us, regardless of where we live and

where we stand in terms of the final outcome, feel that the time has come for true

self-determination. We are politically mature. Ninety-nine years as an American colony and 400 years as a Spanish colony are more than enough.

My friends we have no credibility in the world if we fail to practice what we

preach, if we continue to bear the shame of denying a people the basic human right

of political self determination.

I applaud you all here today because you are taking the issue of the status of

Puerto Rico seriously, so the 3.8 million American citizens in Puerto Rico and over

2.7 million Puerto Ricans on the mainland can fulfill their right to self-determination. I earnestly encourage you to forcefully seek passage of this bill so the colonial

status of the United States citizens of Puerto Rico can end, and so we may honor

their choice of a future, within this Nation or among the nations of the world.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. I am in awe. We have had an excellent panel here.

Peter, you are up next.

STATEMENT OF HON. PETER DEUTSCH, A U.S.

REPRESENTATIVE FROM FLORIDA

Mr. DEUTSCH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I also join in

praise of you and the ranking member for this legislation. It is, I

think, brilliant legislation besides important legislation.

What it does as its premise, I think, is important for everyone

both in this country and in Puerto Rico to understand. And the

premise is that the present status is not a permanent status. That

is the working principle. And I think that is something worth repeating and worth stating, because without this legislation, the il-
25

lusion of permanent status under commonwealth can continue. I

think it is factually not a permanent status. And anyone who holds

that position is just wrong. And this legislation by its introduction,

hopefully by its passage, has the United States Congress make that

statement. And it is no longer a debatable point.

And I will join Congressman Burton’s comment that I don’t live

in Puerto Rico. I wasn’t born there. I obviously have a concern over

its future for a variety of reasons, including being the Member of

Congress on the mainland closest to Puerto Rico. But I think that

the acknowledgement that permanent status is only in the options

of statehood or independence is significant.

And the way the bill is set up, if commonwealth is voted for, that

there will be by definition another plebiscite and another plebiscite

and another plebiscite by this legislation until a permanent status

solution is determined by the people of Puerto Rico. And, you know,

that is, number one, I think, a thing that is significant.

The second thing I think which is significant is really the final—

the challenge that you have as a Committee to work out the final

language in terms of that plebiscite itself. I think that that issue

is clearly a critical issue which I believe this Committee will be

able to do. It is not going to be an easy task, but I think it is a

task that reasonable people—at the end of the day you are not

going to make everyone happy on every part of it.

But I think that in watching the election and the plebiscite, the

recent plebiscite, I think it is clear that not only was the election,

as my colleague Mr. Serrano said, all sides were talking about

change, but I think what is clear for someone 1000 miles away

looking at commercials or reading some of the print ads is that

there was misinformation. There were issues that were presented

in terms of definition that just were not accurate. And there are

factual premises that need to be stated. Whether people like them

or not, they need to be stated.

If Congress is not willing to define independence, for instance,

the way Mr. Gutierrez suggested, then that ought to be stated. You

know, it is an illusion to present it in a way that it is just not a

reality. I mean, it is not—we don’t want the debate to be a demagogue debate. We want it to be a factual debate. If Congress is willing to do that, then it ought to be presented as that as an option

within the facts presented. But that—forcing ourselves in this process to come up with those languages, I think, is very, very significant as well.

The last thing I would mention, because those of us who have

been involved in this legislation know this is what stopped the legislation the last time, which is the issue of language. I think it is

an issue that we need to speak about and confront and talk about.

Again, for anyone who has followed these issues, it is just not appropriate for the Congress to be dictating to a State what it is—

whether that is the capital of the State, whether that is another

issue, which in the history of this country has been debated on and

off. It is just not appropriate.

And let me also make clear on the language issue, I think that

English ought to be taught and in Puerto Rican schools whether or

not Puerto Rico is a State, whether Puerto Rico is a State, a commonwealth or independent. I think that the people, the government
26

of Puerto Rico is doing a disservice to the children of Puerto Rico

in not making it bilingual. In many ways, the United States government in many parts of this country is doing a disservice to

many citizens by not encouraging second languages.

In 1997 to not acknowledge—and particularly if you have the

vantage point of South Florida where South Florida truly is the

capital of the Caribbean and South America. I mean, we truly are.

It is not a cliche. It is a physical reality in terms of corporate headquarters, in terms of flight paths, in terms of a variety of issues.

We see it on a daily basis in our community. And that issue,

though, is something that, I think, needs to transcend—I was very

happy to hear Mr. McCollum’s comments this morning. And I hope

that all of his Republican colleagues and all the Chairman’s Republican colleagues join him in the efforts to take away that issue as

a stumbling block to this legislation.

[Statement of Hon. Peter Deutsch follows:]

STATEMENT OF HON. PETER DEUTSCH, A U.S. REPRESENTATIVE FROM FLORIDA

Mr. Chairman, members of the Committee on Resources, I want to thank you for

this opportunity to testify in support of H.R. 856, the United States-Puerto Rico Political Status Act. As a representative from a state with a strong ties to Puerto Rico

and a vibrant Puerto Rican community, I am encouraged by the progress you have

made on this issue, both in drafting a fair and balanced bill and in educating Members of Congress on the importance of the future status of Puerto Rico.

For too long, Congress has failed to appropriately and acceptably address the future political relationship between Puerto Rico and the United States. As a possession of the United States subject to the authority of Congress under the Territorial

Clause, Puerto Rico and its future status is our responsibility and should be dealt

with promptly. For this reason, it is not sufficient for us to abdicate our federal responsibilities with regards to Puerto Rico, rather we must work to define the options

they may pursue.

Many of those who are against H.R. 856 argue that the status issue was decided

by the plebiscite in 1993. As this Committee is aware, however, the definition of

commonwealth appearing on that ballot was both unworkable and unconstitutional.

It promised unrealistic benefits for the people of Puerto Rico, nonetheless received

just a slim plurality of the vote. Wisely, Congress rejected those results as inconclusive for the purpose of determining future status.

Despite the failures and deficiencies of the 1993 commonwealth definition, there

are still individuals who insist that portions of that legislation should be incorporated into the current proposal, H.R. 856. For example, provisions such as the

promise of full federal benefits without paying federal taxes and veto power over

Congressional decisions would certainly appeal to many of my constituents in South

Florida, but we all know that these wishes are impossible to grant. By concocting

a ‘‘have it both ways’’ hybrid of statehood and separate sovereignty, the individuals

opposed to the Young Bill are hoping to expand a status that was never intended

to be permanent. Fortunately, the bill before us today distinguishes between the realistic and the unrealistic and provides a real vehicle for finally determining the political status of Puerto Rico.

The appropriate way for the United States to respect the right of self-determination in Puerto Rico is for Congress to clearly and unequivocally define the options

for change. To avoid the confusion of 1993, Congress must also confirm the nature

of the status quo. The definitions should not include proposals for special benefits

or possible agreements which could be reached to enhance any of the basic status

options, but rather should prescribe the fundamental legal rights and political elements of each status option. On that basis, the voters will be able to make an informed choice that will be in a format respected on the mainland. I believe H.R. 856

meets these criteria and offers three distinct, realistic paths.

Mr. Chairman, I also want to note that there is propaganda being circulated

claiming that Congress is legally constrained from defining the current status in a

way that is different from the 1993 ballot definition of commonwealth. The people

putting forth these arguments are citing a Federal lower court case they perceive

contains some dictum supporting their position. I would refer my colleagues with

the opposing viewpoint to page 67 of House Report 104-713, July 26, 1996, which
27

contains commentary from the U.S. Department of Justice repudiating the interpretation of the case being cited by opponents of H.R. 856. As the members here today

are aware, the House Report I am referring to was the result of this Committee’s

exhaustive work on the self-determination issue last year and are positions that

hold true today.

Quotations from statements made by U.S. diplomats in the United Nations back

in 1953 are being used to support the theory that, as a result of approving the local

constitution in 1952, Congress is bound forever by a ‘‘bilateral compact’’ that is unalterable without the consent of Puerto Rico. Again, I would refer them to the analysis

of U.N. process in 1953 set forth on pages 11 through 23 of House Report 104-713.

The notion that Puerto Rico has somehow been converted from an unincorporated

territory to a permanent commonwealth status is erroneous and unconstitutional.

In 1953, the U.S. informed the U.N. that the precise nature of the relationship

would be subject to ‘‘judicial interpretation’’ and that local self-government was limited to ‘‘internal affairs and administration.’’ Furthermore, in the case of Harris v.

Rosario, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that Puerto Rico remains an unincorporated

territory subject to the plenary authority of Congress under the territorial clause of

the Constitution.

Mr. Chairman, I am encouraged by the comprehensive schedule of hearings on

this bill both in Washington, D.C. and in Puerto Rico. The importance of listening

to all sides in this debate cannot be stressed enough and will serve to produce a

far stronger bill in the process.

After nearly 100 years as our colonial possession, it is clear that Puerto Rico must

either become a full, responsible and co-equal participant in our Union or become

a separate nation. H.R. 856 is the first step in this long process. I urge my colleagues to take the time to consider the impact their attention to this legislation

will have on the future of Puerto Rico and to understand their responsibility to resolve this issue now.

Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you and the other members of the Resources Committee for this opportunity to testify.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Peter. And I can assure that block

will be removed. We have our last Member. Nydia, you are up next.

Best for last.

STATEMENT OF HON. NYDIA VELA ́ ZQUEZ, A U.S.

REPRESENTATIVE FROM NEW YORK

Ms. VELA ́ ZQUEZ. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Chairman Young,

Mr. Miller, distinguished colleagues and distinguished witnesses,

thank you for giving me the opportunity to come before this Committee. It is my hope that we will work together in a constructive

fashion to finally reach a resolution to Puerto Rico’s status question. We should strive to respect the wishes of Puerto Ricans

throughout this process. Anything less and we would be dishonoring the memories of so many Puerto Ricans who gave their lives

for this country.

Puerto Ricans have put their faith in this government that true

self-determination would one day be achieved in a fair and democratic manner. Indeed, my colleagues, almost 100 years after Puerto Rico became part of the United States it is tragic to see the divisiveness this debate has caused. Instead, we should work together

to settle our differences and respect the wishes of the people of

Puerto Rico.

H.R. 856 was written without fully consulting the Puerto Rican

people. Yet, status definitions have historically been written with

such participation. The definitions in this legislation were not written in such manner. They are just a few of the many other shortcomings and unanswered questions.

This government has told the people of Puerto Rico and the

world that the island enjoys full self-government under the commonwealth. This bill simply does not treat commonwealth status
28

with inherent dignity it deserves and that was duly enacted in

1952. We went to the United Nations and we told the world in

1953 that it was a form of self-government.

One matter that is of utmost concern to all Puerto Ricans is the

right, their right, to maintain their language, their language rights.

And, yes, I do support the fact that the government of Puerto Rico

should have the responsibility of teaching English in the schools

and the Federal Government has a responsibility to provide the

funding that they need to achieve such a goal. And in light of the

deficits that we are facing in this country, I would like to see that

there is a commitment from this Congress to provide such funding.

Otherwise we are going to say to the people of Puerto Rico, yes, you

should learn English, you are part of the United States, and yet

we cannot provide the funding you need because we are doing programs that are so vital not only for Puerto Rico but also for the

many citizens of this country.

The bill mandates a long 10-year process for the people of Puerto

Rico to choose their status. Adding to this uncertainty is the fact

that there is nothing in this legislation that will actually guarantee

statehood if that option prevails. Consider that it took Alaska decades after it voted to become a State to finally be incorporated. The

105th Congress must have a clear proposal on any commitment to

resolve Puerto Rico’s status issue.

Instead of ensuring that the voices of all Puerto Ricans are

heard, this bill is silent on whether stateside Puerto Ricans will

participate in any future plebiscite. We must ensure that all those

who were born in Puerto Rico and care about the future of their

birthplace have the right to vote on such a monumental issue. Anything less would be unfair.

Furthermore, the legislation does not even address the question

of the full cost to the United States of Puerto Rico statehood. Nor

have we heard an official Administration position on this bill.

These fundamental, but essential, issues must be resolved or Congress will be forced to revisit this process again and again.

Not only does this bill lack full consultation, it is also not inclusive. This bill is especially troubling to me because the future of

the Puerto Rican people is what is at stake here. Think of the disturbing message we are sending to the world, who look to our country as a bastion of liberty and democracy.

My colleagues, let us make a commitment to provide a dialog

that will allow the Puerto Rican people to express themselves. I

strongly urge this Committee and the Congress to find solutions

that will help resolve the political status issue, but only with the

participation of all Puerto Ricans and all political parties from

Puerto Rico.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

[Statement of Nydia Vela ́zquez may be found at end of hearing.]

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Nydia. I will open it up for questions

at this time. Anybody? Yes, Mr. Miller.

Mr. MILLER. Mr. Chairman, if I might. Thank you. And I want

to thank the panel. I think it was an incredible presentation. I

would like—if I might ask you to expand on two points. Jose ́, if you

would expand on the issue about participation by people residing

in the United States in the election. And, Nydia and Luis, you both
29

raised the issue of—actually, Luis, I think, raised it more. Nydia

was also on the voting, but on the issue of if independence is chosen, the issue of access, where that would be, how that plays out

in the consideration of this legislation. If you might briefly expand

on that.

Mr. SERRANO. Thank you, Mr. Miller. First of all, as I said before, I believe that the bulk of the migration from Puerto Rico, certainly in the ’20’s, ’30’s, ’40’s, ’50’s and ’60’s and ’70’s, was a direct

result of the relationship between the United States and Puerto

Rico. For a long time the United States Government and Congress

paid very little attention to Puerto Rico’s economic problems.

I don’t recall my parents coming to New York in the late ’40’s

and denouncing Puerto Rico or its politicians. On the contrary, the

first thing all Puerto Ricans did was to set up a hometown organization to start a parade, to start a festival, to keep those links and

those ties going.

Since I believe that our migration was a direct result of that relationship, then when that relationship is resolved forever—and I

believe that eventually it will be resolved forever—it will be either

independence or statehood. That is what I believe, it should either

be independence or statehood. But then all the children of the colony, if you will, should be allowed to participate. And to me all the

children are those who were born there or those who were born of

parents born there.

Let me just say this very quickly. Look at the situation you have.

You have people who came to Puerto Rico from other countries and

established a relationship with the U.S. Government called citizenship through application for citizenship, not citizenship from the island of Puerto Rico, not an agreement with the people of Puerto

Rico but with the United States. Yet under our legislation, because

of our election laws, they will be allowed to vote on the future of

Puerto Rico while people who were born there and their children

would not be allowed to vote.

I repeat, I will never ask to vote for governor of Puerto Rico

while I reside in New York. That is improper. I will never ask for

any other kind of vote. But this vote is different. This vote belongs

to a people and this vote may finally come about after imposition

by the United States of a colonial status for a long time.

Mr. MILLER. Thank you. Luis.

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Well, let me just first say that in 1917 we passed

the Jones Act, which conferred upon the people of Puerto Rico, to

put it in those terms, American citizenship without their consultation. Indeed, Jose ́ de Diego responded to the Congress of the United

States through the only elected mechanism that was on the island

by saying thank you. But no thank you, the only other citizenship

that I want other than Puerto Rican citizenship is the one I get

after I have lived, which is the entrance into heaven, so that is the

only other citizenship I ever want. So I think that we need to understand that in terms of how it is we participate in this process.

So I would like to echo the sentiments of my friend Jose ́ from

New York to allow a greater expansion of this franchise, to allow

those Puerto Ricans in the United States to participate, because,

Mr. Miller, I read and I believe that Mr. Young believes that he

sais so in his opening statement—that in 1898 when the United
30

States invaded Puerto Rico as part of the Spanish-American War,

that somehow Puerto Rico lost its nationality, that somehow Puerto

Rico lost its sense of nation because we were adopted by the United

States of America.

I would suggest that Puerto Rico is a Latin American country,

has continued to be a Spanish-speaking, Latin American country

that happens to have American citizenship. So the nationality is

Puerto Rican. The citizenship is of the United States, which we all

share, so therefore all Puerto Ricans should all be able to participate.

Let me quickly answer your second question. I think, Mr. Miller,

that knowing the way this works obviously if you are a statehooder

in Puerto Rico, you can say that your status or your position guarantees Social Security and medicare and expansion of the franchises, lots of goodies and lots of good things and a lot of the things

that the Puerto Rican people have fought for and worked and sacrificed for.

Can’t we just be a little fair in terms of our relationship with

Puerto Rico by saying under independence those American citizens

that are part of the Nation of Puerto Rico will continue to receive

those benefits they have earned? We have to say that clearly and

unequivocally so that if an argument is raised in Congress that to

continue granting these benefits to Puerto Ricans is too expensive,

that we say, look, you know, there’s been American bases in Puerto

Rico for which we paid nothing for all these years.

Puerto Rico’s economy, as Jose ́ stated earlier, has suffered because we haven’t been able to enter into international trade with

other countries because our economy is somehow false and fictitious because it is a colonial situation. Here is what we are going

to do, but we want to enter into a new partnership so that we can

structure it in such a way that it is real, Mr. Miller, not false, that

it is real and a partnership so that we can say to the rest of Latin

America when Puerto Rico, which I am sure it will, achieves its full

independence one day; ‘‘look at the jewel of the democracy and the

relationship we have crafted with Puerto Rico after 100 or so years

of a colonial situation.’’ That would be our jewel and our way of

presenting to Latin America our new relationship with Puerto Rico.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Duncan.

Mr. DUNCAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. A witness who will

speak shortly says that one crucial question regarding statehood

for Puerto Rico is—comes about—the way he puts it, he says would

statehood be a realistic option so long as Puerto Rico’s per capita

income remains as it has for the past 50 years, one-third of the

United States and one-half of that of your poorest State, considering the repercussions of that reality on the Federal treasury.

That is a statement from Senator Ruben Berrı ́os-Martinez, President of the Puerto Rican Independence Party.

What—that does raise a question, I think, we should look at that

at some point. What would be the impact on the Federal treasury?

Can any of you help me in that regard?

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Let me just—quickly, the GAO released a study,

and I am sure we are going to debate it and discuss it quite a bit.

It said statehood would cost the Federal treasury $3 billion, but let

me just quickly add——
31

Mr. DUNCAN. $3 billion?

Mr. SERRANO. $3 billion a year.

Mr. DUNCAN. Over?

Mr. SERRANO. A year. Because of increased Medicaid and Medicare. But let me make two quick points. I think that Congress is

going to have to consider this as it balances the budget at the same

time. It is looking at a new entry, a full participant in the Nation.

So we are definitely going to have to do that. That is the situation

that we are going to have to fall on statehood, but we should tell

the people of Puerto Rico.

Mr. GUTIERREZ. But let me just quickly add that, Congressman,

if the Congress of the United States enacts the bill and our plebiscite occurs thereafter and statehood would win that plebiscite

under the rules, as a Member of Congress from a Congressional

district which is the poorest in the State of Illinois and one of the

poorest in the nation, if you are willing to go back to your district

and tell the people of your district that we need self-determination,

we need to respect that position, I will tell you one thing. I will go

back to the poorest people in my district and say the $3 billion is

just something that we are going to have to pay as a Nation.

Mr. DUNCAN. Nydia.

Ms. VELA ́ ZQUEZ. I would like to also react to that, because I think

it is important when I mention that the cost of statehood has not

been clearly stated throughout this legislation because once we are

committed as the United States Congress to recognize the rights of

the people of Puerto Rico to self-determination, and if in fact the

people of Puerto Rico vote for statehood, I want to see a commitment from this institution that we will respect that will expressed

freely by the people of Puerto Rico, so that we don’t come back here

and then in the debate, during the debate process we are discussing here how much it is going to cost, statehood is going to cost

to the United States treasury. And then there might be some of us

who supported the process of self-determination for the Puerto

Rican people, but when we find out how much it is going to cost

and when we have to determine whether or not we will support

it—because here we are balancing the budget and dealing with the

deficit of this Nation and then you have to say well, in order to

achieve this we might have to cut certain vital programs in our

own districts.

The CHAIRMAN. Would the gentleman yield?

Mr. MCCOLLUM. If I could respond just very quickly that I think

that there are two issues. One is I assume you are going to have

economists who are going to say the exact opposite, that the economy of Puerto Rico is really—that there is a weight on it right now

in commonwealth status. The uncertainty of commonwealth status

is really a hindrance to capital formation. I mean, if you have been

to Puerto Rico, you can just literally see with your eyes the economic potential that exists in that country, in that island at this

point at time, incredible.

And I would also point that you can find economists who are

going to disagree on the economic impact to the Federal budget,

but I think history tells its lessons well. Florida’s income was far

less, the percentage points, than Puerto Rico when Florida became

a State. And there are examples and examples and examples of ter-
32

ritories becoming States where what has happened on a historical

basis and that those economies have grown and have ultimately become incredible positive impacts to the treasury.

The CHAIRMAN. I would like to make one comment. Be very careful about reporting GAO reports. I have one in my possession, in

fact, that shows that we—the treasury gains $50 million a year, because there is a lot of money going down there. Regardless of the

cost, there is a justice question here, I think, that has to be addressed. I want to suggest one other thing. I am the last person

other than my good friend Neil from Hawaii that went through this

process. And if you had looked at the income of Alaska and the people that were employed in Alaska at the time of statehood, we were

in dire straits. Now I want to suggest we are in much better shape

now than most any other State in the union. We could not have

been that unless we were an independent nation. I will tell that.

And I could be king instead of Chairman.

Mr. ROMERO-BARCELO ́. Will the gentleman yield?

The CHAIRMAN. I am going to yield to——

Mr. ROMERO-BARCELO ́. Mr. Duncan, will you yield, sir? Mr. Duncan, can you state what your—just for your information, because

of the hearing. When you asked what would be the cost to the Federal Government for Puerto Rico to become a State, the comment

that Mr. McCollum made is partly true. It is true that when we

become a State the additional programs that will go to Puerto Rico

that are not being paid over now would represent, I think, a little

bit more than 3 billion, would represent 3–1/2 billion additional

funding, but at the same time we are not paying any Federal income tax. If we pay Federal income taxes fully, we would pay about

4 billion to 4–1/2 billion. So they—it would be a—and that is for

everything, for the Federal Government, Puerto Rico becoming a

State; so we will be paying in taxes and the corporations will be

paying in taxes and what Puerto Rico will be receiving.

The CHAIRMAN. Gentlemen, let us see, who is next? I would say

the gentleman from Guam because he was here early.

Mr. UNDERWOOD. Thank you. Just a quick clarification. I was

very interested in the determination of the franchise for participation in these plebiscites. And, Jose ́, you mentioned that you

thought that the franchise—you alluded to it, but it wasn’t in your

written testimony. What are your sentiments about the franchise

in Puerto Rico itself? Who should participate in Puerto Rico?

Mr. SERRANO. Well, obviously in all of my comments I have always said that we should—. Let me back up and say a lot of people

have said the reason you can’t have a vote outside is because you

can’t carry out that vote. It is hard to carry it out. But it is hard

for me to believe that the most democratic nation on earth cannot

conduct an election outside Puerto Rico for people who would be eligible to vote. But those people who live in Puerto Rico now who

were born in Puerto Rico would be allowed to vote. There are laws

that cover that currently. What I want is, this one time, to have

Congress state that we would add something to this bill which

would allow people over here to vote.

Mr. UNDERWOOD. So if I moved to Puerto Rico before this, you

wouldn’t anticipate that I should be part of the franchise?
33

Mr. SERRANO. Well, I am very honest about this. My statement

is very simple, and if it contradicts law, so be it. I don’t have a

problem with it.

Mr. UNDERWOOD. No, actually I like the idea. I am just trying

to get you to say yes.

Mr. SERRANO. No, I don’t have a problem with you voting if I am

allowed to vote, but I have a serious problem with you voting when

you weren’t born there if I am not allowed to vote.

Mr. UNDERWOOD. But you are a very special person, so of course

we would make special considerations——

The CHAIRMAN. All right, I believe, Patrick, you are next if you

have any questions.

Mr. KENNEDY. No.

The CHAIRMAN. No questions. Donna, you are up.

Ms. CHRISTIAN-GREEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I would

like to add my commendation to the Chairman and the ranking

member for bringing this bill forward and thank my colleagues for

coming today and giving that important testimony. I want to say

that I support this process. And my concern here is that the people

of Puerto Rico be given a process in which they can freely and fairly vote and realize their hopes and aspirations through this process.

[Statement of Hon. Donna Christian-Green follows:]

STATEMENT OF HON. DONNA CHRISTIAN-GREEN, A U.S. DELEGATE IN CONGRESS

FROM THE VIRGIN ISLANDS

Mr. Chairman, Ranking member, thank you for this opportunity to give brief

opening remarks on H.R. 856, a bill to provide a process leading to full self government for Puerto Rico.

This process is an important one, and one which I am committed to see go forward.

My only concern, and what I see as my duty, as we move forward, is to insure

that the people of Puerto Rico have a process in which they will be able to choose

freely and fairly the status which most realizes their hopes and aspirations.

In order to have this happen, it is important that each option be presented objectively and be given equal treatment in the bill.

It would be a travesty for the people of Puerto Rico to choose an option based on

misunderstanding the issues involved, or on limited or lack of knowledge of how the

proposed change would impact their lives.

I take special interest in this process, not only on behalf of the People of Puerto

Rico, our neighbors and our friends, but because of the importance of this process

to all of the off-shore possessions. Each one of us is or will be traveling the path

of redefinition of our relationship to the U.S.

What happens here will set the precedent and the tone for us.

I want to take this opportunity to welcome the witnesses, and to express my confidence that we can work together to make this vehicle of Puerto Rican self-expression one that will truly result in the future that its citizens desire.

Ms. CHRISTIAN-GREEN. I am not sure if the question was that—

my questions was along the lines of Guam. I would like to address

it to Congressman Gutierrez. You said that people who had resided

in Puerto Rico for 70 days should not really be allowed to participate in this process. Do you have——

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Let me—thank you, Congresswoman, for the

question. The way I read the bill, and Congressman Young is here

and I am sure he will correct me quickly.

The CHAIRMAN. Especially when I have got the gavel.

Mr. GUTIERREZ. The way I read the bill is that those who would

be allowed to participate in the electoral process, that we would use
34

provisions of the local laws of Puerto Rico. We would not establish

our own electoral law in this decolonizing process, that we would

just adopt the laws of—the local law in Puerto Rico. And I understand, and I could be mistaken, that if 70 days prior to an election

I would—thank you.

The Governor has just—OK, you have to establish residency. The

point is that this is a very short period of time that I can arrive

on the island of Puerto Rico and I can participate. My point is my

mom and dad may be in Chicago. Nydia’s mom and dad may be

in New York. We don’t know—I mean, the franchise of the Puerto

Rican people. And my point is this, and I think it is a very important point. As you go through a process, you have to figure out who

the nationals are of the Nation that are going through the process

of decolonization as it is adopting self-government and self-rule.

So let us just figure out what that definition—for example, Mexico has adopted dual nationality. The government of Mexico has

stated that if you were born in Mexico or you are the child, firstgeneration child, of a person born in Mexico, you are a national.

Now you can become and adopt American citizenship, as many

Mexican nationals have done, and become citizens of this country,

yet Mexico still regards you a Mexican who has been naturalized

as an American citizen as their national. So I think we can figure

out a way of doing this, and I think that it is very, very important.

I met a young man from Eritrea, and he got to vote, even though

he was in Washington, D.C., on the ultimate status resolution of

Eritrea, because he was a national of Eritrea. Although he had become a citizen of the United States of America, he was still a national of that country. So that is all I want to determine, who the

nationals of Puerto Rico are.

We may expand the franchise. I was fortunate enough to read

the comments of the senator from Puerto Rico, Ruben Berrı ́os,

where he suggests, you know, maybe some people who have lived

there for a while—let us just figure out what the rule is so that

we can make it more inclusive.

Ms. CHRISTIAN-GREEN. And one other question. There are several

of us territories that also feel that the history as it is written and

studies in schools—I believe that was Congressman McCollum’s

statement, that the history of all of the territories should be included. Some of us are not yet going through this process. Do you

believe that the process in this bill is one that can set a precedent

for the rest of us such as the Virgin Islands, American Samoa?

Mr. GUTIERREZ. I think if we adopt this bill, regardless of how

I believe, it will set the precedent. And let me just quickly add, because you bring up the question of territory, I think one of the

greatest points of consternation, especially for me, is this debate

and the struggle that I have of being an independentista on one

hand and struggling for independence and knowing that that is the

rightful place of the people of Puerto Rico to enter into, and then

the issue of self-determination and consultation with the people of

Puerto Rico. And the problem that I have there is that it seems to

me—and there is a big debate.

If indeed in 1952 we enacted legislation and we went to the United Nations and we said to the United Nations and to their Committee on Decolonization, excuse me, the government of the United
35

States of America has entered into an agreement with the people

of Puerto Rico for self-rule, please remove us from having to report

before the Committee on Decolonization. And that was a process

that was adopted by the Congress of the United States and accepted by the people of Puerto Rico. It seems to me that in the early

1950’s the people in Puerto Rico made a decision, and it may be

a decision that clearly stated we are a separate, distinct people who

want a relationship, an autonomous relationship with the United

States.

But the other thing that the United Nations—and sometimes we

forget, the United Nations said, you know something, that is really

not enough, because we don’t really think this whole process has

been completely decolonized, so we want you to continue to perfect

it. The problem has been that the Congress of the United States

has rejected many of the perfections proposed for the autonomy

status of Puerto Rico. So I think we should consider that as we

evaluate the current situation.

Mr. SERRANO. If I may, Mr. Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN. Just—she is about out of time, and I am going

to suggest one thing.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN. Yes.

Mr. KENNEDY. I would like to hear Congressman Serrano’s response to that, because this is——

The CHAIRMAN. I was going to do that, but if you would like to

be recognized for that purpose, go ahead, because you said you

didn’t want to be recognized. Go ahead.

Mr. KENNEDY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I do think this is the

point that I want to hear, sort of, resolved through talking it out,

because it is hanging over us with Nydia’s comment that we

haven’t recognized fully the commonwealth portion of this debate.

And what it means to the people of Puerto Rico to have independence, do they maintain their citizenship, as I believe they should

if they were—they are citizens of this country. They will remain

citizens. And their rights with respect to their benefits that they

have earned and the like. I want to understand that within the

context of independence as opposed to maintaining commonwealth

status where it seems, according to you, Jose ́, that you are still in

a period of limbo because this Committee and this Congress is still

deciding a lot of the issues with respect to Puerto Rico. So,

Jose ́——

Mr. SERRANO. Sure, and it ties into the answer to your question

in that what this bill does is—and the reason I applaud this bill

is—by the time this bill passes Congress and the vote is taken in

Puerto Rico, every American who pays attention to these issues

will know there is a Puerto Rico, there is a territorial situation,

there is an issue to be dealt with. The world will be commenting

on it. Some pressure will be coming on us. We will have to work

on it. Right now that doesn’t exist.

Secondly, I believe that after 100 years of a relationship, if Puerto Rico determines that it wants to be an independent nation, it

would not be improper. But it would also be fair, out of this relationship, to say, that everyone who was born up till 12:00 noon on

the day of independence is an American citizen forever, till death.
36

That at minimum as a payment for what they did in wartime and

in other times throughout the history of——

Mr. KENNEDY. I agree with you. Now how would that be reconciled with Nydia’s concern about commonwealth, some aspect?

Because I have the feeling that independence while maintaining

the rights and benefits earned by citizens of this country during

this limbo period is what is also being confused with commonwealth. So what I am trying to understand is we probably have a

question instead of sort of splitting the hairs between independence

and maintaining rights and commonwealth——

Mr. SERRANO. To me, Mr. Kennedy, it is totally different.

Mr. KENNEDY. OK.

Mr. SERRANO. And the way I break it down is the way nobody

wants to hear it. If they were independent, they could establish relationships with Cuba tomorrow. They can’t right now.

Mr. KENNEDY. OK.

Mr. SERRANO. As a commonwealth, they can’t do that. Now citizenship if you expand commonwealth as some people would like,

you really create an associated republic. Independence is clear. All

I am saying is if independence comes out of the process—I hate to

use this paternalistic approach, but when my children leave the

house after they get married, they never stop being part of the

family. There is always room for them. I always look out for them.

If they need some cash, I try to help with that too. So after 100

years being used as a colony, the least you should do is keep your

citizenship. You paid for it in Korea, Vietnam and everywhere else.

Mr. KENNEDY. Is this—I am interested—Nydia, would you say

that what Jose ́ is talking about would satisfy your concerns——

Ms. VELA ́ ZQUEZ. No.

Mr. KENNEDY.—about whether commonwealth is properly recognized in this——

Ms. VELA ́ ZQUEZ. I would say that in 1952 and in 1950 and ’52

and ’53 when we went to the United Nations, this government, the

United States government, went to the United Nations and stated

very clearly that the people of Puerto Rico achieved self-government through a bilateral compact. And all of a sudden we come

here and we delete history after we went there. We told the people

that government was there, and it has been unfair, the fact that

people—44 percent of the people of Puerto Rico in 1993 voted in a

plebiscite that wasn’t polled by the Popular Democratic Party because they didn’t—they weren’t in power. They didn’t control both

houses like the NPP, and this is what happened. They went and

they said those 44 percent of the population of the voters, they

voted for the commonwealth. Are you going to go and tell them

that you don’t have any say in the definition of the commonwealth?

And this is the way that we comply with the aspirations of 44 percent of the people of Puerto Rico, and this is the way that we will

achieve decolonization and full self-government? I don’t believe so.

Mr. KENNEDY. As to——

The CHAIRMAN. We are going to have a vote in ten minutes, and

I have got some Members who would like to ask questions. Governor.

Mr. ROMERO-BARCELO ́. Mr. Chairman, thank you. First of all I

would like to—for the matter of the record, I would like to mention
37

a couple of things. There is a discrepancy in Puerto Rico as to what

happened in 1898, whether we were invaded or troops were asked

to come in. And the vast majority of historians seeem to think, and

the people who remember seem to think that the troops were actually—the United States was actually asked to come in, because the

people of Puerto Rico, the vast majority, were not happy with their

relationship with Spain at that time. So that is a matter of history

and the record should be put straight, set straight on these issues.

Then regarding who should vote, you have already seen a little

bit of discrepancy between what the panel—Congressman Serrano

says and what Congressman Gutierrez says and what Congressman Vela ́zquez says. Congressman Gutierrez will extend to the

children of those who were born in Puerto Rico, whereas Congressman Serrano says only those who were born in Puerto Rico. I have

to——

Mr. SERRANO. No, that——

Mr. ROMERO-BARCELO ́. You assent to the children of those who

were born?

Mr. SERRANO. Absolutely.

Mr. ROMERO-BARCELO ́. And would deny people who were not

born in Puerto Rico?

Mr. SERRANO. Not if I would get it. They should get it.

Mr. ROMERO-BARCELO ́. OK, that means virtually that my wife

could not vote. My wife has been in Puerto Rico now for 30-some

years, has children in Puerto Rico and grandchildren.

Mr. SERRANO. And neither should my wife.

Mr. ROMERO-BARCELO ́. Well, your wife doesn’t live in Puerto

Rico.

Mr. SERRANO. I am saying, Congressman, that, if we come to the

conclusion to include us, we will work it out.

Mr. ROMERO-BARCELO ́. Well, let me—what right does somebody

that is not going to live the benefits of dire consequences of the decision, because he is going to live up here in the mainland, have

to tell—influence the decision of the people of Puerto Rico who are

the ones that are going to be affected by that decision? What right

do you have to tell me and others in Puerto Rico that you should

do this and you actually participate in the decision when you are

going to be outside Puerto Rico and you are not going to be living

in Puerto Rico? I think—isn’t that the position? Isn’t that treating

us also like a colony? The Puerto Ricans here now are going to

treat us as a colony?

Mr. SERRANO. You want an answer to that, Carlos?

Mr. ROMERO-BARCELO ́. Yes.

Mr. SERRANO. This whole process is an imposition. Luis was correct. If this was about fairness and justice, the United States

should get out now, tomorrow morning. But that is not going to

happen. The whole process is an imposition. But it is a little imposition in a big imposition to include all of us. It is not a problem,

really. It is really not a problem. I think we could work it out.

Mr. ROMERO-BARCELO ́. Let me ask another question. You say

that the children can go and those that were born. Those who were

born in Puerto Rico should vote even though they are living here.

Now supposing somebody was in Puerto Rico visiting from the

States and they had a child and they were there for a few weeks
38

and then they left and the child left and they came over now and

they have been living in Wisconsin. Now that child grew up in Wisconsin. He is not going back to Puerto Rico. He has children here.

Then he and his children should be able to vote in Puerto Rico on

that decision.

Mr. SERRANO. If I could answer——

The CHAIRMAN. If I can, we are in a voting process. And this is

a very interesting discussion and debate. It is not going to be

solved right now at this time. I am going to suggest that—I am

going to thank the panel, number one. I think it was a very excellent presentation. I am proud of this legislation. I think everybody

knows that I want the change, because I will agree with the Governor and Congressman Serrano about the status quo is no longer

acceptable. So we are going to go forth in this legislative process.

And I am hoping everybody will take the opportunity—I am sure

the people of Puerto Rico will participate in this discussion, and so

will the members of this Committee. But in due respect to the next

panel, I would suggest at this time that this panel be excused and

we will go vote and then the next panel will be on when we get

back so we can expedite this process. This hearing is recessing till

20 minutes to one o’clock. Thank you.

[Recess]

The CHAIRMAN. It gives me a great honor at this time to introduce the Honorable Governor, Governor Pedro Rossello ́ of Puerto

Rico. He will be on the witness stand. And I just want to welcome

you, Governor, as one that has dealt with many other governors

over a period of time. And being in your great territory, I certainly

have enjoyed your hospitality and your willingness to share your

views as well as those of the people in Puerto Rico. So welcome,

Governor, at this time.

STATEMENT OF PEDRO ROSSELLO, GOVERNOR OF PUERTO

RICO, SAN JUAN, PUERTO RICO

Mr. ROSSELLO ́. Thank you very much, Chairman Young, and

members of the Committee on Resources. For the record, my name

is Pedro Rossello ́. Since 1993 I have been Governor of Puerto Rico.

And in that capacity on two occasions I presented statements to the

104th Congress that may be of interest to each one of you.

On October 17, 1995, here in Washington I addressed a hearing

conducted jointly by this Committee, the Committee’s Native American and Insular Affairs Subcommittee, and by the Subcommittee

of the Western Hemisphere of the House Committee on International Relations. Then on March 23, 1996, I appeared before the

Native American and Insular Affairs Subcommittee at a hearing

conducted in San Juan. My October 1995 statement pertained to a

November 1993 political status consultation organized by the government of Puerto Rico with the full support of all three Puerto

Rican political parties. My March 1996 statement pertained to H.R.

3024, a bill filed by Chairman Young which bore the same title as

the measure before us today.

Because of their relevance and because they may be particularly

useful to members of this Committee that did not serve on the

aforementioned Subcommittees of the last Congress, I shall be

grateful if the Chairman will make copies of those statements
39

available to every member of the Committee on Resources of this

105th Congress.

Although I am the president of a political party, and although I

do strongly advocate one specific solution to Puerto Rico’s status dilemma, I wish to emphasize at the outset that my declarations at

this hearing shall be solely in my role as chief executive of the government of Puerto Rico and on behalf of the people of Puerto Rico

as a recipient this past November of the largest electorate mandate

granted to any gubernatorial candidate in Puerto Rico since 1964.

In addressing you as Governor and as a spokesperson for a

strong mandate from the people of Puerto Rico to move toward the

final definition and decision on our political status, I see it as my

duty to concentrate exclusively on offering my assistance as you

commence to the profoundly important process of evaluating H.R.

856, the United States-Puerto Rico Political Status Act.

For the past eight years all the people of Puerto Rico and the

United States Government have manifested a commendable commitment to addressing this issue seriously, responsibly and in an

impressively nonpartisan manner. In 1989 a pro-commonwealth

governor enlisted the backing of all three Puerto Rico political parties in soliciting action from the Federal Government. That petition

produced an earnest and positive response from a Republican

President and a Congress that was controlled by Democrats. More

than two years of dedicated effort resulted from that initiative.

The effort fell short, but we must say it did not fail. Rather it

left behind a valuable foundation upon which we have been building ever since. And so it was that my administration, led by a prostatehood governor, succeeded four years ago and maintained a

united front of Puerto Rico political parties in resuming the quest

for a solution to the status dilemma. And so it was, too, that with

a Democrat in the White House and Republican majorities on Capitol Hill, Washington has remained equally united since 1995 in

pursuit of a mutually satisfactory remedy to the universally acknowledged inadequacy of Puerto Rico’s current relationship with

the rest of our fellow citizens of the United States of America.

President Bill Clinton reiterated his commitment at the beginning of this year in a letter that was read aloud by his personal

representative during my second term inauguration ceremony in

January. The President wrote, and I quote, ‘‘I will work with you,

the island’s other elected leaders, the Congress and all concerned

to establish a process that would enable the fundamental issue of

Puerto Rico’s political status to finally be resolved.’’

Here in the House, for their part, Chairman Young and Ranking

Member Miller have localized a broad bipartisan coalition with the

solid backing of Speaker Newt Gingrich and the gentleman from

Puerto Rico, Congressman Carlos Romero-Barcelo ́. On the Senate

side, Chairman Frank Murkowski visited Puerto Rico this past

weekend, leading a bipartisan delegation from his Energy and Natural Resources Committee. The senators held lengthy meetings

with senior officials from the political parties representing Puerto

Rico status options.

In light of these developments, I can state for the record that the

people of Puerto Rico are looking forward with enthusiasm to the

imminent exercise by Congress of its constitutional responsibility to
40

collaborate with us on converting the chronic conundrum of Puerto

Rico’s status into a shining star of statesmanship. I am convinced

that together we can do it, Mr. Chairman. Through a determined,

persistent, unflagging effort and an unshakable allegiance to patriotic civility, we can indeed do it. Moreover, I suggest we can do it

expeditiously.

I commend you, Mr. Chairman, for having requested of each

Puerto Rico political party that it submit by March 31 a proposed

definition which it believe will be most appropriate for the status

option it supports. It is my understanding that each of the parties

intends to comply with that request. You acted expeditiously, Mr.

Chairman, in filing H.R. 856. You acted expeditiously in scheduling

this hearing. You acted expeditiously in requesting status definitions. And I urge you that we likewise expedite the entire process

contemplated by this bill.

A year ago this week in my testimony regarding H.R. 3024 I proposed that the process be streamlined. Like that earlier bill, H.R.

856 envisions, and I quote, ‘‘a transition plan of ten years minimum, which leads to full self-government for Puerto Rico consistent

with the terms of this act.’’ Nothing has transpired during the past

12 months to alter my outlook on this aspect of that legislation.

Accordingly, I take this opportunity to urge once again that this

bill’s three stages, initial decision, transition, and implementation,

be consolidated into two stages. I feel certain that the transition

and implementation stages can be combined in such a way as to

eliminate any need for conducting the interim referendum that is

stipulated by the bill under the provisions set forth in its transition

stage.

If the people of Puerto Rico do embrace full self-government during the initial decision stage, I see no reason why ten or more additional years must elapse before we are able to cast a definite yes

or no vote on a presidentially submitted and a Congressionally approved implementation formula.

A streamlining of this nature would save time, energy and

money. It would facilitate the completion of the entire process with

the utmost, focused attention to detail during that period that

could easily be reduced to a maximum of four to five years. But

more than that, by expediting matters, we can help to ensure that

the United States-Puerto Rico Political Status Act achieves its purpose, because by expediting matters we can greatly enhance the

likelihood that the momentum of this historic undertaking will not

be weakened by unforeseen events that could occur as we go forward. And furthermore, it would send a strong message to all that

Congress is ready and committed to act.

When I first offered the suggestion at the San Juan hearing of

March 1996, my exact words were these. ‘‘Ten years, I respectfully

submit, is an inordinately long time. Ten years ago there were two

Germanies 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

ten-year minimum, I believe, is more time than we need.’’

Today, in March 1997, I stand by those words. I earnestly propose that a mechanism be designed that will allow the people of

Puerto Rico and our fellow citizens throughout the United States
41

to conclude at the sunrise of the 21st Century an extremely significant item of unfinished business that has awaited this nation’s undivided attention ever since the twilight hours of the 19th Century.

To that end and in that spirit, Mr. Chairman and members of

the Committee, you can count on me. You can count on me to work

with you, with your Congressional colleagues, with the President

and with the people of Puerto Rico. You can count on my good faith

and my goodwill and my unwavering commitment to the fundamental principles of civil rights and human dignity that this bill so

eloquently embodies, the principles of liberty and justice for all.

And may God bless each and every person who participates in

this noble endeavor. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Governor. I want to compliment you

on an excellent statement. Not only that, I was willing to give you

a little more time. It is hard for a Governor or a Senator or a Congressman to put anything in five minutes, so I want to congratulate you. Excellently done.

Mr. ROSSELLO ́. We don’t need much more time.

The CHAIRMAN. All right, excellently done. I may have some

questions, but I will defer to my good friend from Puerto Rico at

this time and then go right down the line if you have any questions. You don’t have to ask questions.

Mr. ROMERO-BARCELO ́. I don’t have any questions for the Governor. I know we have talked a lot about this issue many, many

times. I just want to congratulate him on his statement and everything that he has done to make sure that this process continues

and we reach an agreement and have a vote by 1998 and then look

forward to entering the new millennium with Puerto Rico no longer

being a colony. Thank you.

Mr. ROSSELLO ́. Thank you to our Congressman.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Kildee.

Mr. KILDEE. I just want to thank Governor Rossello ́. It is good

to see you again. I enjoyed my trip down to Puerto Rico last year

and look forward to come down there again. And I share your concern about the ten years also. I would like to discuss that more

fully with you. Thank you very much.

Mr. ROSSELLO ́. Thank you.

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Guam.

Mr. UNDERWOOD. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Governor, for an excellent statement. It is true that it is hard to encapsulate all the emotions of the people within five minutes.

Much has been made of the year 1898 in some of the previous

testimony, and you alluded to it in terms of taking care of a problem that has been with us since the end of the 19th Century. I believe earlier it was stated that Puerto Rico is the longest running

colony under the U.S. flag. I did some quick research during the

break and found out that Guam nosed you out by one month.

So I hope that the—in a way, it is a difficult issue to address,

because I fully respect and understand that this is Puerto Rico’s

day and this is a day to analyze and understand the meaning and

the impact of the Puerto Rican experience and how this country

will deal with that. And actually in support of that, I have submitted—my earlier testimony was in support of that, and also as part

of that I submitted a statement from Governor Gutierrez in his ca-
42

pacity as Chairman of the Commission on Self-Determination that

is in support of that.

So it was some surprise, Mr. Chairman, that I note that there

were some materials in the packets distributed about Guam. And

in a sense I was—I am expressing some of my concern about that,

but I just want to make the obvious distinction between Guam and

Puerto Rico. The obvious distinction is that Puerto Rico, because of

its size and its impact, I think, on the American consciousness, has

a fuller range of options, viable political options, available to it

than Guam has. But the fervor to deal with the issue is no less on

Guam, and I am sure you understand and appreciate that.

And while our—it is an interesting dynamic, because we are really linked in terms of the Spanish-American War. It always—I always found it fascinating that the Spanish-American War was

fought allegedly over issues in the Caribbean, yet the first strikes

were in the Philippines and Guam, which always leads me to believe that there was something else at stake in the minds of all the

people who carried the American flag at that time. So while we

nosed you out by a month, I look forward to resolving your issues

and I will be courteous and hope that these issues will be resolved

and will be patient, but I hope we don’t have to wait too long after

you. Thank you.

The CHAIRMAN. I thank the gentleman from Guam. He has been

very persistent in discussing this issue with me, and I believe the

literature in your documents—I was going to ask unanimous consent they be submitted for the record as it was requested.

Mr. MILLER. That is granted.

The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, so ordered.

[The information may be found at end of hearing.] ???

The CHAIRMAN. The gentlelady from the Virgin Islands.

Ms. CHRISTIAN-GREEN. Good afternoon, Governor. Thank you for

your testimony. I am concerned about the issues raised by Congresswoman Vela ́zquez. And I wanted to know from you if you were

satisfied that within the bill the Congress gives sufficient commitment to supporting the decision of the people of Puerto Rico.

Mr. ROSSELLO ́. I think the bill addresses in a very positive fashion the valid alternatives that Puerto Rico should and would have.

Essentially if we look at this from the perspective of answering one

question, whether Puerto Rico wants to remain under U.S. sovereignty or not, then everything becomes very clear. If you want to

remain under U.S. sovereignty, the Constitution addresses only two

options. You can either be a State or you can be a territory under

the plenary powers of Congress under the territorial law. Those are

the two options if you answer the question that you want to remain

under U.S. sovereignty with U.S. citizenship.

If the answer is no, then you have the other panel. You can go

toward a separate sovereignty under which you would have all the

powers of any independent nation, or you could modify that by a

treaty or a compact between two independent nations. But that

would be outside the U.S. sovereignty and outside U.S. citizenship.

In that sense, the question is very simple. You answer it yes or no.

U.S. sovereignty and U.S. citizenship and then you have these two

options, or outside U.S. sovereignty with a separate citizenship and

a separate sovereignty.
43

From my perspective, if the question is answered that Puerto

Rico should remain under U.S. sovereignty with U.S. citizenship,

the option of remaining a territory, for me, is not valid, but I think

it is pertinent and I suggested it and Chairman Young has accepted including the option of the current status under U.S. sovereignty and under the territorial clause as an option. I don’t think

it is valid. I don’t think it is valid, but that is my personal opinion.

But I think it allows everybody in Puerto Rico to have a valid option which they can support.

Ms. CHRISTIAN-GREEN. Thank you.

Ms. CUBIN. Are there any further questions from anyone else?

Mr. Faleomavaega.

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Thank you, Madam Chairman, and I certainly would like to offer my personal welcome to the Governor of

Puerto Rico for his fine testimony. And I want to say I believe,

Governor, it was by your suggestion of the process as we were reviewing the provisions of the previous bill that was introduced that

the option of commonwealth also be included, given the fact that

there are some very strong disagreements in the whole process,

just as we have heard earlier from some of the Members. I had

hoped that Congressman Serrano would be here, because his preference would have been don’t even include the commonwealth option, it is either statehood or independence.

And I wanted to ask you, as you know, there are so many—so

much a mixture of views in the Congress as far as the issue of

Puerto Rico is concerned. I don’t need to say that. There are some

Members who have very strong feelings who are advocating about

the—and I hate to see Puerto Rico being used as a scapegoat concerning the English only or the English first debate that is now

going on here in the halls of the Congress.

I wanted to ask you, should the Congress equate statehood with

dollars?

Mr. ROSSELLO ́. With what?

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. With dollar signs. I am unfortunate to say

that there will be some Members who view it strictly for the dollar

signs rather than looking at it as a matter of principle. I believe

my good friend from Puerto Rico has given indications earlier that

if the people of Puerto Rico were to become a State, that your contributions toward the income tax system would be a lot more than

what it would cost. And I think that is certainly commendable.

But I—you know, at the time that we held hearings in Puerto

Rico, Governor, as you well remember, the former candidate for

president, Pat Buchanan, came out with a very strong accusation

which I strongly disagreed with that this would create a welfare

state for Puerto Rico should statehood become the option.

But I wanted to ask your response. Should the Congress equate

statehood with dollar signs?

Mr. ROSSELLO ́. I think that in discussing this issue the main parameter should be the parameter of civil rights. I have not seen

anybody in this Congress saying that because a certain population

in Alabama or Mississippi or Iowa is deprived of their citizen

rights, that they will not move to ensure those citizens’ rights on

the basis of cost alone. I think it is a valid point to argue about,

but I think when we discuss this we should have the cost related
44

to statehood, to commonwealth and to independence. Each one has

a cost. Each one has an economic cost and each one has political

or other costs.

So if we want to discuss the issue on that scenario, we have to

make sure that we project the cost of remaining as we are now.

And the costs are considerable. And I would suggest that the costs

are higher than if you would go toward statehood, because at some

time Puerto Rico will become a contributing partner to the union,

to the nation. So if the cost issue is discussed, it has to be discussed on equal terms for all options.

Independence has a cost, and we will hear and we have heard

independence proponents suggest that the United States keep some

measure of payments to Puerto Rico. So each one has some costs

and we should define what those costs are and what the net flows

of costing toward Puerto Rico and for Puerto Rico to the United

States would be. And I think, again, the main issue here is one of

civil rights, whether we can indeed keep 3.8 million U.S. citizens

from having their full citizen rights or in the opposite extreme

allow them to be independent and exercise their full rights to a

separate sovereignty.

That is the basic issue here. The cost issue, I think, is pertinent,

but it should not be overriding, and when it is analyzed it should

be analyzed for the three options that are presented in this bill.

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Governor, I appreciate you elaborating on

that question I raised, but, you know, as far as I am concerned you

can never equate any dollar sign to the——

Mr. ROSSELLO ́. I agree.

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. [continuing]—blood the sons and daughters

of Puerto Rico have shed for all these years in the wars that have

been fought.

Mr. ROSSELLO ́. I agree with you.

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. And I really—to me it is an insult to think

that any option that Puerto Rican people should choose, that we

have to put dollar signs to make that as a measurement. I think

that the people of Puerto Rico have made the ultimate sacrifices,

as they have already, and I sincerely hope that the Congress will

be receptive to whatever option the Puerto Rican people decide for

themselves in the future.

Mr. ROSSELLO ́. Thank you for your views. I share them totally,

but since I know that we will not be able to curtail the debate, it

will come up naturally as long as we are, in a sense, conscious of

what the priorities are. And as long as we debate even those other

aspects which may be economic or which may be others, that we

keep in mind your eloquently stated position the rights of the people over the cost.

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Thank you, Governor. Thank you, Madam

Chairman.

Ms. CUBIN. And the gentleman from Illinois, did you have some

questions?

Mr. GUTIERREZ. There are no other members of the Committee?

Ms. CUBIN. Oh, Mr. Kennedy.

Mr. KENNEDY. Thank you, Madam Chair. And thank you, Governor, for your testimony. I wanted to go back to a question I asked

in the last panel and ask you to answer it as well. Put into context
45

the plebiscite that has been the source of much consternation with

respect to the confusion that was related to it so that we don’t end

up repeating past mistakes and further exacerbating the feeling of

frustration of the Puerto Rican people about their own self-determination. Would you comment on Ms. Vela ́zquez’s points that she

made in the last panel with respect to the 1953 agreement between

the United States and the United Nations with respect to enhanced

commonwealth, the fact that this country did not respect that and

did not fully heed its obligations under that or whether it was part

of the territorial status that you spoke about just in the past question that was asked. And is it possible to have a bilateral relationship as is promised by advanced commonwealth, or is that not possible? Could you explain whether—more about your opinions about

these issues.

Mr. ROSSELLO ́. The 1993 referendum in Puerto Rico did have an

effect. These hearings are the result of that referendum or that

plebiscite. We have seen that the legislature of Puerto Rico on two

occasions has asked the Congress to respond to those results of the

1993 plebiscite in Puerto Rico. It was a plebiscite that was locally

authorized, did not have a commitment from Congress, and on the

basis of that plebiscite the legislature on two occasions has asked

Congress to act.

I think this bill is a response to that 1993 plebiscite. I think this

bill embodies the answer of Congress to the 1993 plebiscite. And

in doing its—in assuming its responsibilities under the Constitution of authorizing a Congressionally sponsored plebiscite with

Congressionally defined, valid options, I think that is the most

positive response that we would have expected from Congress. So

I think that, yes, the 1993 plebiscite has had its impact and the

fact that we are immersed in this process now is ample evidence

of that.

Secondly, we have to go back to basics. It is not what each one

of us wants, because I might be tempted to say in my definition

of statehood that I would require the future State of Puerto Rico

to have the landing rights to the moon, the lunar landing rights

would be a part of the 51st State. Maybe I would want that, but

is that valid? And so in the same sense I think we all, those who

advocate statehood, those who advocate commonwealth, those who

advocate independence or free association, should submit their

views so that they be analyzed and finally stated as valid by the

Congress, who I believe has the powers under the Constitution to

legislate for the territories.

So again, I think this process is one that allows that to happen.

The Chairman and Ranking Democrat of this Committee have written to each one of the political parties in Puerto Rico and have allowed them to submit a proposed definition. Obviously, it may be

different from 1993 where no limitation was placed on the definition that appeared on the ballot. This time there will be a so-called

reality check. I am sure if I convinced my colleagues to submit a

statehood definition that has the lunar landing rights for the 51st

State, that would be taken out by Congress because it is not a valid

option.

So in essence I think we are seeing a process where there is

input and there is, to a certain extent, an analysis and a validity
46

check under the Constitution and under international law to make

sure that the options that appear in the ballot are valid options.

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Will the gentleman yield?

Ms. CUBIN. The gentleman’s time is up. Are there any other

Committee members who would have a question? I will finish with

the Committee, and then I would love to recognize you, Mr.

Faleomavaega.

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Thank you, Madam Chairman. Governor,

again, another—I think one of the most difficult issues that was derived as a result of the 1993 plebiscite was the fact that there was

a plurality and not a clear majority.

Mr. ROSSELLO ́. Yes.

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Now we are going through the process

again. And let us say that the statehood obtains a 46 percent, commonwealth gets 42 and independentistas get 12. Do you have any

suggestions how we resolve the continuous situation over plurality

rather than the clear majority if it comes to that point in the future

plebiscite?

Mr. ROSSELLO ́. Well, I think that there is almost—I wouldn’t call

it unanimous, but there is a consensus that the current status is

one that is transitory. If we cannot make up our minds, then we

remain in the current status, but this bill addresses that reality by

saying that periodically the people of Puerto Rico would be consulted until they finally choose a stable and final status. So again,

I hope that doesn’t happen. If it happens, it is, you know, our own

choosing. But if we cannot, so to speak, get our act together and

by majority vote choose one of the paths to full self-government,

then unfortunately we will remain in this transitory status until

we make up our minds.

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Governor, I thank you, because one of the

problems, as I have seen over the years, I think one other major

plebiscite that took place in Puerto Rico was since 1967. And then

that was just kind of put on it, in fact, on the part of the Congress.

We just didn’t do anything despite, I am sure, there being a lot of

proposals or a lot of offers from several administrations on behalf

of the government of Puerto Rico. Still Congress did not act. Am

I correct in that observation?

Mr. ROSSELLO ́. That is correct.

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. So this is where we are at now?

Mr. ROSSELLO ́. Yes.

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. And it is very easy to put the blame, the finger, on it and say who it is that was at fault. And I have to say,

Madam Chairman, that we are not exactly angels ourselves in

terms of what we should have done. We never did anything. Thank

you, Governor. Thank you, Madam.

Ms. CUBIN. Are there other Members who have questions? I came

in late, so I don’t know who was here first. The gentleman from

Illinois.

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Thank you so much. Number one, let me welcome you here to the Congress of the United States and congratulate you on your resounding reelection victory last November as

Governor of Puerto Rico and to share with you that outside of this

I look forward to working with you on those issues. I wish you Godspeed in your mission during this next four years as Governor of
47

Puerto Rico and look forward specifically to discussing and working

with you on making economic viability of jobs in Puerto Rico and

other kinds of social/economic issues viable in working with you in

that spirit, Governor. Welcome once again.

Two quick questions, Governor. I agree with the gentleman from

American Samoa that we should not equate self-determination with

dollars. But as you rightfully interpreted, this Congress will do

that in terms of the admission of Puerto Rico as a State into the

union should we arrive at that point.

Let me just ask you, how do you see the process? Have you envisioned the process of Puerto Rico as a State, and what kinds of

things do you see will happen differently than under the current

status having the power of statehood that will allow you to grow

and expand the franchise, the economic franchise in terms of contributions to what you will then be, part of the Nation as a whole.

Mr. ROSSELLO ́. Well, very basic in that respect is the power of

participation. The same way you advocate for your district in Chicago, the same way you promote the development of business and

business opportunities very forcefully for the people that elected

you, I would see that a major component of allowing Puerto Rico

to really compete on a equal basis would be the representation that

Puerto Rico would have in this body. We would have certainly two

Senators. We would have six to seven Congress persons here in

this body that makes decisions about economic matters and about

social matters.

So essentially if you look at the history, if you look at the fact

that was mentioned here before, some territories before like Alaska

and the differences when they were territory to the rest of the economic parameters of the States and you look at Puerto Rico, 50

years ago Puerto Rico had 50 percent of the income per capita that

Mississippi had. Fifty years later, Puerto Rico still has 50 percent.

So if you are concerned about the development of Puerto Rico in

reaching more equitable levels of economic development, then you

should think of the current status as one that limits the possibilities of Puerto Rico and which by history you have seen many of the

previous territories that have inferior economic parameters when

they were territories move up toward more equitable levels of economic development.

So I think the—it is intrinsic in being a part of the system if you

are a part of the system and you are participating in decisions, the

system will allow you to come up to the level of other jurisdictions.

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Thank you, Governor, for that answer. One other

question. As we look at—earlier I suggested, Governor, that sometimes I am a little perplexed at just how we deal with 1952 and

the adoption of the free association and subsequently going to the

United Nations and independentistas going before the United Nations and saying, you know, that is really not enough, adding an

extra paragraph or saying that mutually the United States and the

people of Puerto Rico are going to have to develop this free association so that it can reach full self-determination. But that really did

happen, that historical linkage did exist.

Now as we go into the future, given the fact that in 1952 it was

established by Congress to the United Nations that you could have

an autonomous version of free association between Puerto Rico and
48

the United States, which would decolonize it because they accepted

it as decolonizing at the United Nations, that allowed there to continue to be American citizenship of the nationals in Puerto Rico in

that relationship, what is changed today that will not allow, in

your opinion, for there to be such a status, or proposal maybe, for

the people of Puerto Rico that would continue to allow American

citizenship as a guarantee under that status?

Mr. ROSSELLO ́. Congressman Gutierrez, if you look at the records

of Congress, it amply supported and was very clear that Congress

never intended changing the basic relationship between the United

States and Puerto Rico, that what Congress did—and this is in all

Congressional records. What Congress did was to statutorily allow

the people of Puerto Rico to adopt a constitution for internal affairs

and internal government. External relation between Puerto Rico

and the United States was not changed. In no—it is stated in a

positive way in every area of the Congressional record, and in no

place can you see where Congress said that it would be renouncing

its power under the territorial clause.

An interesting thing happened on the way. Both at the United

Nations and to the people of Puerto Rico a different story was

taken. And I think it is time that we look at that, and it is time

to reconcile what was actually done with what was projected.

Having said that, I must say that I do not wish to enter into a

war of recriminations, who was right, who was wrong. But let us

start from here and let us solve the problem. Let us say what are

the alternatives that are valid internationally under the United

Nations. And I have been to the United Nations with many of my

colleagues here. And let us forget about the interpretation, because

for me it is very clear. However, if we are really committed to solving this, let us go forward and not so much look backwards.

In looking forward, the United Nations is very clear as to what

options can be offered territorial jurisdictions. One is integration,

full integration, which is statehood. The other is full independence.

And the third is a form of free association, which has to be, again,

under two separate sovereignties that reach an agreement. So

again, I go back to my initial position that the basic question we

have to answer is whether we want to be within U.S. sovereignty

with U.S. citizenship or without U.S. sovereignty and U.S. citizenship. Very simple. And that is totally consistent with what the

international community accepts today as ending colonialism.

If you go to the United Nations and you say that you have a jurisdiction which does not participate and does not elect representatives that have a major decisional power over the inhabitants of

that jurisdiction, they will tell you that that is a colony. And that

is the real situation in Puerto Rico today.

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Governor, thank you for your answers. And I

will, after this meeting, evaluate them very carefully so that I can

continue to work with the members of this Committee to see if we

can’t foster a relationship that will end the colonial situation in

Puerto Rico. And I look forward to working with you once again.

Thank you so much.

Ms. CUBIN. The gentlelady from New York, Ms. Vela ́zquez.

Ms. VELA ́ ZQUEZ. Thank you Chairlady. Mr. Governor, thank you

being here and welcome. You know, it is really very troubling for
49

me to listen to interpretation of what happened in 1952. And in

some ways when you state that the United States government has

been misrepresenting and that what occurred in 1952.

And what took place in 1953 was the bilateral compact was ratified by Resolution 748 at the United Nations and that the United

States went—the government went to the United Nations and stated very clear that there was a self-government established in Puerto Rico by nature of a bilateral compact. So that happened and now

you are telling us your interpretation.

We could clearly state that what this government has been doing

has been a political sham and a charade that didn’t respect the

people of Puerto Rico and that this government has a responsibility

to repair the damage and the pain that it has caused to the people

of Puerto Rico.

When my colleague Patrick Kennedy asked you the question in

reference to what I stated earlier, I think you didn’t answer that

because specifically he was referring to the fact that there was a

bilateral compact that was agreed upon by the people of Puerto

Rico and this government.

Mr. ROSSELLO ́. If you are asking me, I am still looking for that

bilateral compact. I haven’t found it anyplace.

Ms. VELA ́ ZQUEZ. Well——

Mr. ROSSELLO ́. All I found is a statute by the U.S. Congress allowing Puerto Rico to establish a constitution for internal affairs.

Nowhere—you are here in Congress. You can look at the records.

Nowhere in Congressional Records—and this is where the decision

was taken. It was not taken at the United Nations. It was taken

here. And in this body nowhere does it say that Congress abdicates

or renounces its Constitutional prerogatives over any of the territories, including Puerto Rico. So if that wasn’t changed, then the

relationship between Puerto Rico and the United States was not

changed.

Now, I cannot answer for what other people, including the government of Puerto Rico at that time, represented to the people of

Puerto Rico. I think that was a misrepresentation, yes.

Ms. VELA ́ ZQUEZ. And I think later on, Mr. Chairman, we are

going to have the Administration testify presenting their position.

The CHAIRMAN. Oh, yes.

Ms. VELA ́ ZQUEZ. Yes, and——

The CHAIRMAN. You better read their testimony. It is quite interesting.

Ms. VELA ́ ZQUEZ. Yes, well——

The CHAIRMAN. I——

Ms. VELA ́ ZQUEZ. My concern is, Mr. Chairman, that I would like

with your permission to request that a copy of the transcript that

took place in 1953 be included as part of this hearing—at the

United Nations.

The CHAIRMAN. I don’t——

Mr. MILLER. I would support that.

The CHAIRMAN. I would suggest in all due respect—ever time we

hear the word United Nations, I get a little antsy, so——

Ms. VELA ́ ZQUEZ. Well——

The CHAIRMAN. I understand. I understand.
50

Ms. VELA ́ ZQUEZ. It works when it is a way for the United States

to go and to deal with public opinion about something that went

wrong. And this government is responsible for that.

Mr. ROMERO-BARCELO ́. Would the Congresswoman yield?

Ms. VELA ́ ZQUEZ. Sure.

Mr. ROMERO-BARCELO ́. I wanted to add that it was not only the

national government, the U.S. Government that went to the United

Nations and misrepresented what happened, but also the government of Puerto Rico corroborated with that misrepresentation. And

they collaborated in the United Nations and they misrepresented

it also to the people of Puerto Rico and have been misrepresenting

it to the people of Puerto Rico for all these years.

Ms. VELA ́ ZQUEZ. Yes, Mr. Chairman, my minutes are still——

The CHAIRMAN. I am not arguing that. Go right ahead.

Ms. VELA ́ ZQUEZ. I just would like to say that is why in my statement before I made it very clear that it is important that we offer

and we provide to the people of Puerto Rico every information and

the facts about each formula that will be presented to the people

of Puerto Rico, because then maybe two years later or four years

later we are going to come back and say well, I wasn’t part of that,

you know. So it is really troubling. We need to provide the people

of Puerto Rico with every information and every fact so that we do

not come back and say, oh, I am sorry, that wasn’t part of the

record, that wasn’t part of what we intended.

The CHAIRMAN. I agree. I will say this in defense of the people

of Puerto Rico. If I had as many people in my great State and other

States as interested in the process, participate in the process as

much as it does in Puerto Rico, I would be quite proud. When I see

47 percent of the people voting nationwide in a Presidential election, it is very discouraging. Puerto Rico is quite high when they

have participation.

The gentleman from New York.

Mr. SERRANO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Let me first preface my

comments, Governor, by also welcoming you. You visit us on a regular basis, so it is a re-welcome. And, as you know, I grew up in

New York. I am one of those New Yorkers who grew up, like so

many other Americans, during the Vietnam era, in a love/distrust

relationship with my government, loving my government, loving

my country that I was being raised in, but distrusting a lot of what

they told me about Vietnam and about a lot of other things.

So it doesn’t surprise me that my government didn’t tell the

truth in 1950, ’51 and ’52. In fact, I know that they didn’t tell the

truth. I know they don’t tell the truth now when they say Puerto

Rico is equal. It is not. Ask my cousins. They are not equal and

they are not independent.

Now I notice, Governor, that—you might have answered my

question already, but I want you to elaborate somewhat on it.

There must have been a process for you and your party, and those

who have been in your party before you, to reach a point where you

can comfortably use the word ‘‘colony’’ and the phrase ‘‘colonial status’’. Was that done through a difficult situation within the party,

or did the party reach that from the kind of comments that you

brought up here today?
51

In other words, how does your party agree with the independence

party on the point that it is a colonial status?

Mr. ROSSELLO ́. I think we agree because we are looking at the

facts. And if history shows us the different steps that were taken

and if at the end of that route we apply a litmus test as to whether

a jurisdiction is represented democratically, whether it is enfranchised or not, then you have to reach the conclusion no matter

what happened here that this is a colonial status. That is why I

again urge this Committee and Congress to put aside the historical

contradictions.

If we are really committed to solving this problem, and I think

if you look around the room you see that this is almost 100-yearold problem. We should be able to solve that. And again, as Governor of Puerto Rico, whatever the people decide, that is what it

will be. I have my own choice, but whatever the people of Puerto

Rico decide. They should know the valid options. If we spend so

much time arguing about what somebody said in the United Nations, I gather we will reach conflicting opinions, because in the

United Nations everybody said whatever they wanted.

I have been to the United Nations. I have been at hearings.

Many of my colleagues here have also. And we can argue about

this forever, but again I urge you let us not get bogged down. If

we feel like I think everybody here feels, that this continuous debate over status is holding us back, then let us solve it. If we, as

I think all of us agree here, if we feel that we cannot get together

on education and on health and on job creation because we have

different views which do not allow us to come together on those

basic issues, let us solve the problem now. Let us not look backwards. Let us look forward.

And I suggest again that this is a historic opportunity. We will

be having 100 years when this problem was first presented, almost

100 years. We are also nearing a new millennium, a new century,

which also should allow us to be open in our minds and allow us

to look at change as something natural. And when we look at all

these things, I think everything is coming together so that we can

finally solve this problem for the good of the people of Puerto Rico

and also for all U.S. citizens in our nation. And if we take this opportunity to just squabble a little bit more as to what happened in

1952, I think we will be degrading from what I think is a very

noble objective of this bill presented by Chairman Young.

Mr. SERRANO. Let me see, Governor, if I have some time left

here—I just wonder if you personally have taken a look—my red

light just went on.

The CHAIRMAN. I will give you 30 seconds.

Mr. SERRANO. OK, on the issue of the stateside vote, and what

feelings you have personally on whether, first of all, it could be carried out and if it has any merit.

Mr. ROSSELLO ́. I have problems on two areas, two levels. One is

what Carlos Romero-Barcelo ́ mentioned. It is very difficult for me

to think of people that will not suffer or benefit from the consequences of a decision to be involved in that decision. If you would

tell me that the people that voted that were outside of Puerto Rico,

not residents of Puerto Rico, would live by the consequences, if the

people that voted here and voted for independence would be willing
52

to give up their citizenship and go back to Puerto Rico and live

under a separate nation, then I think that would be valid. But if

you are telling me that people will be voting and then not really

living the consequences of that decision, that is very hard for me

to accept.

The other part is what you mentioned, and I think it is lesser

of an objection, that we have established in Puerto Rico, I think,

a very credible electoral process and structure which allows everybody that wants to participate to have participation. How will you

extend that same privilege to the Puerto Ricans either born in

Puerto Rico or children of people born in Puerto Rico throughout

the 50 States? And I think it might be easy to do it in New York

and it might be easy to do it, maybe, in Illinois, but some of the

other States might be a little bit more difficult. So that is a practical question that I have. It doesn’t mean that if you come up with

a practical solution to that practical question I will——

Mr. SERRANO. I think the greatest country on earth can pull it

off if they wish to pull the vote outside.

Mr. ROSSELLO ́. If that——

Mr. SERRANO. And, just in closing, Governor, we have been living

the consequences. My parents are buried in the Bronx because we

lived the consequences of forced migration. So in many ways we

have already lived the consequences of the status. We are willing

to roll some dice on what the future consequences will be.

The CHAIRMAN. I want to thank the Governor. You have been on

the stand now for an hour and 20 minutes and you also sat here

all day, and I want to congratulate you on that and your excellent

testimony. And you are excused.

Mr. ROSSELLO ́. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN. Next we have the Honorable Ruben Martinez,

President of the Puerto Rican Independence Party, San Juan, Puerto Rico. Mr. President, you can sit down anytime you would like

to, and as soon as it quiets down we will proceed.

Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, may I ask a question for a second?

The CHAIRMAN. Absolutely.

Mr. SERRANO. I noticed you referred to Senator Berrios as President. Is that an opening for future——

The CHAIRMAN. Very frankly, I think it would be an excellent improvement. He is better looking, and he doesn’t fall down as often.

Go ahead.

STATEMENT OF RUBEN BERRI ́OS-MARTINEZ, PRESIDENT OF

THE PUERTO RICAN INDEPENDENCE PARTY, SAN JUAN,

PUERTO RICO

Mr. BERRI ́OS-MARTINEZ. Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee, for almost a century Puerto Ricans of all political persuasions have struggled unsuccessfully for the recognition of our full

political rights as a people before a Congress that has for the most

part been hostile or insensitive to our demands. Today on the verge

of the 21st Century, it is a source of optimism that Congress finally

begins to recognize its centennial obligation to decolonize Puerto

Rico.

But before H.R. 856 becomes an effective and acceptable instrument for the solution of Puerto Rico’s status problem, certain condi-
53

tions should be met and certain pitfalls avoided, some of which require major changes in the bill. One of them is the essential objective and nature of the bill must be maintained at all costs. This bill

unambiguously faces and proposes a solution to the fundamental

issue of sovereignty by promoting a decision within two paths, one

under U.S. sovereignty leading to statehood and the other under

Puerto Rico sovereignty leading either to independence or free association. Territorial commonwealth, on the other hand, is viewed as

a problem to be outgrown and superseded.

Two, so long as this fundamental objective is preserved, the legitimate interest and demands of all the participants in the status

debate must be provided reasonable accommodation. In this context, while independence and free association, as modalities of

Puerto Rican sovereignty, must continue to be grouped under the

same heading on the proposed plebiscite ballot, their distinctiveness should nevertheless be clarified. Free association and independence are members of the same family, but they are first cousins, not identical twins.

I propose, therefore, that the bill be amended to flesh out the free

association and independent modalities within the separate sovereignty alternative, or as I prefer to call it the Puerto Rican sovereignty alternative. Once free association has been reformulated

to address the legitimate concerns of its proponents, it will be totally unnecessary to include the territorial status quo as an option.

Even the Popular Democratic Party rejects that option of an unincorporated territory subject to the powers of Congress under the

territorial clause. It would be a perversion of the concept of inclusiveness to include a colonial or territorial option that nobody favors.

Three, this bill at least should reflect a sense of Congress regarding the truly critical questions which you will have to face and answer in case of a statehood petition. Congress should not convey

the impression that a mere majority vote in the plebiscite is the

only condition for statehood. I am convinced that if this bill is perceived in Congress as implicit commitment to grant statehood after

a majority vote by the Puerto Rican electorate, it may never become law.

In this context, crucial questions regarding statehood for Puerto

Rico arise which should be addressed in this bill, even though Congress cannot answer these questions in a way that will bind the future Congress. Is it the sense of Congress that statehood for Puerto

Rico would be possible unless English becomes the primary or common language of Puerto Ricans? Would statehood be a realistic option so long as Puerto Rico’s per capita income remains one-third

that of the United States and one-half that of your poorest State

considering the repercussions of that reality on the Federal treasury? Is statehood conceivable without an overwhelming political

consensus in its favor in Puerto Rico? Is Congress willing to face

a Caribbean Quebec if a minority for separate sovereignty should

become a majority in the next generation?

At a minimum, Congress should make clear that if statehood

achieves a sufficient majority, but does not then act favorably on

the petition within a reasonable period of time, then statehood

should be deemed to have been rejected. In such an eventuality,
54

the bill should provide that in order to achieve its primary

decolonizing objectives, the people of Puerto Rico should then

choose between the remaining alternatives, that is between independence and free association.

Four, fairness and objectivity should be maintained regarding

the status definitions as they refer to the potential economic effects

of the different alternatives. Congress has constitutional and international obligations with Puerto Rico’s decolonization, in addition

to moral and legal commitments after 100 years of U.S. occupation.

In this context, Congress should be explicit in its willingness to obtain a smooth and fair transition toward independence as well as

regarding the creation of a reparations or development fund.

Free trade and economic cooperation are not the exclusive prerogative of statehood and are clearly available for independence in

this age of globalization and regional economic arrangements.

Five, it is of the utmost importance that Congress face the matter of U.S. citizenship under Puerto Rican sovereignty in a clear

and realistic manner. Let us begin by separating myth from fact.

I am firmly convinced that the principal value that the immense

majority of Puerto Ricans attach to their U.S. citizenship is their

right to travel freely to and from the United States. One should remember that free transit and free trade have been part of the U.S.-

Puerto Rico relations since 1900, 17 years before Puerto Ricans became U.S. citizens.

As in the matter of trade and economic cooperation, if Congress

expresses or implies that free transit is only possible under statehood, it would be promoting an artificial pro-statehood majority

that has nothing to do with the spirit of patriotic commitment to

the United States, which should be the real basis of a serious prostatehood sentiment. Loyalty to one’s nation and freedom to travel

to other nations are, as Americans well know, two different things.

As far as we independentistas are concerned, we aspire exclusively to our own Puerto Rican citizenship in an independent Puerto Rico. But as regards those Puerto Rican born before independence who want to retain their U.S. citizenship after independence,

they should be allowed to retain it.

As regard Puerto Ricans born after independence, Congress

would be wise to allow for free transit arrangements within both

countries. The European community stands as an example of this

type of free transit agreement. Moreover, I remind you that a very

large percentage of the Puerto Rican nationals reside in the United

States. And it was the U.S. who, after the invasion of our nation,

created and promoted free transit.

Six, the bill should be amended to substantially reduce the timeframe provided for the full implementation of the different alternatives.

Seven, to guarantee that all the options have adequate and equal

access to public funding in the plebiscite campaign.

And eight, the bill should be amended as to who will have the

right to vote in the plebiscite. It should be obvious that if the plebiscite is not a general election to select public officials but a special

election to advance the cause of self-determination of the Puerto

Rican people, only Puerto Ricans and not merely residents of Puerto Rico should have the right to vote. By Puerto Ricans I mean
55

those born in Puerto Rico or of Puerto Rican parents who reside in

Puerto Rico or though residing outside have the intention to return

to live in Puerto Rico. As an exception, those non-Puerto Ricans

who have lived in Puerto Rico for a substantial period of time and

who intend to remain should have the right to participate also.

Before concluding, Mr. Chairman, I wish to set the historical

record straight concerning the participation of my party, the Puerto

Rican Independence Party, in this process. The Puerto Rican Independence Party is convinced that statehood or integration into the

United States as a State of the Union is not a valid solution to the

colonial problem of Puerto Rico. Puerto Rico is a distinct, mature,

Spanish-speaking, Latin American Caribbean nation. To argue that

Puerto Rico is not a nation is as absurd as to argue that blacks in

the U.S. were not human beings before the abolition of slavery.

For a nation such as Puerto Rico, statehood would be a dilution,

if not an abdication, of our right to govern ourselves as Puerto

Ricans, no matter how intensely we exercise our voting franchise.

The problem of Puerto Rico, contrary to what the Governor of Puerto Rico thinks and has expressed here, is not a problem of disenfranchisement of a minority or an issue of civil rights, as some

people believe. It is not a problem of individual rights. It is a problem of national rights, of the inalienable rights of a nation, of a

people, to govern themselves.

Even Puerto Rican statehooders postulate our right as a people

to our distinct identity, ‘‘Jibaro’’ statehood they call it. Puerto

Ricans of all persuasions proudly and forcefully proclaim that Puerto Rico’s language and culture are not negotiable under any status.

You should be aware, therefore, that the primary loyalty of Puerto

Ricans is to Puerto Rico, not to the United States or to any other

nation. Quebec and Ireland are but contemporary reminders of the

dangers that ensue when nations attempt to absorb other nations.

Nations by definition cannot give up their inalienable right to selfdetermination and independence, that is, their right to secede.

Independence, on the other hand, members of this Committee, is

the ultimate empowerment necessary to break the cycle of impotence and dependence which has become endemic to our colonial relationship, which would only become more acute under statehood

and which inhibits our development and undermines our dignity

and our self esteem. Moreover, it would be the beginning of an end

of ever-increasing dependence on the Federal budget and a source

of goodwill toward Latin America.

We are thus convinced, Mr. Chairman, that when the process

comes to an end here in Congress, the United States Government

will come to the conclusion that the only true option for both our

countries is independence, but we are not there yet. We are not

there yet, and it is thus necessary that the process work its way.

The relationship between colonizer and colonized denies the essential equality of nations in the same way that the relation between master and slave denies the essential equality of human

beings. It denigrates the colonized and it demeans the colonizer.

For the honor and respect of both our nations, let us bring it to an

end. Thank you very much.

[Statement of Ruben Berrı ́os-Martinez may be found at end of

hearing.]
56

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Mr. President. I always enjoy your

presentations. You do it with enthusiasm and belief, and I admire

that. As I was sitting here listening to you, we have a party in my

State that you probably could run for and win and do quite well,

just to give you an idea. Unfortunately we lost our leader up there

two years ago. And I will also compliment you on the suggested revisions of the bill. Although I may not agree with all of them, definitely they were very constructive suggestions. And I often think

if more witnesses would do that, I think we could probably work

a lot more of our problems out. Those that just say no sometimes

give me great concern. So I do thank you.

And at this time I am going to turn the chair over to Carlos for

a few moments. I have another appointment I have to meet with

some of my constituents. I will be right back, so if he—watch him.

Make sure he runs this fairly. Watch this bipartisan relationship

here. I want you to know that I didn’t go to Hershey. I don’t need

to go to Hershey, you see.

Mr. BERRI ́OS-MARTINEZ. Before you leave, Mr. Chairman——

The CHAIRMAN. Yes.

Mr. BERRI ́OS-MARTINEZ. I would like to tell you in all honesty

that it is a real pity that Alaskans were Americanized before they

could become a U.S. State and therefore their right to self-determination is a quivering subject.

The CHAIRMAN. It is not dead yet, because we have now a new

era in Alaska where there is approximately 110,000 American natives that have decided that they may want to be sovereign within

a State. This is a very interesting discussion, by the way.

Mr. ROMERO-BARCELO ́. [presiding] We will proceed with the questions. We will start with the Congressman from Samoa.

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want certainly

to commend Senator Martinez, President of the Independentista

Party for not only his eloquence but certainly his firm commitment

to the cause that hopefully the people of Puerto Rico will be granted independence to become a sovereign nation. I did note in your

comments that in the recommendations about some of these issues

that the Congress will have to clarify, but it is becoming very controversial in and of itself. You had indicated earlier that—in your

statement that commonwealth and independence are not identical

twins but they are brother and sister relationship? Oh, they are

cousins? First cousins or third cousins?

Mr. BERRI ́OS-MARTINEZ. I said first cousins, but not identical

twins. Not commonwealth and independence, free association and

independence.

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Can you elaborate a little bit on that? I

mean, I think and I am sure that we will hear from those who are

supportive of commonwealth. You have indicated also about territorial commonwealth. Is there a distinction with that of free association?

Mr. BERRI ́OS-MARTINEZ. Of course. The bill recognizes it. It describes commonwealth in its first part and then goes into free association as a different alternative. But I must add here that once the

free association modality is fleshed out and it is clearly distinguished from the independence modality within the separate sovereignty portion, then obviously the territorial commonwealth as it
57

is described in the bill becomes totally irrelevant, because nobody

wants that, not even the populares.

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. ROMERO-BARCELO ́. Ruben, do you think that—when you say

that not even that populares, it is obviously that the leadership

doesn’t want it, but do you really believe that some of the popularity people don’t want it either?

Mr. BERRI ́OS-MARTINEZ. Well, we will have to see about that in

the next months, but obviously I am talking about what the leadership has publicly said, at least before today.

Mr. ROMERO-BARCELO ́. When you think about free association, do

you think about free association with citizenship, U.S. citizenship,

or——

Mr. BERRI ́OS-MARTINEZ. No, that is up to the defenders of free

association to say. I propose my ideas regarding independence and

free transit, not with citizenship, but the issue of citizenship is

something the free association defenders will have to address.

Mr. ROMERO-BARCELO ́. Thank you. The gentlelady from Virgin

Islands.

Ms. CHRISTIAN-GREEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The issue of

voting in this plebiscite came up with the prior panel, and on that

issue, the issue of non-Puerto Ricans, as you referred to who have

lived in Puerto Rico for a substantial period of time was left——

Mr. BERRI ́OS-MARTINEZ. Vague.

Ms. CHRISTIAN-GREEN. Vague. Do you have some specific recommendations?

Mr. BERRI ́OS-MARTINEZ. It was purposely left vague so we can

talk about it here and in the Senate. But I have no—for example,

what the now-present Chairman asked before—I have no doubt

that people like his wife who has become an integral part of the

Puerto Rican community, of course she would have the right to

vote without any doubt whatsoever. What number of years, I am

not sure about that. We have talked about 20, 15, 25. We should

talk about it, but we can reach an agreement on that.

Ms. CHRISTIAN-GREEN. Just one other technical question on the

issue of separate sovereignty. In the interest of fairness and making each option equitable, would you suggest that it be left as separate sovereignty? That suggests a bit of negativity. You didn’t specifically make a recommendation, but would you recommend that

it be changed to Puerto Rican——

Mr. BERRI ́OS-MARTINEZ. Of course. That is what I said when—

I am sorry. I would prefer to separate sovereignty, Puerto Rican

sovereignty. What I meant is; it should be corrected. Let me say

that regarding the issue of separate sovereignty it should be clearly

stated that I refer to the legitimate demands of the defenders of

free association. What is legitimate or not legitimate is for this

Congress to decide and for us to decide to propose to this Congress.

I didn’t want to dwell on that issue, either. I just wanted to make

this as all-encompassing as possible.

And I must add here that I don’t know why commonwealth

should be described as nothing else or nothing more than what it

is, an unincorporated territory. Why dedicate eight or ten paragraphs to it. If you just say it is an unincorporated territory of the

United States, we would avoid some of the discussions we have had
58

in Puerto Rico. I mean, we would go into the historical discussion

regarding 1950, you know.

If we agree that this is no good anymore or doesn’t serve a good

purpose anymore, let us talk about the future. If you want to describe commonwealth, describe it as an unincorporated territory

and period. Don’t put any more adjectives on it, because then it

would look unbalanced. And if it looks unbalanced, it won’t be approved. It will be approved in the House but not in the Senate, because many Senators and Congressmen have legitimate questions

regarding statehood. And obviously they will push for a balanced

bill to be presented, because if not they will interpret it as a statehood bill.

If this is interpreted as a statehood bill, I repeat, it won’t go

through Congress. And we want this bill to go through Congress.

So we should do everything in our power to be flexible enough in

order to accommodate all participants and to have a just and balanced and equitable bill. And I think that can be reached.

Ms. CHRISTIAN-GREEN. Thank you.

Mr. ROMERO-BARCELO ́. I just want to add that as far as we are

concerned, from my experience of talking to other Members of Congress, I feel very, very, very assured that this bill will go through

at least the House. And it is gaining momentum in the Senate. But

I can assure you that it is—there is support in the House for this

bill.

Regarding the right of the persons to vote that live outside Puerto Rico, I just want to ask a couple of questions for the record. We

have had two plebiscites in Puerto Rico, one in 1967 and one in

1993. Who was allowed to vote in 1967?

Mr. BERRI ́OS-MARTINEZ. The voters—the franchise was determined by the Puerto Rican electoral law, which is the same way

as it would be now under the bill. That is why we propose an

amendment.

Mr. ROMERO-BARCELO ́. In other words, the 1967 plebiscite when

commonwealth was established, the people who voted were the

resident—U.S. citizens who were residents of Puerto Rico?

Mr. BERRI ́OS-MARTINEZ. That is correct.

Mr. ROMERO-BARCELO ́. And that was the same in 1993?

Mr. BERRI ́OS-MARTINEZ. That is correct.

Mr. ROMERO-BARCELO ́. Now there is a request that the rules be

changed for this plebiscite?

Mr. BERRI ́OS-MARTINEZ. That is our request. That is correct.

Mr. ROMERO-BARCELO ́. Do you really feel that the Congress and

the people in the Senate and House would feel that well about saying that your citizens who reside in Puerto Rico just because they

were not born there do not vote? Do you think that would be——

Mr. BERRI ́OS-MARTINEZ. I don’t think—I don’t know how they

will feel, but I do know in justice only Puerto Ricans should vote,

notwithstanding the fact of how some U.S. citizens or some U.S.

Congressmen might think. We have been feeling very much for

what other people believe or think or feel, and it is about time we

push for what we think should be just and equitable and let other

people worry about their own feelings.
59

Mr. ROMERO-BARCELO ́. Do you think there will be court proceedings if people are left out of the vote if they have lived—were

you a citizen that resided in Puerto Rico when——

Mr. BERRI ́OS-MARTINEZ. Maybe there would be, but I remind the

Chairman that under the territorial clause there is very, very large

latitude for the U.S. Congress to act contrary to other types of——

Mr. ROMERO-BARCELO ́. I think——

Mr. BERRI ́OS-MARTINEZ. If it were not under the territorial

clause, we couldn’t be doing what we are doing now here. So the

same thing happens as regarding voting requirements. You can be

lax, flexible, have latitude, refer to international law. I think we

can manage that.

Mr. ROMERO-BARCELO ́. There will still be a lot of——

Mr. BERRI ́OS-MARTINEZ. Yes, there will be. I imagine there will

be people who will go to—but there will be people who might go

also to court for the other reason, arguing that somebody who has

lived in Puerto Rico for seven years and who is not a Puerto Rican

either by birth or by virtue by being born to a Puerto Rican father

and mother has a right to defend the future of Puerto Ricans. I

think that can be taken to court also.

Mr. ROMERO-BARCELO ́. Thank you. Mr. Kennedy.

Mr. KENNEDY. No questions at this time.

Mr. ROMERO-BARCELO ́. Mr. Gutierrez.

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. First of

all, I would like to say thank you very much for the statement that

you prepared. I read it last night and it helped me immensely as

your statements and your positions have always helped me in the

past to prepare for today’s hearing and to have some clarity about

just how we should proceed on the questions of the decolonization

of Puerto Rico. So, Senator, I would like to thank you for that, and

thank you for the long history of dedication and commitment that

you have brought to the struggle for Puerto Rican independence

and for justice in Puerto Rico. I think your contributions have been

enormous and I thank you for them, not only in my own capacity,

but I am sure in the name of all of the Members of Congress who

are here today.

Senator and President of the Independence Party, I spoke about

and I know you spoke about independence and the issue of fairness. So if you could describe to this Committee how you see the

definition of independence as proposed before the people of Puerto

Rico that would be fair, that would give you equity and fairness.

Mr. BERRI ́OS-MARTINEZ. Well, to start with, I think that can be

accomplished here and over in the Senate because it is to the convenience of both parties. If it were only convenient to Puerto Rico,

what I propose, I venture to say we wouldn’t get too far. But since

it is convenient for both parties to have a prosperous, exemplary

democratic republic in Puerto Rico, then we can be sure that we

can work out a way.

Free trade, for example, is now a reality not only in Europe, but

in NAFTA as to Mexico and Canada. So to ask for free trade, it

is nothing new. Besides, what is the alternative, free trade forever

under statehood? It is not going to be worse under independence.

Second, free transit; the same way. Free transit is now an arrangement between many countries in the world. What is the alter-
60

native in statehood? It is free transit forever and for future generations also.

Mr. ROMERO-BARCELO ́. Excuse me just to advise the Members of

Congress that was two bells. The vote on the Goodling amendment

to H.R. 1 is now on the Floor.

Mr. BERRI ́OS-MARTINEZ. A reparations or development fund is

the only way to cut dependence in a sensible manner and still

guarantee that we are going to be full trading partners to the

United States and a good place for investment, because what we

propose is a reparations fund that goes across or cuts across ten

years—or a different figure—or 12 years or 8 or 15. We can talk

about that. And then at the end of that period, that ceases; but

that means that we would be able to develop our economy through

these reparations funds for a period of ten years.

Besides this issue, I should for the record clarify in order to answer your question that if Puerto Ricans saved in purchases to the

outside world under independence one percent of what they today

import during ten years, and if at the same time they substitute

by Puerto Rican production (in many areas, particularly food

stuffs), one percent of what we import, that two percent over a tenyear period will be equivalent to more than the amount of the full

Federal aid today in Puerto Rico.

So once we have the powers of sovereignty to trade with other

nations and to bring in Japanese, European, besides American capital, to develop our economy and with these new tools we can really

make a prosperous economy in Puerto Rico. What is the alternative? To become a permanently underdeveloped region of the

United States with six representatives or seven and two senators

asking for whatever is left from the people of the United States?

Another Appalachia; because on what basis would Puerto Rico be

able to attract U.S. capital, not to speak about Japanese and not

to speak about German capital in Puerto Rico. In the republic of

Puerto Rico we would have the tools to fully build our economy.

The only alternative under statehood is U.S. citizenship or free

transit in order to have more Luis Gutierrez and more Jose ́

Serrano, which are very good people, in the United States instead

of in Puerto Rico where we would like to have you. So it would be

the depopulation of Puerto Rico and the conversion of Puerto Rico

into a permanent underdeveloped region of the United States because statehood provides no alternatives for the economic development of Puerto Rico save more food coupons or more welfare. There

is no way people in Maricao, you understand me, can attract capital to Maricao if the factory can establish itself in Bayamon. They

will always go to Bayamon and they will never go to Maricao.

For that same reason they will go somewhere else in the continental United States and not to Puerto Rico. That is why Hawaii

is a tourist and military bases economy. That is why it is not an

industrial economy. So the real reasons economically for Puerto

Rican empowerment under independence, is to fully develop our

economy. And that will in exchange be beneficial for export to the

United States and for better trading relations.

So that is our idea of a fully developed economy. There are 15

or 20 smaller nations than Puerto Rico who in the last 25 years

have passed Puerto Rico in economic development, with higher per
61

capita growth annually than Puerto Rico. And that is what we

have to look for, for the powers of a republic; to add flexibility; to

break this dependence with the United States; not to break our

friendship but our dependence, and to become interdependent with

the whole world. That is what independence is for.

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Thank you very much. And, Mr. Chairman,

thank you. I would just like to end by saying, Mr. President, I noticed how well prepared—as he always is, but he seemed exemplary prepared this morning, Congressman Jose ́ Serrano. And I

would attribute it to the fact that you visited with him the last

time you came. And without getting jealous or anything about the

situation, since I did vote for you twice and I believe he has never

lived in Puerto Rico and participated, I would hope that the next

time you come you would——

Mr. BERRI ́OS-MARTINEZ. Well, I am sure——

Mr. GUTIERREZ. [continuing]—also visit me so that we can continue to engage in——

Mr. BERRI ́OS-MARTINEZ. I hope Mr. Serrano will vote for me next

time and that you will keep your vote as you have always.

Mr. ROMERO-BARCELO ́. Thank you. Mr. Serrano.

Mr. SERRANO. I asked, in fact, before, when Representative

Young called you Mr. President, if that was a message for the future. I have no problems. And thank you for reminding me I never

lived in Puerto Rico; just a couple of years. But I will remind you

I was born there.

Senator, throughout history, at least in my lifetime of understanding or trying to understand Puerto Rican issues, it was the

Independence Party and the independentistas who were most often

persecuted, not only outside the island but inside the island. And

yet it is interesting that today, and throughout this debate, we are

going to hear how the people who were empowered all those years

by the status, not the people but the status, feel persecuted at this

juncture of the situation.

So my question to you, which is related somewhat to Luis’ question, with the changes you propose, is: is this bill a fair bill for the

independence option? I am not asking if independence is fair. You

already answered that. Is this bill, with the changes proposed, a

fair bill? Would you walk away from this process and go back to

the island and say we can vote, on what is up there in Washington

because it is a fair deal?

Mr. BERRI ́OS-MARTINEZ. It is not fair, because we have this historical prejudice against us. We would need many years in order

to be able to preach in a free way which would compensate for

what people have been led to believe through persecution, through

public instruction in the schools, through denigrating everything

that is Puerto Rican; through telling us that we cannot stand on

our own two feet. You know, that takes generations. But we cannot

wait a generation, because we might not have Puerto Rico left in

a couple of generations. We need to act fast. So within the context

of these limitations, we would see it as a fair bill if many of our

conditions or amendments are introduced.

It is a very interesting thing, and I cannot resist the temptation—I cannot resist it. Excuse me, but those who were accomplices

in the U.N. in 1952 now want to appear as victims. To me that is
62

an incredible proposition. You know, of course the United States

lied in 1952 before the U.N., but the vote in the U.N. doesn’t count

in order to institute the parameters of the Constitutional role in

the United States. It is a vote in the House and in the Senate. So

what happened in Puerto Rico was that a number of people came

here, sat in Congress and said nothing was going to change and

then went to the U.N. and it was such an absurd proposition that

they had to buy everybody off there. It was a buy and sell proposition.

My thesis for master of law was regarding the decision of the

U.N. It was 22/18 with 16 abstentions when the United States was

the owner of the world. What happened there? Arms were twisted,

you know, all sorts of objectionable procedures were taken there for

the United States to force a 22 to 18 vote in the U.N. That is what

happened there, and the United States is guilty and the Puerto

Rican government at that time is guilty also. They are accomplices

in this enormous hoax upon the world.

After that happened, in 1960 came declaration of independence

which legally superseded whatever happened in ’52/’53. But besides

those legal issues, the fact is the United States lied in 1952 in the

U.N., in 1953, and the Puerto Rican government fooled the whole

world and lied also in the U.N. And then they have been lying for

40-some odd years in Puerto Rico. They have been telling the Puerto Rican people that we have a compact here. If we had a compact,

what are we doing here? What is the part of the compact that you

people are supposed to keep? You know, if this is a compact, it is

the worst compact I ever saw.

You know, so we should—I don’t want to—that is why I couldn’t

resist the temptation, you know, but that is what I said, let us put

that aside. I am willing not to speak about that. I urged Congressman Young, you know, be lenient in this matter, don’t rub it in in

the findings of the bill, everybody knows what commonwealth is.

Even they know what it is. But let us leave that outside. Let us

describe the two paths. One towards sovereignty of Puerto Rico and

one towards the sovereignty of the United States, but let us not try

to fool anybody anymore. We are grown up in Puerto Rico. We are

grown up here.

The United States in Puerto Rico did things in 1952 because the

U.S. Government was so stingy that they wouldn’t grant the Puerto

Rican autonomists even what they asked for, but instead of accepting that fact and coming to Puerto Rico and telling the people, ‘‘this

is what we got,’’ they tried to make out of what they could get from

the United States something new, a development of federalism. It

is a real pity that we have wasted 40-some odd years with these

big hoax in Puerto Rico. But let us not speak about the hoax. Let

us speak about the future.

Mr. SERRANO. Let me end. I have to go vote. I thank you for your

support of the non-resident vote and for clarifying that I left it

open for negotiation, because I know what I want, but there are

other people who may want to tailor that to the needs of the moment.

Mr. BERRI ́OS-MARTINEZ. I wanted to say that. The fact that I

favor the non-resident vote doesn’t mean that I am going to let

those people who want this to continue under colonialism to use
63

that as an excuse not to participate in the process. That should be

made very clear. I am not saying it as an excuse but as a matter

of justice. We are past the stage of excuses. We have to face the

issue. Either we want to be Americans or we want to be Puerto

Ricans. That is the real issue.

The CHAIRMAN. We have got to go vote. When we come back—

thank you, sir. The Honorable Acevedo Vila ́, President of the Popular Democratic Party will be up.

You know, you don’t have to vote. You can go ahead if you want

to. I will be right back.

Mr. ROMERO-BARCELO ́. The President of the Popular Party, Mr.

Acevedo-Vila ́.

STATEMENT OF ANIBAL ACEVEDO-VILA ́ , PRESIDENT OF THE

POPULAR DEMOCRATIC PARTY, SAN JUAN, PUERTO RICO

Mr. ACEVEDO-VILA ́. Good afternoon. For the record, my name is

Anibal Acevedo-Vila ́. I am President of the Popular Democratic

Party. I commend the sponsor of this bill for his interest in establishing the procedure for the people of Puerto Rico to choose their

final political status. I pledge the full cooperation of our party to

that end.

We have made every effort to evaluate, study and analyze H.R.

856 and conclude that we cannot and will not support it as it

stands right now.

For the majority of the people of Puerto Rico that believe in autonomy and self-government with American citizenship as a bond

with the United States, this bill offers no alternative. It will require that the more than 900,000 persons I represent that are

against annexation as a State, choose between the colonial denigrating status or loosing our American citizenship. To vote in this

plebiscite would force us to act against our political beliefs. It

would trample us upon our conscience.

When Congress decided back in 1917 to offer American citizenship to the people of Puerto Rico, it was made completely disassociated from any thought of statehood and specifically contemplated

that it be an element of future autonomous self-government development for the island. To unilaterally change these assumptions

now would confront Puerto Ricans with a conscience dilemma of no

precedent in American history.

With this bill as it stands, statehood becomes the only available

alternative. The people of Puerto Rico would have to make a choice

for statehood for their own reasons, not based on patriotism and a

real commitment to the union, but because they have been left with

no other real alternative. On the other hand, the U.S. Congress

will have before it a petition for statehood, and a request for action

without having considered properly the cultural, national, linguistic, economic consequences of statehood. As you can see, this

bill as it stands would not solve any problem, but rather create a

bigger one.

Let there be no doubt that we want to participate in a fair and

democratic process. As Chairman Young stated in September 17,

1990, with regard to another referendum bill for Puerto Rico, and

I am quoting, ‘‘a referendum should only be authorized by the Congress if it is to be fair to all parties and the statuses they advo-
64

cate.’’ With all due respect, the bill under your consideration does

not comply with the fairness standard Chairman Young previously

established.

History shows that full autonomy and American citizenship are

not mutually exclusive concepts. This principle was clearly outlined

by President Taft in his 1912 State of the Union address advocating in favor of granting American citizenship to Puerto Ricans.

And I quote from President Taft. ‘‘But it must be remembered that

the demand must be, and in the minds of most Puerto Ricans is,

entirely disassociated from any thought of statehood. I believe that

no substantial approved public opinion in the United States or in

Puerto Rico contemplates statehood for the island as the ultimate

form of relations between us. I believe that the aim to be striven

for is the fullest possible allowance of legal and fiscal self-government with American citizenship as the bond between us; in other

words, a relation analogous to the present relation between Great

Britain and such self-governing colonies as Canada and Australia.’’

The basic principles regarding commonwealth that this bill pretends to deny, the existence of a bilateral relationship based on

mutual consent with American citizenship as one of its components, have been recognized by the court, by the U.S. Government,

by the United Nations, and in all the bills that the Congress has

seriously considered with regard to the status of Puerto Rico in the

last 25 years.

For example, H.R. 11200–1st Session, 94th Congress, introduced

in Congress in 1975 approved in a subcommittee, recognized that

we—that the commonwealth was a compact between Puerto Rico

and the United States. S. 712, approved by the Senate Energy

Committee in August, 1989, recognizing the bilaterality of the relationship and the permanence of American citizenship. S. 244 was

also considered by the Senate Energy Committee in 1991. It recognized Puerto Rico’s autonomy, bilateral compact, mutual consent,

and the U.S. citizenship as a bond of permanent union. Final Committee vote was 10 to 10, although major concerns to the commonwealth definition were not reported. Finally, H.R. 4765 approved by

Interior and Insular Affairs, by the Interior Committee and unanimously by the House of Representative in August 10, 1990, allowing the people of Puerto Rico to vote for a new commonwealth.

So far, I have been talking about the historic precedents that

clearly show that the assumptions under which this bill has been

drafted are wrong. Now it is time to talk about the future.

The definition I am about to present is made recognizing the sovereignty of the people of Puerto Rico to enter into a new relationship with the United States consistent with the principles of dignity, political autonomy and permanent union that gave birth to

the present commonwealth status. With minor changes in order to

adjust it to the implementation process required by H.R. 856, the

Popular Democratic Party believes that it will be adequate to work

with the definition of a new commonwealth adopted by this Committee in 1990, which was included in the report to H.R. 4765 of

the 101st Congress and approved unanimously by the full House on

October 10, 1990.

Eleven members of this Committee, including Chairman Young

and Congressman Miller, were members of that Committee and
65

voted in favor of that definition that I will now present. The new

commonwealth shall be defined as follows.

A, the new Commonwealth of Puerto Rico will be joined in a

union with the United States that will be permanent and the relationship could only be altered by mutual consent. Under a compact,

the commonwealth would be an autonomous body politic with its

own character and culture, not incorporated into the United States

and sovereign over matters covered by the Constitution of Puerto

Rico, consistent with the Constitution of the United States.

B, the United States citizenship of persons born in Puerto Rico

would be guaranteed and secure as provided by the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States and equal to that of

citizens born in the several States. The individual rights, privileges

and immunities provided for by the Constitution of the United

States would apply to residents of Puerto Rico. Residents of Puerto

Rico would be entitled to receive benefits under Federal social program equally with residents of the several States, contingent on equitable contributions from Puerto Rico as provided by law.

C, to enable Puerto Rico to arrive at full self-government over

matters necessary to its economic, social and cultural development

under its constitution, a special constitutional convention will submit proposals for the entry of Puerto Rico into international agreements and the exemption of Puerto Rico from specific Federal laws

or provisions thereof. The President and the Congress, as appropriate, will consider whether such proposals will be consistent with

the vital national interests of the United States in the transition

plan provided for in Section 4 of this act. The commonwealth would

assume any expenses related to increased responsibilities resulting

from these proposals.

And that is the end of the definition we are presenting. The definition describes the minimum content of our aspirations. By offering a definition which was the subject of serious study, was actively

supported by Chairman Young and Congressman Miller among

others, and met with the approval of this Committee and of the

whole House a few years ago, we mean to show our desire to facilitate the work of this Committee and bring about a plebiscite in

which commonwealth supporters may participate with a clear conscience.

By using the mechanism of a constitutional convention to implement the mandate in favor of the new commonwealth, which is already included in Section 4(b)(1)(B) of H.R. 856, that recognized the

calling of a special constitutional convention, to implement a vote

in favor of the new commonwealth, we would adapt it to the implementation mechanism conceived by this bill.

The Popular Democratic Party is looking with enthusiasm at the

future. It is in the process of reorganizing its leadership and currently involved in a healthy generational transition that will guarantee a strong and rejuvenated party for years to come. The definition I have presented today fully complies with the principles contained in a document adopted last week by the Youth Organization

of the Popular Democratic Party.

Commonwealth as an autonomic idea for the future is the only

status alternative in Puerto Rico that harmonizes those aspirations

and goals of the modern world by protecting our identity and si-
66

multaneously guaranteeing our relationship with the United

States, with a common market, common citizenship, common defense and common currency.

We believe that the modern tendencies show that the ideas that

will prevail in the new century will be those similar to the basic

principles of commonwealth of national reaffirmation and political

integration among the people of the world.

Thank you.

[Statement of Anibal Acevedo-Vila ́ may be found at end of hearing.]

Mr. ROMERO-BARCELO ́. Thank you, Mr. Acevedo. I want to thank

you for your testimony, statement and also thank you for staying

within the time limits allowed. Now I would like to ask a couple

of questions about your proposal. But before that, I would like to

ask a question about the plebiscite, how the plebiscite is held in

Puerto Rico. Do you believe that the plebiscite bill in 1967 was a

fair bill for all parties?

Mr. ACEVEDO-VILA ́. It was a completely different process. That

one was basically a local plebiscite. Now we are talking about federally authorized plebiscite and I think that if we want to really

have action from Congress, this is the kind of plebiscite we need.

We had two plebiscites, one called by the Popular Democratic Party

in 1967, the other one by the Statehood Party in 1993. And we

haven’t seen any action from Congress. So I don’t—perhaps that

one should have been done in a different way to guarantee that the

resolve of the people of Puerto Rico would have been respected by

Congress. I think that is one of the major limitations we have had

till now.

Mr. ROMERO-BARCELO ́. My question is precisely whether you

think that the 1967 plebiscite was a fair plebiscite to the other parties, the parties that represented statehood and independence?

Would you say that that was a fair plebiscite as far as they were

concerned? Having nothing to do with the Federal Government,

just with the other parties.

Mr. ACEVEDO-VILA ́. Well, at that time the statehood party did

not accept the plebiscite and a new faction was created. And as a

result, perhaps, of what happened in ’67, they won the elections in

1968. So the statehood was adequately represented in that plebiscite.

Mr. ROMERO-BARCELO ́. But we all considered it a very unfair

plebiscite. We participated as an independent group. The party

boycotted and so did the independence party boycott it. Both parties boycotted it, and they voted against the bill in the legislature

of Puerto Rico.

Mr. ACEVEDO-VILA ́. I don’t think that for some of that the 1993

plebiscite was either too fair. We participated and we won.

Mr. ROMERO-BARCELO ́. And the 1991 referendum, do you consider that—was that a fair bill for the other side?

Mr. ACEVEDO-VILA ́. In a way it is also—you could say it was unfair, but you won.

Mr. ROMERO-BARCELO ́. That is right. So sometimes what is unpleasant, is not fair, might be to the advantage of the other party.

Mr. ACEVEDO-VILA ́. I think that what we get out of this is that

the next time we should do it the right way.
67

Mr. ROMERO-BARCELO ́. The other—when I read your definition of

a new commonwealth, and so much emphasis is made on the sovereignty and the separateness of Puerto Rico, vis a vis the United

States, my mind wonders why do you really, then, insist on U.S.

citizenship? You don’t really want to be like other U.S. citizens.

Why do you insist on that?

Mr. ACEVEDO-VILA ́. As I showed you with the President Taft

quote, when U.S. citizenship was granted to the people of Puerto

Rico, it was clearly established it had nothing to do with statehood,

and moreover that it could be the bond of a new relationship based

on an autonomous self-government. And that is what we are asking. This bill—one of the problems with this bill is now, 60 years

later, 70 years later, Congress wants to unilaterally give a new interpretation, but it is too late. U.S. citizenship was granted in 1917

under those rules, and to change that now is really unfair to the

people of Puerto Rico.

Mr. ROMERO-BARCELO ́. I am not talking so much about the unfairness that might be or might not be in Congress. My question

is why do you want to be a U.S. citizen if you don’t really like being

part of the United States as the rest of the citizens? What would

you want to be?

Mr. ACEVEDO-VILA ́. Congressman, we haven’t said that. I haven’t

said that. We have a special relationship, and to enter into a new

relationship, yes, you have—the fact that we have here in our selfdetermination process, even if we vote for statehood, that is basically an exercise of our sovereignty. This Congress will decide if the

people of Puerto Rico have the right to vote for their future. And

whatever relationship we will have in the future with the United

States has to be based on the sovereignty of the people of Puerto

Rico, which means that the ultimate source of power is the people.

So I don’t see why you want to give some different computation to

my expression when even for statehood this Congress has to decide

that we have the power to decide. And to have the power to decide

means to have—to be sovereign in terms of the decision we are

going to make.

After the decision is made and a new commonwealth is established, we have provided for a mechanism so the powers that Congress will still exercise over Puerto Rico will be clearly established

through this process of a special constitutional convention, which

is the only change we are making to the definition that in 1990

was approved by the full House, by this Committee and unanimously by the full House.

Mr. ROMERO-BARCELO ́. The issue here is not only what we want,

but also what Congress would approve and what the citizens for

which the Congress people and the Senators respond would accept.

Now the reason I asked that question is how do you think the U.S.

citizens here feel when they hear or they read that the U.S. citizens of Puerto Rico don’t really want to have the same things that

they have or have equality in a democratic system which prides

itself on equality politically, equality economically, and that they

don’t really want that, they want something else and they want to

be separated and they want their own authority for certain other

things and they don’t want to get into the ball game?
68

Mr. ACEVEDO-VILA ́. Precisely because we know that it a two-way

relationship. We are offering an alternative that was approved by

the full House in 1990. So we are not here with a new wish list

or whatever. We are working on what was done between 1989 and

1991, and in this case what was approved on this Committee.

With regard to Puerto Rico, the United States and the people of

the United States know they have a special relationship with Puerto Rico. They know we have different culture and different language and they have advantage of that relationship. It is not only

one way. It is two ways. Common defense is also in the interests

of the United States, and we agree with that. Puerto Rico is one

of the best markets for U.S. produce, and that is good for the American economy. So it is a relationship healthier for both sides. And

what we want to do now is to get new tools for economic development for Puerto Rico within this special arrangement that has been

working since 1952, but that now if we are going to address this

issue seriously we should clarify any doubts about a relationship

and give the opportunity for it to develop into further, more selfgovernment, full self-government.

Mr. ROMERO-BARCELO ́. My time is up. I just want to make a

statement. The problem with the whole thing is the citizenship. If

you ask for the same things without U.S. citizenship, I would think

that the Congress wouldn’t even, you know, think twice about it if

that is what the people wanted. It is the citizenship that creates

the real problem.

Mr. ACEVEDO-VILA ́. That is not negotiable. Citizenship is not negotiable.

Mr. ROMERO-BARCELO ́. The Congressman from Samoa.

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. AcevedoVila ́, am I to understand that your statement on page 9 in the proposed definitions that you have alluded to earlier, this has been

submitted to Chairman Young and the members of the Committee?

This is what you would like——

Mr. ACEVEDO-VILA ́. Yes.

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. [continuing]—have incorporated in the proposed bill?

Mr. ACEVEDO-VILA ́. We were given until the 31st of March, but

I decided that this was the moment to present, so this Committee

clearly understands that we are not against a plebiscite.

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. So you are——

Mr. ACEVEDO-VILA ́. All of the party have been committed since

1952, even after commonwealth was enacted, we have been committed to giving the opportunity of the people of Puerto Rico to be

consulted again and also to develop commonwealth. But the problem with this bill is that it is unfair and basically if you approve

this bill as it stands, you don’t have to count the votes. You will

have a petition for statehood here, but for the wrong reasons.

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Let me ask you just—is it your position that

you will not have any objections to this bill if the proposed definition of commonwealth as you alluded to earlier is incorporated?

Mr. ACEVEDO-VILA ́. If this definition is adopted by this Committee, that means that we have changed the assumptions under

which this Committee has been acting. You could have some choice

or change of course then you have to make some other changes on
69

the bill, for example the findings of fact, which even the

independentistas said they are not necessary to be there. And of

course these definitions should be part of the permanent solution

of this issue. It is not something to—this one or the one that said

that if commonwealth wins we have to have a vote every four

years, it would be part of the permanent solution.

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. You know, as a matter of observation, Mr.

Vila, it is interesting to note that you have stated that the people

of Puerto Rico were not granted their American citizenship until

1917. The American Indians were not granted citizenship until

1924. My good friend here from Guam was not granted U.S. citizenship until 1950. To this day, we are still not U.S. citizens as

part of the American family, as I say. So as a matter of observation

I wanted to ask you it is your opinion that since granting citizenship in 1917 to the people of Puerto Rico, your feeling is that Congress never intended Puerto Rico to become a State?

Mr. ACEVEDO-VILA ́. That is clearly on the record. That has been

decided by the courts. And also on page——

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. No, I am not——

Mr. ACEVEDO-VILA ́. No, I want to——

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Well, I want to make an addition, an observation of the fact that I recall that in 1929 there was a U.S. Supreme Court case that emanated from Puerto Rico, which was

Downs v. Bidwell, which by judicial legislation the U.S. Supreme

Court then created what was called the incorporation doctrine,

meaning that if a territory was to be described as an unincorporated territory, they will never see the day of becoming a State,

but if you were an incorporated territory——

Mr. ACEVEDO-VILA ́. In that case——

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. [continuing]—like Alaska and Hawaii, there

was some sense of future that one day those territories would eventually become States.

Mr. ACEVEDO-VILA ́. In that case it was after we had become U.S.

citizens.

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Yes.

Mr. ACEVEDO-VILA ́. And the court decided that we were not an

incorporated territory because of the fact that we were given U.S.

citizenship. It had nothing to do with statehood. And these men

tried to change all that law.

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Was there any reason when the U.S. finally

decided to grant independence to the Philippines, was there any

discussion in the Philippine—I mean in Puerto Rico, as well, as

your understanding of history? Was there any movement by the

people of Puerto Rico that a likely grant should also be given to the

people of Puerto Rico when the Philippines became independent?

Mr. ACEVEDO-VILA ́. All the evidence is that Puerto Ricans never,

never have really been interested in independence. And after the

creation of commonwealth back in 1952, the Independence Party

was the second party in the island, and I don’t remember the percentage, but they got perhaps maybe 30 percent of the vote. Now

they have been down to five percent for the last 20, 25 years.

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Is it your basic position that—let us say

that this legislation goes forward smoothly, that as proponents of

a commonwealth status, whatever the will of the people of Puerto
70

Rico will decide, in fairness, if it wants statehood tomorrow, the

commonwealth proponents will accept statehood? Is that basically

your position?

Mr. ACEVEDO-VILA ́. We don’t have any problem with that, and we

will respect the will of the people, and we also believe that if it is

a fair process and commonwealth is defined in a way that recognizes the kind of relationship we want, we will win that plebiscite.

The people of Puerto Rico want to be—to keep being Puerto Ricans

and also they want to keep their close relationship with the United

States. The only way you can amortize that in the reality of Puerto

Rico is through commonwealth. Independence, then you will afford—your nationalistic ideas and principles will be guaranteed,

but then you won’t have the close ties to the United States. With

statehood, you are risking, definitely, your cultural identity and

language.

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. But your point is that whatever the will expressed by the people will be, whether it be independence, commonwealth or statehood, your proponents of commonwealth will accept

that?

Mr. ACEVEDO-VILA ́. I go a step further. On the resolution that

was approved by my party, which is included as an appendix to my

written statement, we say that we want any plebiscite—a federally

approved plebiscite should be self-executing.

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Thank you.

Mr. ACEVEDO-VILA ́. Believing that, recognizing 1989 to 1991

process, we were the ones requiring that any bill approved by Congress would be self-executing.

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. ROMERO-BARCELO ́. Thank you, Mr. Faleomavaega. Now, who

is next?

Mr. KENNEDY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just want to make

a point.

Mr. ROMERO-BARCELO ́. Congressman Kennedy.

Mr. KENNEDY. It is interesting that I have to ask a question now,

because I get to go over and vote on the Fair Labors and Standards

Act because I am a—I have got all the rights and privileges as a

Member of Congress here, and yet you can let me go because you

can’t have that same right that I enjoy on the Floor of the House

to go leave now. And yet when we adopt one way or another whether we can replace comp time for overtime in this country, it is

going to affect the residents of—people of Puerto Rico such that at

the end of the year they are not going to have accrued as much social security time. At the end of the year, they are not going to

have accrued the overtime dollars. They are going to be at a loss

of nearly $1600 per family of income because of this bill if it is to

pass, and yet your representative cannot go on the Floor and say

that is wrong for Puerto Rico because he doesn’t have that voting

privilege.

And from my point of view, if you want to have citizenship and

you want to have a bilateral relationship, it seems to me it has to

include your ability to have voting power or else to have full determination for your people is rendered moot because you don’t have

the governmental authority to advocate on some very basic issues

of economic concern. And that is all I——
71

Mr. ACEVEDO-VILA ́. As to your concerns, I have adequately taken

care on the definition I am presenting. The solution to that dilemma is to allow the people of Puerto Rico an established mechanism so we can be exempted from Federal laws which has nothing

to do with vital national interest. We don’t have any problem with

the laws regarding to defense and all that, but any other law we

should would have the mechanism to decide whether it should

apply to Puerto Rico or not. There is no problem with that, and

that will take care of your concern.

Mr. KENNEDY. Thank you very much.

Mr. ROMERO-BARCELO ́. The gentleman from Guam.

Mr. UNDERWOOD. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for a

very interesting presentation. I have always—obviously I have the

bill that I have introduced to make Guam a commonwealth, and

sometimes people ask what is the distinction between this bill and

the current status of Puerto Rico, but that will come for another

day. And that issue, I think we deal with a little bit differently, because as part of the legislation that I have for Guam includes a

mechanism for ultimately making a case for full self-determination.

So that is not a process that is oblivious to that, but is actually incorporated in the context of the legislation which we have developed from Guam.

The question that I have for you is that in the process of making

a case for commonwealth and assuming that this legislation moves

forward and it has a definition that fits your—is to your satisfaction, and commonwealth prevails in this process, is it your assumption that commonwealth will then be a permanent status and that

there will be no further determination, no further electoral process

involved?

Mr. ACEVEDO-VILA ́. It will be a permanent solution, of course. If

25, 30, 35 years from now the people of Puerto Rico express the

will to become a State or even independence, we might reconsider

the whole thing, but it is like when Texas was independent, Alaska

was a republic and it was not the end of the discussion, but on

this—from our point of view, it is a permanent solution, especially

until—for all the time that Puerto Rico wants to still be part of

that kind of arrangement. That is the concept of mutual consent.

Going back to the question of sovereignty, when Congress talks

about mutual consent, it is recognizing the sovereignty of the other

side to decide in terms of any change to the relationship. So that

is taken care of also within the concept of mutual consent.

Mr. UNDERWOOD. OK, so as I understand you, and as I understand the advocates of your position, then, obviously things can always change. It could be that what is now an independent republic

could become admitted as a State in the Union. It is even conceivable that a State in the Union may no longer be a State in the

Union, but I think we take it on relatively safe political assumption

that once you are a State in the Union, that is pretty much it and

that once you are an independent country, that that is pretty much

the situation. But the relative permanence of what you have described for commonwealth is not quite as permanent as the other

two options.

Mr. ACEVEDO-VILA ́. It is as permanent as we want it to be permanent.
72

Mr. UNDERWOOD. It is as permanent until you change your mind.

Mr. ACEVEDO-VILA ́. As we want it to be permanent. There is no

problem with that.

Mr. UNDERWOOD. OK, all right, well, I am glad you say that, because that clarifies for me——

Mr. ACEVEDO-VILA ́. I have to be—if you consider statehood for

Puerto Rico, given the fact that we are a nation, you are going to

have people telling you that the right of self-determination of the

people of Puerto Rico haven’t been extinguished under statehood.

Mr. UNDERWOOD. I hear that. I hear that loud and clear, but, you

know, that is not a determination for me to make. I think it is a

determination that will be made by the Puerto Rican people according to an orderly process, and so that is what I am most interested

in. But what I am trying to understand is the relative permanence

of what is being characterized as a permanent solution. And I want

to state for the record that certainly in the process of—you know,

you admit here or you submit as part of your testimony a quote

from Justice Frankfurter.

Mr. ACEVEDO-VILA ́. I was going to—yes.

Mr. UNDERWOOD. Yes, who said that this is really unincorporated

territory. It is a problem of statesmanship.

Mr. ACEVEDO-VILA ́. Yes, that is a quote from 1912 when he was

working at the War Department and Puerto Rico was under the jurisdiction with regard to Puerto Rican interests was in the War Department. And that quote, I think, is very, very important, because

it basically tells you here in Congress that there are no real Constitutional constraints on establishing a new relationship with

Puerto Rico.

The quote is the following. ‘‘The form of the relationship between

the United States and unincorporated territory’’—which we were at

that time—‘‘is solely a problem of statesmanship. History suggests

a great diversity of relationships between a central government

and dependent territory. The present day demands upon inventive

statesmanship is to help evolve new kinds of relationships so as to

combine the advantages of local self-government with those of a

confederated union. Luckily, our Constitution has left this field of

invention open.’’

What you have is an opportunity of statesmanship invention.

That is it.

Mr. UNDERWOOD. Inventiveness is one thing. Invention is another, and permanent status yet is still another. And I would submit that there is—I understand the dynamics of where we are

today and I have no doubt that saying that this dynamic may serve

us well for the next 25 to 30 years, but there is in your characterization of this permanent status an indicator that there is still

something unresolved in that. There is still something unresolved,

and that is a final issue of self determination. And until that is

fully resolved in one way or another, it seems to me that inevitably

we will come back and indeed the current status may serve the

purposes of the relationship well now. But indeed at 25 years from

now, 30 years from now, 50 years from now, we will be back addressing the same issues.

That is why, you know, the way we have crafted it is a little bit

different. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
73

[Joint letter to the President may be found at end of hearing.]

Mr. ROMERO-BARCELO ́. Thank you, Mr. Underwood. The

gentlelady from Virgin Islands.

Ms. CHRISTIAN-GREEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good afternoon, Mr. Acevedo-Vila ́. Commonwealth and free association are

status options in this bill, and I would ask you to clarify for me

what is the difference.

Mr. ACEVEDO-VILA ́. Well, I mean, this bill—commonwealth is defined—in this bill, the one we have—OK.

Ms. CHRISTIAN-GREEN. Well, have you seen the definition that is

proposed for free association?

Mr. ACEVEDO-VILA ́. The one in the bill, yes.

Ms. CHRISTIAN-GREEN. Go ahead and answer. Go ahead.

Mr. ACEVEDO-VILA ́. In this bill, in H.R. 856, commonwealth is defined as a colonial denigrating status and free association is defined as independence with no American citizenship. And that is

one of the problems with this bill. It wants to force my people to

vote to go back to a colonial status or to deprive the unborn Puerto

Ricans, my grandchildren, of American citizenship. And that has no

precedent in American history.

Ms. CHRISTIAN-GREEN. I can’t find it right now, but I thought

that—I think that in what is proposed for free association they propose to negotiate American citizenship. So what would be the difference—if that was proposed, what would be the difference between free association and commonwealth as you define it?

Mr. ACEVEDO-VILA ́. The definition of new commonwealth is the

one that I am proposing. How you label it, to me, is not important.

It is the essence. And the essence is that we have and we want a

bilateral relationship based on a mutual consent with the American

citizenship as one of its elements. That is not negotiable.

Ms. CHRISTIAN-GREEN. I understand. Thank you.

Mr. ROMERO-BARCELO ́. Before we go to the next member, I would

like to say something for the record. One of the things that you

mentioned, that the definition of the commonwealth in the bill before that was granted by the House back in 1991, that was ’91 or

’92. I don’t remember exactly.

Mr. ACEVEDO-VILA ́. It was 1990, October 10.

Mr. ROMERO-BARCELO ́. That bill did not include a definition of

commonwealth. The definition of commonwealth was only in the

Committee report, but it was not included in the bill.

Mr. ACEVEDO-VILA ́. I clearly say in my statement that it was included on the report, but I can explain to you the whole

process——

Mr. ROMERO-BARCELO ́. Well, I was in the process. I was in the

process.

Mr. ACEVEDO-VILA ́. Because the law—the bill, as you know——

Mr. ROMERO-BARCELO ́. There was no consensus either in those

days for those bills.

Mr. ACEVEDO-VILA ́. But it was approved. You were here. It was

approved unanimously——

Mr. ROMERO-BARCELO ́. With no consensus of the parties in Puerto Rico.

Mr. ACEVEDO-VILA ́. Excuse me?
74

Mr. ROMERO-BARCELO ́. With no consensus of the parties in Puerto Rico as to what the bill said. The bill was approved the way the

Congress wanted to approve it, not the way we wanted it.

Mr. ACEVEDO-VILA ́. OK, but of that bill——

Mr. ROMERO-BARCELO ́. I think the way——

Mr. ACEVEDO-VILA ́. That bill clearly says that the people of Puerto Rico have the option of voting for statehood, independence or

new commonwealth and that whoever wins under that bill would

come here and negotiate it. They said on the principles of the definitions that were included on the report—that was stated on the

bill.

Mr. ROMERO-BARCELO ́. That was not stated on the bill. We can—

we have the bill in our records, so we will look at that. The other—

I have copies of it, of the bill. We have copies of it. Are you

aware——

Mr. ACEVEDO-VILA ́. Can I read Section 4 of that bill?

Mr. ROMERO-BARCELO ́. Let me ask you a question. Are you aware

that Congress cannot deny another Congress its Constitutional authority? In other words, if a Congress says today I am not going

to exercise this Constitutional authority, this Constitutional power

that I have, it cannot tell the next Congress that it cannot exercise

it. Are you aware of that Constitutional doctrine?

Mr. ACEVEDO-VILA ́. That Constitutional doctrine has exceptions.

And on my testimony, written testimony, you can look into Appendix A where we have a note on the power of Congress to enter into

a compact with the people of Puerto Rico and in many cases where

this Congress has entered into the same kind of compact relationship and the court has validated that exercise. I have said that further Congress would have to comply with that.

Mr. ROMERO-BARCELO ́. There is no single case that determines

that Congress can address itself or its authority unless they do it

by the Constitution, and to obligate a future Congress. A future

Congress might abide by it throughout entirety, but the future

Congress always had the right to do away and change the law. If

you adopt something by law, if Congress adopts something by law,

then the next Congress can repeal and can amend that law. There

is no such thing as a law that is unrepealable or unamendable. So

any law by Congress giving Puerto Rico certain powers can be

taken away by the next Congress, because Congress cannot deny

the next Congress that authority, that power that it has under the

territorial clause.

Mr. ACEVEDO-VILA ́. We can discuss this for hours if you want to.

It is basically a legal discussion. For me, this is basically a problem

of Puerto Rico will. It is not a legal discussion. If this Congress

wants to recognize and validate what it told the people of Puerto

Rico back in 1952 and construe over it for the future—and at that

time Law 600 was not a single law. Law 600 was approved by this

Congress and then it said clearly that in order to enter into effect

it had to be approved by the people of Puerto Rico. There is the

compact that the Governor couldn’t find.

Mr. ROMERO-BARCELO ́. This is merely a rectification. The Congress says this is a law, if you want it, accept it. That is all it says,

all the law says.

Mr. ACEVEDO-VILA ́. That is not——
75

Mr. ROMERO-BARCELO ́. If you accept it, we will go on.

Mr. ACEVEDO-VILA ́. That is not what the cases say, but we don’t

want to——

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Would the Chairman yield?

Mr. ROMERO-BARCELO ́. Yes.

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. I think what we are trying to determine

here, Mr. Vila, is the fact that there is definitely a permanency on

statehood status as well as independent status. But when we discuss the issue of commonwealth, it seems to be an evolving process.

It is not really permanent. Whatever was the status of commonwealth in 1917 or even in 1920, I think the latest now, as I understand from those who are advocating commonwealth, it is a continuous process in between independence on one extreme and statehood on the other extreme, so I think what we are trying to establish here is that there definitely is a permanency on statehood and

independence, but commonwealth seems to be an evolving process.

There is no finality of determining what exactly is the—what direction is Puerto Rico headed for. Am I correct?

Mr. ACEVEDO-VILA ́. If it is good for the United States and if it

is good for the people of Puerto Rico, why do we have to be then

discussing this issue about the permanence? It is good for the people of Puerto Rico and it is good for the United States just continuing it. I don’t—as I told you, even if Puerto Rico becomes a

State, you will still have the self-determination issue, because

given the fact that we are a nation, people will say that we haven’t

extinguished our self-determination right. So what you are asking

me is that we by law say that it is legally important after this plebiscite we will say by law that it is illegal to be an independentista

or statehooder, even—or if we become a State that it will be illegal

to be an independentista or autonomous under statehood. No, the

discussion might go on, but with this finished and if Congress finally clarifies many of the assumptions made on this bill, I can

guarantee you that we will win that plebiscite and that this thing

would be settled at least for one generation.

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Do you view that with the current definitions of the proposed bill that there definitely would be some very

serious problems with those advocating commonwealth if you were

to proceed with the plebiscite, or will you participate in the plebiscite without the form of definition that you now have outlined in

your statement?

Mr. ACEVEDO-VILA ́. I have to be honest with you. I can’t make

the U.S. Government, Congress and the President, approve a law

which gives no option to 46, 48, 49 percent of the people down

there in Puerto Rico who believe in self government with an autonomy with American citizenship. So I come here because we see the

invitation, especially the letter that was sent by Chairman Young

and Congressman Miller, as an openness, as an opportunity, as a

willingness to revise the assumptions under that bill. So I really—

I believe in principles. I believe in democracy, and I think that if

a plebiscite is finally approved by Congress, we will be allowed to

vote.

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Mr. Chairman, my time is up. I am sorry.

Mr. ROMERO-BARCELO ́. Thank you. The gentleman from Illinois.
76

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Well, I

guess we are coming back to probably the crux of the dilemma that

we have here today, I believe. As I stated earlier, Mr. Chairman

and members of the Committee, I have the perplexing dilemma

also, and that is that I see what happened in ’52, OK, we got Law

600. Subsequently, we go to the United Nations. We say to the

committee on decolonization ‘‘tell you what, Puerto Rico has

achieved self-determination, we have a bilateral agreement.’’ That

is our government interpreting what the Congress of the United

States has done. Now we can argue and quibble into the night, but

that was the interpretation before the world. Now, see, I don’t

mind looking backward from that position.

I say that if the people of Puerto Rico and the Government of the

United States, through its representatives, went to the United Nations and said ‘‘ we don’t have to report anymore to the committee

on decolonization,’’ why are we moving backward to a territorial

clause which is weaker, which is weaker and less respectful of the

people of Puerto Rico to then reengage in a conversation where we

should say ‘‘move forward.’’ And so it is like we have let you come

this far, we told the world we would let you come this far, but now

we are taking it all back and starting back at square one going

back to the territorial clause.

It would seem to me that even if you believe that it was a lie,

a fantasy, and something that we misled the people of the world

about, that it still has validity in terms of its impact, where it has

taken the people of Puerto Rico. And we shouldn’t really take that

away. So I have a great dilemma of saying to myself I understand

the question of sovereignty and separate sovereignty.

I understand those questions, but you see, in Puerto Rico if you

look at the history, there have been three traditions. There has

been the annexation tradition, those who wish for Puerto Rico to

become a State. Very well established in history. There has been

the independence tradition, very well established in the history of

Puerto Rico. And there has been the autonomous position, very

well established in the history of Puerto Rico. Ramon Baldorioty de

Castro y Luis Mun ̃ oz Rivera. And you can keep adding names. And,

I mean, maybe Mun ̃ oz Rivera, others probably didn’t speak to Jose ́

de Diego. And they were together at one time and then they separated over these questions.

But, you see, it is—the problem that I have, and I am going to

have to grapple with it seriously and that I think the members of

the Committee should seriously look at, do you now say given that

history in Puerto Rico that we are going to lump two of them together? Two historically independent interpretations of what the

will of the people of Puerto Rico should be historically speaking. I

didn’t make them up yesterday. So to kind of suggest that somebody is coming up and inventing a new formula, I think is a little

disingenuous given the rich history of the option of autonomy and

the proposal of autonomy which exists in Puerto Rico.

Now the question that I think this Committee should ask itself—

if we can see—if we can concede that Puerto Rico under free association, which I think was from commonwealth—because let me

just state for the record I do not believe that under the current status which exists between Puerto Rico and the United States we
77

have achieved self-determination. I don’t believe that, and therefore

I believe it is a colony. But I also believe that because the Congress

of the United States did not—our country, our government, did not

fulfill its obligations as it should have back in 1953 to allow the

growth of the sovereign powers of Commonwealth—allow the island

to develop and to give birth to new kinds of rights under that interpretation.

So I say to myself OK, now, let us think about this a minute. If

I said there would be common currency, everybody on the Committee might say free association, common currency, sounds OK to

me under free association. Common defense, sounds OK to me,

probably could do that. If I could just—since the green light is still

on——

Mr. ROMERO-BARCELO ́. I have been trying to say that, Luis, this

is a time for questions.

Mr. GUTIERREZ. I understand that.

Mr. ROMERO-BARCELO ́. And I have been very——

Mr. GUTIERREZ. And I am working up to——

The CHAIRMAN. I know why it took 98 years now. Go ahead.

Mr. GUTIERREZ. And if we could have all of these other commonalities, I guess the question I have to ask myself very seriously,

Mr. Resident Commissioner and Mr. Chairman, all of you, can

there be common citizenship under that relationship between the

two parties. And then if indeed we cannot do it under the interpretation of this Congress under the plenary powers under the territorial clause, can we allow the people of Puerto Rico under free association to have a convention in Puerto Rico, a constitutional convention in Puerto Rico, and come back and sign a treaty with the

Senate thereby allowing this free determination and the freedom of

the people of Puerto Rico—we can’t have a treaty which is not removable unilaterally by one side. Maybe laws are changeable—and

then resolve this issue.

I don’t know—those are questions that I have and I would like

Mr. Acevedo to please respond to that inquiry.

The CHAIRMAN. And may I suggest one thing, that you have a

very short time to do it, because he took all the time in asking the

question. Do the best you can, OK.

Mr. ACEVEDO-VILA ́. As Frankfurter said back in 1914, our Constitution has left this field of invention open. And what we can’t

accept is the assumption on this bill that you can’t have autonomy

and full self-government based on bilateral relationship that can be

changed only by mutual consent and also have American citizenship.

So on the definition I am presenting, which I repeat was approved by the Committee and by the full—the definition was in the

report and the report was approved here. And then the bill was approved in the House unanimously, and included this definition of

the new commonwealth I am presenting with some minor changes.

Recognizing all the principles we have been discussing, this doesn’t

have to be a trial on what happened in 1950 and ’52. We believe

what happened in 1952, but if somebody has doubts, let us clarify

them now. This is the time to clarify them.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. The gentleman, Mr. Serrano.
78

Mr. SERRANO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Acevedo, this is

not a very easy moment for me, because, as I have stated before,

I have taken some heat in the last couple of years for using the

words colony and territory. And I know that some people feel offended by that, and some people feel somehow betrayed that anyone who was born on the island would charaterize the situation

later in such a way. Please understand that my belief is that whatever agreement or lack of agreement was reached in ’52, ’53, was

not a permanent agreement, because it was supposed to lead to

something. Now what it would have led to is where I think we differ. Many of you feel somewhat comfortable with the current arrangement, but at the same time want changes in it.

So my quick question to you, and I need you to give me a quick

answer so I can give you another question, is: am I correct that,

in the ’93 plebiscite, the option presented as commonwealth was in

fact a a different, enhanced, commonwealth, or was it a reaffirmation of everything that was in the agreement as you saw it and

that the people voted 48 percent for?

Mr. ACEVEDO-VILA ́ The definition I am presenting today verifies

the principle in which we believe and that Congress told the people

of Puerto Rico we were getting back in 1950, ’52, but if you have

some doubts inside yourself, then this is your opportunity to do it

the right way, then. But within those principles, within those principles.

Mr. SERRANO. Let me ask you the hard question. It might be

easy for you. You do not believe—are you a lawyer?

Mr. ACEVEDO-VILA ́. Yes.

Mr. SERRANO. I am not.

Mr. ACEVEDO-VILA ́. Good for you.

Mr. SERRANO. My safety in this whole process, you know. You believe that Puerto Rico is not a colony of the United States?

Mr. ACEVEDO-VILA ́. Yes, I do believe we are not a colony. I believe that in 1950 and ’52 the people of Puerto Rico entered into

this special arrangement with the United States. I don’t say it is

perfect, and we have always said that commonwealth needed further development. And that is the reason I am here today.

Mr. SERRANO. Do you believe that it is unfair for us to say in a

bill, that commonwealth is based on what the Congress says it is,

and that is what it is? It is whatever Congress says it is? And that

commonwealth with your suggestions or the suggestions of people

who believe in what you believe should be a separate option available to the people of Puerto Rico?

Mr. ACEVEDO-VILA ́. If nobody is going to vote for that definition,

the first one, why do you have to put it on the ballot? Nobody

wants the definition of commonwealth that is on this bill. So if we

want to——

Mr. SERRANO. No, no, my question is: is it that nobody wants the

definition of commonwealth or is it that the definition that Congress is presenting is shameful to a lot of people who supported it

for so many years and they are running away from it now? Which

one is it?

Mr. ACEVEDO-VILA ́. In my—from my point of view, that definition

is not accurate.

Mr. SERRANO. OK, now let me tell you something.
79

Mr. ACEVEDO-VILA ́. But I am not asking from this Congress now

to make a judgment on the plebiscite from 1950, ’52.

Mr. SERRANO. Right. The problem is, Mr. Acevedo, that that is

what is holding us back. If there is a problem here, it is the fact

that there is a segment of the leadership in Puerto Rico that is saying this is not what we are. Now let me tell you the strange and

painful position that I find myself in. I was born in Mayaguez. My

father was born in Anasco, my mother in Maricao. I came here to

this country when I was seven years old. I am 53. I probably

should not say that in public, but I am 53. When I think with my

Puerto Rican hat, which is X amount of time during the day, I also

don’t want to believe Puerto Rice is a colony. It hurts me to admit

that. But when I am a United States Congressman, which is a lot

of the day, and I see how I treat Mississippi, New York, and Puerto

Rico, I know that my cousins live in a colony.

Now at what point do we say—maybe ‘‘colony’’ is not the word

to use. Maybe the concept is a totally unfair relationship and we

don’t want it as an option. And let me ask you the last question.

Do you think it would be proper for me as an American Congressman, forget the Puerto Rican part, to offer to people on the island

an option that I believe to be unjust and unfair?

Mr. ACEVEDO-VILA ́. Well, I repeat again, I am not asking you to

offer the commonwealth as defined on the bill as it stands right

now. I am asking you to offer commonwealth as I have defined on

my presentation and which you voted back in 1990 in favor of it.

You voted. You were speaker pro tempore of that session.

Mr. SERRANO. In a great moment.

Mr. ACEVEDO-VILA ́. So what we are asking is something that already has been approved by Congress, by the House.

Mr. SERRANO. So, one last question. If an amendment was to

come to this Committee proposing what you propose in this bill,

and this Committee turned it down because it wasn’t willing to

give Puerto Rico that arrangement, would you then propose that

your party participate in the plebiscite or not participate?

Mr. ACEVEDO-VILA ́. We will fight in other forums, including the

Senate, the White House, everywhere else. As I said before, perhaps the same question was made in a different way, I believe that

the U.S. Government, Congress and the President, would leave 48

percent of the people in Puerto Rico without option and that power.

Mr. SERRANO. Well, but let us clarify that. I believe that that

really is an unfair statement to me as a Member of Congress. The

notion that the 48 percent voted for—and I know that Puerto

Ricans are beautiful for analyzing numbers when it comes to this

issue. The 48 percent voted for an option that this Congress feels

you haven’t reached yet. And so when you say Congress is leaving

out 48 percent, yes, Congress may be leaving out the wishes of 48

percent, but not the actual living conditions and political arrangements of 48 percent.

Mr. ACEVEDO-VILA ́. That is why I am talking now about the future here. And we said—we are talking about a new commonwealth

consistent with the principle we have believed. And that new commonwealth was on the bill in October 1990.

Mr. SERRANO. All right, let me close by saying this. I don’t have

a problem with a new commonwealth. I have a problem with a new
80

commonwealth being presented in the ballot as the old commonwealth, because the old commonwealth is not the new commonwealth.

Mr. ACEVEDO-VILA ́. I invite you to read carefully the definition

I am proposing today. And as I said, that was approved back in

1990.

Mr. SERRANO. All right. Then again, Mr. Chairman, one last

point, any time a system of relationships allows me to run for Congress but doesn’t allow my American citizen cousins in Mayaguez

to run for Congress, that is not a fair relationship. I shouldn’t see

that on the ballot. Any time a system allows me to institute agreements with foreign countries but doesn’t allow you the sovereignty

to institute agreements with foreign countries, meaning you are not

a State, and you are also not independent, then I can’t see that as

a fair relationship.

Mr. ACEVEDO-VILA ́. The solution to your concern is on paragraph

C of the definition.

Mr. SERRANO. Which is not the actual status, is what I am trying

to get at.

Mr. ACEVEDO-VILA ́. Yes.

Mr. SERRANO. What you——

Mr. ACEVEDO-VILA ́. I am going to——

Mr. SERRANO.—doesn’t exist right now.

Mr. ACEVEDO-VILA ́. I am going to repeat my statement. So far I

have been talking about the historic precedent that clearly showed

that the assumptions under which this bill has been drafted are

wrong. Now is the time to talk about the future.

Mr. SERRANO. OK.

Mr. ACEVEDO-VILA ́. And I am proposing a new commonwealth

which is the definition that was approved by this Committee and

the House back in 1990.

Mr. SERRANO. I respect that, and I won’t badger you anymore. I

do respect you. I respect what you stand for. I respect what your

party stands for. I think the tragedy here is that Congress may be

ready to stop lying and some people can’t accept that Congress will

finally stop lying. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. ROMERO-BARCELO ́. One last question before we finish. If the

Congress were to, both the House and the Senate, and the White

House were to take a look at this suggestion that you have for the

new commonwealth and accept everything but including the citizenship and the bill were adopted, passed as a law into law as to

the new commonwealth as you define it, but without the U.S. citizenship, what would your party do?

Mr. ACEVEDO-VILA ́. It would be unacceptable for us, you know.

Mr. ROMERO-BARCELO ́. So what would your party do? Would you

vote, wouldn’t vote?

Mr. ACEVEDO-VILA ́. We would have to decide at the time, but

that definition wouldn’t be acceptable for us.

Mr. ROMERO-BARCELO ́. So you wouldn’t participate?

Mr. ACEVEDO-VILA ́. That would be another way to tilt the process

in favor of statehood.

Mr. ROMERO-BARCELO ́. So you would not vote?

Mr. ACEVEDO-VILA ́. You know that statehooders and commonwealth in Puerto Rico, we are proud of our U.S. citizenship, so by
81

defining commonwealth without a U.S. citizenship, basically you

are preordaining the result. And I know this Congress doesn’t want

that.

Mr. ROMERO-BARCELO ́. I have my doubts about that pride in the

U.S. citizenship of some of the commonwealth leaders because of

the way they talk about——

Mr. ACEVEDO-VILA ́. I am talking on behalf of the PDP and the

President of the PDP.

Mr. ROMERO-BARCELO ́. And when you—my question is if that

were eliminated from your definition, would you participate in the

process or not?

Mr. ACEVEDO-VILA ́. I don’t see where we can vote under those

circumstances.

Mr. ROMERO-BARCELO ́. All right, thank you very much. For the

New Progressive Party, Governor Luis Ferre ́, former governor.

Luis, welcome to the Congress, the Committee. A couple of the

members of the Committee have indicated to me that they have to

go to vote, so they are trying to get back as soon as possible, including Chairman Young. The problem is that the bill that is now

being taken care of in the House has certain votes that are pass

votes one right after the other. They don’t even have time for debate in between. That is why they have to stay there till those

votes are taken.

If you would like to wait for them, we can accommodate and we

can wait for them. Would you like to start now? Whatever you

wish.

Mr. FERRE ́. I understand that, Mr. Chairman. I know that they

are voting now, but do you think I should start now? Your suggestion is that we should wait?

Mr. ROMERO-BARCELO ́. Well, if you want to wait for them to

come—a couple of them to come back or we can start and then they

will be coming.

Mr. FERRE ́. Is Mr. Farrow going to make a statement?

Mr. ROMERO-BARCELO ́. No, go ahead, sure.

Mr. FERRE ́. Mr. Farrow.

Mr. ROMERO-BARCELO ́. Oh, Mr. Farrow. I am sorry. Mr. Farrow

is here also. I think we better proceed. I think we better proceed

then.

STATEMENT OF LUIS FERRE ́ , PRESIDENT OF THE NEW

PROGRESSIVE PARTY, SAN JUAN, PUERTO RICO

Mr. FERRE ́. Mr. Chairman and members of the Natural Resources Committee, good afternoon. It is a pretty light day this

afternoon, but also it’s early to do things that is right.

My name is Luis A. Ferre ́. I have advocated statehood for Puerto

Rico during my adult life, which extends to more than 93 years.

I served as Governor of Puerto Rico from 1969 to ’73, and I appear before you as Founding President of the New Progressive

Party, committed to achieve statehood for Puerto Rico, which won

in 1996 election with a majority vote of 1,006,331 or 51.4 percent

for Governor of Puerto Rico, a majority of the Senate with 19 seats

out of 28, a majority of the House with 37 out of 54 seats, 54 mayors of a total of 78 municipalities and a vote of 973,654, or majority
82

for our Resident Commissioner who is presiding today at this meeting.

I am—the New Progressive Party, of course, stands firmly behind

the Young bill, H.R. 856. And of course today when I sit here before

you and I see Congressman Serrano, who presided this House three

years ago when we voted in favor of another bill for statehood,

when I see all these Members of—the Puerto Rican Members of the

Congress of the United States here today, I say I am very happy

that I have stood for statehood all the time, because all of them

who have testified here say that they are proud to be Puerto

Ricans, but they also are very proud and happy to have U.S. citizenship.

And that is the feeling that we have respect today. We have 2

million Puerto Ricans in the United States who are U.S. citizens

and we have 3,600,000 in Puerto Rico. The 2 million in the United

States are all enfranchised. They can vote for the President and for

the Members of Congress. The 3 million in Puerto Rico are not enfranchised, the 3,600,000.

And those are the ones that want this thing to be defined finally.

We cannot wait any longer. The ones who live up here can wait,

but we cannot wait. And that is why it is very important to have

the Young bill finally approved. A decision must be made, and we

cannot permit that this bill be delayed unnecessarily.

We are all happy in this, that you have subscribed H.R. 856,

which finally opens the road for Puerto Rico to make a decision on

its ultimate political status in the dignified manner that becomes

the United States Congress and the people of the United States, including statehood as an alternative, which was the implicit understanding under which the people of Puerto Rico welcomed the

American forces of General Nelson Miles in 1898.

Unless we—I would like to note the American forces did not invade Puerto Rico. They landed in Puerto Rico, because there was

no Puerto Rican fighting the American forces in Puerto Rico. In

Cuba it was a different story. In Cuba they had to fight with the

Spaniards, a big fight. In Puerto Rico, the Puerto Ricans immediately welcomed them and there was no fighting in Puerto Rico

because the Spanish had to admit that—surrender and leave.

And then the Puerto Ricans said we want to keep—to be part of

the United States. We want to be U.S. citizens, because we want

in the long run to be a State of the Union. In Cuba, they said no,

we want independence. Well, Cuba got its independence. We got

our U.S. citizenship. A hundred years later, here we are. Cuba is

a Latin American country. Puerto Rico is part of the United States.

That is the big difference. And you can see how different it is. That

is why the people of Puerto Rico want to maintain their U.S. citizenship and consolidate that citizenship with the Nation on an

equal basis and with equal dignity.

I will not go into the historic elements, details of the landing of

General Miles. It has been covered already here, but I would like

to say the following thing. In 1950 Congress authorized the people

of Puerto Rico to vote in referendum to accept or reject Law 600,

which provided for the adoption of the local constitution, as well as

to other amendments to the Jones Act of 1917. The Federal Relations Act remained unchanged, maintaining Puerto Rico as a non-
83

incorporated territory under the Territorial Clause of the United

States Constitution and the full sovereignty of Congress.

I want to state that because it has been discussed here today and

I want to maintain that there was no amendment to the territorial

clause. And I am talking now from experience. I was a member of

that constitutional assembly. And at that constitutional assembly,

which considered Law 600, we looked into the matter of the way

Law 600 was approved by Congress. And in all the years in this

Congress where the law was discussed, it was always clearly stated

that Puerto Rico was not being removed from the territorial clause

of the United States.

And the Former Governor of Puerto Rico, Luis Mun ̃ oz Marin,

said many times at these Committee hearings if Puerto Rico goes

crazy and does something that is not quite in accordance with what

we have agreed, you can—Congress can immediately repeal every

thought of power it has given Puerto Rico. And that is why there

was nothing passed.

In order to get the law approved in Congress, the lawyers of the

Department of Interior had to work out a solution that was acceptable to Congress. Congress would not accept the compact, but they

did accept something in the nature of a compact. And in the nature

of a compact is not a compact. It is something similar to a compact,

but not—doesn’t have the binding quality of a compact. And that

is why after that Governor Mun ̃ oz Marin and the Popular Party,

and I have been fighting them since 1940, because do you know

why I say so trying to make people of Puerto Rico believe that

there has been a compact, that things have changed, that we were

a different thing. But that was not true.

Now finally Congress has said let us go, let us look into this matter now. There was no compact. You are still under the clause of

territory because that was the way the Congress approved Law

600. So therefore, it is today necessary to decide the question of

Puerto Rico by this Congress.

In 1949, and many of you were not born then, I testified before

a Committee of Congress, a subcommittee in Congress, on the subject of statehood for Puerto Rico. And at that time I said we are

behind in our economic development because we are not a State of

the Union. You have to give us our full—all the instruments that

the States have to be able to bring Puerto Rico up to the same level

as the rest of the nation. We don’t want gifts, but we want the tools

so that we can do it.

And at that time, I pointed out that a State of the Union, Mississippi, in 1940 had a personal income of $268 and Puerto Rico

had $122, 45.5 percent. In ’49, Puerto Rico had $250 and Mississippi $555, 45 percent, the same ratio. Since then, the United

States has worked with the Former Governor of Puerto Rico in

bringing new ideas of how to solve the problem of Puerto Rico, but

they haven’t worked. The only idea that would work is statehood.

If we would have two senators and six or seven Members of Congress, we would be able to work in Congress the solutions to our

problem and we would have an economic position today where we

would be similar to your States, but too much has happened since

1949. In 1956, Puerto Rico had $468 per capita and Mississippi

$964, 48.5 percent. In 1996, now, this last year, Puerto Rico had
84

$7882 and Mississippi $16,966, 45.8 percent of Mississippi. That is

why we need so much help from Congress, because we have not

been able to pull up our economy to the level of Mississippi at

least, and not even to the average of the United States.

So why? Because we are not a State of the Union. So all this discussion is really impractical. We have to solve the problem with the

only way it can be done, which is by becoming a State of the Union.

Now the admission of Puerto Rico as a State of the Union would

directly enhance the position of the United States in foreign affairs.

It would be the logical conclusion of a process which started in

1898 when Puerto Rico came under the American flag. Puerto Rico

before the year 1900 had the old European authoritarian social

structure. This structure has gradually evolved into a democratic

society under the American influence, which began by teaching our

youth the American principles of individual liberty, equality of opportunity and respect for human dignity, through the school system

and the political institutions, which were established after the year

1900.

That is the way Puerto Rico has grown. That is why I can see

today Mr. Gutierrez sitting here, Congressman of his people, Mr.

Serrano sitting here in the Congress of the United States. Mr.

Serrano, who as I said, chaired the U.S. House three years ago for

awhile brought forth the bill on Puerto Rico. And that is why I

think it is important to understand that change in Puerto Rico. We

are not a Latin American country anymore. Cuba is, because we

changed, we took a different route. We became part of the United

States. And we have wanted to be—we want to work up to the

same level of dignity and equal rights as the rest of the country.

This, therefore, has been, to my mind, the most significant

change that Puerto Rico has undergone under the American flag.

The successful achievement of our economic well being is, therefore, a challenge to the American citizens of Puerto Rico and to our

fellow citizens of the mainland, a challenge to show the world that

the American way is the way to both economic success, social improvement and political freedom, which can usefully serve as a pattern to solve the vaster problems of other underprivileged countries

of the world. A challenge of great political and human

potentialities, which may be of great world significance.

With respect to the relations of the United States and Latin

America, statehood for Puerto Rico would have still greater significance. It would serve to improve and solidify the position of America as a friend and partner, for it would be the best proof that our

good-neighbor policy is not a mere diplomatic posture, but that it

is an honest and sincere expression of respect of North America for

Latin America. It would make Latin America feel that through

Puerto Rico and through its representation in Congress, their problems and aspirations would be better understood because of our

common cultural origin and tradition.

As Americans identified with the political and social philosophy

of America and its institutions of law, we would be able to better

interpret our foreign policy to them and help the United States to

succeed in bringing better understanding and cooperation in the

common problems of our hemisphere.
85

And at the present moment, the need to maintain and further

develop the commercial interchange with Latin America, which is

our natural market, when we are loosing the European market to

United Europe and the Pacific markets to Japan and China, is essential to our success and prosperity.

The growth of statehood forces in Puerto Rico have been overwhelming since 1968. In 1964, the Pro-commonwealth Party had

487,000 votes or 59.4 percent of the vote, and the Pro-statehood

Party had 284,000 or 34.6. In the last election of 1996, there was

a complete reversal. The Statehood Party obtained 963,000 votes or

51.3 percent, and the Pro-commonwealth Party 855,000 or 45.5 percent, which shows that statehood is the growing movement in

Puerto Rico.

And remember that the Commonwealth Party also wants to keep

U.S. citizenship. They are not thinking of giving it up. They want

to hold onto it, so really when you come to think about it, 90 percent of the people of Puerto Rico want to continue to be U.S. citizens.

Now can they be U.S. citizens without statehood? That is the

issue. That is the issue. And all this playing around isn’t going to

solve the problem, because United States is determined and understand that constitutionally the only way you can be a U.S. citizen

is by being born in a State of the union. And therefore, that is the

only solution that we can find.

We feel, therefore, that Puerto Rico is ripe to become a State

after almost 100 years of successful democratic apprenticeship and

to assume its full political rights and responsibilities. During all

this century, more than 200,000 Puerto Ricans have served with

distinction in all the wars that United States has been involved

with more than 6000 casualties and in several cases with higher

casualties than some States. More than 2000 Puerto Rican soldiers

served in the Gulf War, amongst whom was a grandson of mine in

the First Armored Division. Four, such as Fernando Luis Garcia,

who gave their lives, heroically, in the line of duty, have been decorated with the Congressional Medal of Honor.

Other distinguished leaders who have also served the Nation are

Admiral Horacio Rivero, in 1968, Commander in Chief of NATO

Forces in Southern Europe and later Ambassador to Spain; Vice

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 U.S. Army,

amongst many.

The real test for Puerto Rican statehood should be how much we

share common values with fellow citizens of the 50 States and how

much Puerto Ricans believe in, honor, and defend the Constitution

of the United States. A look at the myriad ways Puerto Ricans

have served the United States over the last 99 years is enough to

pass the test.

President Clinton has just appointed Mrs. Aida Alvarez, another

Puerto Rican, to his Cabinet as head of Small Business Administration.
86

Puerto Rico is participating, successfully and with distinction, in

Mainstream America to enrich its economy and its culture. There

are about 2 million Puerto Ricans, as I said already, living

throughout the nation, doing constructive and creative work as factory workers and professionals, in all fields of activity, thousands

of physicians and engineers, thousands of teachers and professors

in schools and universities.

In the arts and humanities, our rhythms and melodies have contributed to enrich American music. Justino Diaz and Pablo Elvira

have been great voices at the Metropolitan Opera. Our great actors,

like Jose ́ Ferre ́ and Raul Julia, have been American favorites.

We are contributing to enrich our cultural patrimony through

museum collections. Today you can see on loan by the Fountain

Museum at the National Gallery here in Washington the painting

‘‘Flaming June’’ by Lord Leighton, which is the key painting and

masterpiece of the Victorian Exhibition.

We are also contributing to the richness of America in the area

of civil government, amongst many others, Judge Juan Torruella,

Chief Justice of the U.S. First Circuit of Appeals. Judge Jose ́

Cabranes is a member of the U.S. Second Circuit of Appeals. And

we have here all these members of this Congress, who are our

pride to have them here.

In the area of sports, we have contributed with many baseball

players, among whom Roberto Clemente has been included in the

hall of fame. Charles Pasarell in 1969 was the first number one

tennis player in the U.S., and now Gigi Fernandez is a tennis

champion. Chi Chi Rodriquez is a golf professional

And last, but not least, and I repeat this in the last meeting of

the past Congress, but not least, to show how much Puerto Rico is

embedded in the American life, it was the Puerto Rican judge of

the Southern District of New York, Sonia Sotomayor, who was a

fearless jurist a couple of years ago, decided to issue an injunction

that could break the deadlock in the baseball strike, and by doing

so, sent the baseball players back to Americans, after more than

a year, the enjoyment of one of their favorite sports. Nobody could

be part of America more than this 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 that 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 3.6 million disenfranchised American citizens of Puerto Rico. We congratulate you for taking the proper step with H.R. 856 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.

[Statement of Luis Ferre ́ may be found at end of hearing.]

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Governor. And you are always an inspiration for me. As you get more mature, I see there is hope for

me yet. And I want to thank you for your testimony. At this time,

I understand, with the agreement of the other members—Mr. Kennedy, do you have to go somewhere?

Mr. KENNEDY. Thank you. Yes, I have a caucus I have to go to.
87

The CHAIRMAN. Well, being that you are one of the members, so

is my good friend from American Samoa——

Mr. KENNEDY. Right.

The CHAIRMAN. Would you let him have your time ahead of time?

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Absolutely.

The CHAIRMAN. All right.

Mr. KENNEDY. Thank you. I appreciate the consideration. At the

conclusion of the last witness, Mr. Acevedo, I was asking the question about whether—it was interesting that I got to go to the Floor

of the House and vote on a very important bill on the fair labor—

that affects the Fair Labor and Relations Act. And I made the point

that it affects the people of Puerto Rico, and yet they can’t have

a representative on the Floor, like our good friend Carlos RomeroBarcelo ́ go to the Floor and vote on that.

And his answer to me as I was walking out was well, we

wouldn’t have to adhere to the Federal laws. And yet that begs the

question well, what kind of citizen would you be. And I don’t know

if we could in good conscience allow our fellow citizens not to have

to live with the same laws that we live with. And, you know, I

think this—the definition of citizenship is the guarantee of the

same rights and responsibilities of every other citizen. And so that

is where I think his argument fell down.

I wanted to state that for the record, because I was on my way

out to vote when he made that rebuttal. And I think it is important, given the very proud record of citizenship and contribution to

this country that Governor Ferre ́ has just enunciated in his wonderful statement to this Committee about how proud Puerto Ricans

have been in serving this country and being good American citizens. The notion that they would want to take anything less than

all the responsibilities of that citizenship would contradict everything that Governor Ferre ́ has talked about.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you for that.

Mr. FERRE ́. I think I answered to some extent your question, because when you mentioned that we were not going to suffer because we had no way to prevent that bill from being passed, it is

exactly what I have been saying. We don’t have that power that

can stop the things that harm Puerto Rico and that can give Puerto

Rico the help that we need to solve our economic problems.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. The gentleman from American

Samoa.

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Mr. Chairman, I have no questions. And I

do want to thank Governor Ferre ́ for an excellent presentation and

certainly to remind the members of the Committee and certainly

the Members of the Congress the tremendous contributions that

our good fellow Americans from Puerto Rico have contributed

greatly to this Nation. So I thank the Governor for his statement.

The CHAIRMAN. The gentlelady from Virgin Islands.

Ms. CHRISTIAN-GREEN. Thank you, Governor, for your presentation. I have no questions.

The CHAIRMAN. Now, may I remind the gentleman he has the

time to ask questions.

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Yes, sir. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

You have been very good with me today. I thank you so much. I

wish to welcome to Congress Mr. Luis Ferre ́. I wish to convey to
88

you and to my colleagues a sense of respect and admiration that

I feel for you. Mr. Luis Ferre ́, you are one of Puerto Rico’s most

respected and important statesmen of the 20th Century, and I can

only wish and hope that at the end of my public service career I

have achieved but a small fraction of your record and your stature.

And I feel that it is a great honor to be able to share this room

with you here today.

I noticed as I read your testimony that you talked about Mun ̃ oz

Rivera.

Mr. FERRE ́. Yes.

Mr. GUTIERREZ. That Mun ̃ oz Rivera, back in 1900 said we should

include it in the platform and that statehood, who subsequently became renowned as a great autonomista in the history of Puerto

Rico, and in 1900 said that statehood was indeed a dignified alternative and accepted that. But I raise that in the sense that today,

as autonomistas and estadistas have to work to resolve the issues,

maybe you can share with me and expand a little bit more on that?

Mr. FERRE ́. May I clarify? You know, autonomista in Spanish

times was not what we think today, commonwealth. Autonomista

meant that they were trying to be a province on equal basis with

the rest of the provinces of Spain. And we fought in the sense in

the context of Spain. And that was a thing that was strong, which

is exactly what we are asking. The alternative under statehood you

are asking for, but those leaders of 1898, none of them wanted to

be a colony, neither of Spain nor of the United States. They said

we are willing to welcome the United States, and they did welcome

them with flowers. There was not a shot fired by a single Puerto

Rican, and I am talking from experience of my parents who welcomed all the American forces in a very friendly manner. And that

is why Puerto Rico welcomed and gave landing of the American

forces. Nothing ventured.

Mr. GUTIERREZ. And I guess my point is that as we reach 1997

and go into the 21st Century, and because things tend to change

and evolve, the independence of the Nationalist Party is not the

independence that is being articulated today before the Congress of

the United States or that I articulate, for example, before the Congress of the United States.

We heard earlier from the Governor of Puerto Rico, Rossello ́, that

he talked about the United Nations and following the laws of the

United Nations and making sure that this is a decolonizing process

and that estado libre asociado is not a decolonizing process, alternative. Something that I agree with, but I don’t think that you

can’t have a road that is similar to it that you cannot develop. I

guess that is where we digress. But at the same time, then, statehood, if we were to follow international law, then the people of

Puerto Rico would have the inalienable right to independence,

something that we discussed earlier at the—when I testified, I

think, in ’93—hearing.

I just simply said to Chairman Young, and I think Don Carlos

remembers when I suggested that if Puerto Rico became a State,

that it never would give up that inalienable right to its independence. So I would like to just ask you one other question. You as

the founder of the New Progressive Party and a distinguished

statesman independent of your position on statehood, as a distin-
89

guished statesman, in 1966 you participated, it says here, in a status commission report. In that status commission report, Don Luis,

that you were a signatory.

Mr. FERRE ́. Yes.

Mr. GUTIERREZ. How did it describe el estado libre asociado or

the commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and did it describe it as it has

been described today?

Mr. FERRE ́. Well, if you read my testimony before this Committee

on the Young bill, that was 724, you will see what I said. At that

time what was understood was something that was supposed to

have the compact, but the compact was not true. That is where the

people were misled. There has been no compact with Congress. It

was simply just giving us some initial local freedom to elect our

governor and so on, but not to remove us from the clause of the—

territorial clause of the Constitution. The Federal Relations Act

was not amended. And by the way, the best—the man who was the

great consultant of the Minot, who then became the President of

the Supreme Court of Puerto Rico. In his book, which was mentioned here this afternoon by Congressman Barcelo ́, RomeroBarcelo ́, said that he was convinced that Puerto Rico was still a colony in 1990. And that is his opinion—now he was the——

Mr. GUTIERREZ. In fact, we just asked him, but that status commission report, did it describe el Estado Libre Asociado as a dignified option?

Mr. FERRE ́. It is a question of statesmanship.

Mr. GUTIERREZ. OK.

Mr. FERRE ́. In this illustration were two very important words.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Governor. And again, thank you for

taking the time and presenting the views and the history behind

it. We deeply appreciate your participation.

Mr. FERRE ́. Thank you.

The CHAIRMAN. You are excused. The next person will be Jeff

Farrow, Co-Chairman, Administration Interagency Working Group

on Puerto Rico, Washington, D.C. Jeff, I have great sympathy, but

also this is what you get paid for. You waited all day long.

Mr. FARROW. Mr. Chairman, this is why I took this job.

The CHAIRMAN. Besides that, they have got great golf courses in

Puerto Rico, don’t they? Go ahead.

Mr. FARROW. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and distinguished members.

The CHAIRMAN. We have the last witness of the day. It has been

a long hearing. If we can have Luis and Patrick take it outside.

Thank you. Go ahead, Jeff.

STATEMENT OF JEFFREY L. FARROW, CO-CHAIR, THE PRESIDENT’S ADMINISTRATION WORKING GROUP ON PUERTO

RICO, WASHINGTON, DC

Mr. FARROW. Thank you for inviting the Clinton Administration

to testify on authorizing the people of Puerto Rico to express their

preference regarding their islands’ relationship to the United

States before the end of 1998 and the bill that you and other Members sponsored to provide a process leading to full self-government

for the Commonwealth, H.R. 856.
90

Let me begin by expressing appreciation for the interest and initiative of yourself and the other primary sponsors of the bill in

Puerto Rico’s political status dilemma. It is a matter of transcendent importance, concerning the political rights of millions of

U.S. citizens and a major factor in determining the approach to

many of the serious social and economic challenges faced in the islands.

It is also, however, extremely complex and sensitive, involving

much of the range of Federal policy, central questions of identity,

a century of history, the interests of political parties that are based

on conflicting visions of what the best status for the islands would

be and differences so intense that they hinder action on the issue

itself and other issues as well.

President Clinton is dedicated to supporting the people of Puerto

Rico’s decision of what status their island should have. He has

pledged to back statehood or independence if Puerto Ricans vote for

either one and to do his best to make the Commonwealth arrangement work better for them if they want to continue it.

He has also, though, recognized that the frustrating debate is

likely to persist until the Federal Government clarifies what the

options really are and how they can be implemented. The differing

status aspirations that Puerto Ricans have long discussed largely

hinge on fundamental Federal decisions that have not been made.

The President has therefore favored Puerto Ricans making a

choice in concert with Congressional action in a process that is developed together with the people’s representatives.

Establishing a process that would enable this matter to finally

be resolved is his highest priority regarding Puerto Rico, and he is

fully committed to working with you and others in the Congress,

with Puerto Rico’s leaders, and others to establish it as soon as

possible.

The President believes that the Federal Government should

number one, provide the people of Puerto Rico with options that

are serious and fair responses to their diverse, expressed aspirations and, number two, commit to act on implementing an option

that is authorized by a majority vote in Puerto Rico. He very much

hopes that such a process will be underway next year, the centennial of the United States acquisition of Puerto Rico. He looks forward to our entering the new millennium having concluded the debate and implementing the will of the Puerto Rican people.

To facilitate the enactment of the law that is needed, the Administration offers the following comments on H.R. 856.

Democratic principles require that the expressed aspirations of

Puerto Ricans be central to the development of the options (which

also must be viable from the Federal perspective). The President

regards this as an integral part of the sound process.

We, therefore, view Chairman Young’s agreement with Senior

Democrat Miller to give Puerto Rico’s major political parties until

March 31 to submit alternatives to the options in the bill and to

seriously consider their proposals as a very constructive step. We

appreciate the role that Governor Rossello ́ and Resident Commissioner Romero-Barcelo ́ also played in it being taken.

Consequently, the Administration would like to work with the

Committee in fashioning the options, considering the proposals of
91

the parties and others, as well as considering United States necessities, after the parties have had this opportunity to advance their

ideas to you.

The bill would ostensibly require a referendum before 1999 and

further referendum at least every four years thereafter in the event

of no option of obtaining a majority, a majority for the Commonwealth option, or Puerto Rican rejection of Federal status implementation legislation. Rather than suggest a mandate for votes, it

would be more appropriate to simply provide a process for and facilitate the status choice.

We also suggest giving the government of Puerto Rico flexibility

on calling votes. Further votes might not be desired by Puerto

Ricans so often, and in such a case the call for revoting at least

every four years would be a burden. Additionally, if Puerto Ricans

were to reject statehood or nationhood implementation legislation,

it probably would not make sense for them to vote again absent

further Federal action.

The bill would call for a plan for a transition of at least ten years

in the event of a majority for either nationhood or statehood.

Since the measures that would need to be taken have not been

specified and would change as time goes on, we recommend that

the length of the transition be set in the transition plan. Congress

would still have its say over the duration, since the plan would require Congressional approval.

A more fundamental problem is that H.R. 856 would require that

a law be enacted at the end of the transition to nationhood or

statehood, in addition to beforehand, in order to actually implement a status change.

The Administration favors prompt, final action on implementing

a status change if chosen by a majority of Puerto Ricans. The purpose of a transition should be to permit significantly different policies to be implemented on an orderly basis. A further decision and

possibly further requirements at the end of the transition could

make the period only a partial transition, or even overturn the

original status choice. That could be very problematic. The Federal

Government and Puerto Ricans should have greater assurance of

actually implementing a status before heading down the path toward it.

The bill includes several provisions regarding the use of English

that should be mentioned. One would establish a policy of English

being the ‘‘common language of mutual understanding’’ in the

United States.

Such a policy is unnecessary and could create divisiveness. We

are also concerned that it could be used to question statehood as

an option for Puerto Rico. The language that most of Puerto Rico’s

United States citizens have always used should not be a barrier to

full participation in the Federal system if they want it.

Another provision would call for measures to enhance English

education in public schools in a transition to statehood. We understand it to mean measures that would supplement educational

practice in Puerto Rico, consistent with local control of schools.

Finally, there are provisions that suggest an intent to make English the official language of the Federal Government and the need

to use English. As you may be aware, the President indicated his
92

intent to veto a bill last year, H.R. 123, that would have required

the Federal Government to conduct most of its official business in

English only. Legislative statements on a need to use English could

be used by others to promote goals which are disharmonizing and

diversionary. They could also unduly influence the Puerto Rico status decision.

The bill would make some other statements or suggestions which

would not be part of the procedure for resolving the status issue

that are problematic. These provisions address the current situation and have contributed to controversy about the bill in Puerto

Rico.

History has given us the conflicting facts and ambiguities that

have fueled Puerto Rico’s divisive and distracting status debate for

decades. Rather than litigate them now when there is a general

consensus on what needs to be done to resolve the dilemma, we

think it would be more advisable to simply concentrate on resolving

it, establishing a process that includes providing the people of

Puerto Rico with options that can end the debate and providing for

Federal action on implementing their choice.

Mr. Chairman, it is time for the Federal Government to meet its

responsibilities regarding the status question and provide such a

process. Puerto Ricans have been asking for the United States to

act for years. H.R. 856 provides a basis from which to act. Working

together and with others, we can ensure that our great country

lives up to its ideals in the case of our 3.7 million fellow citizens

in Puerto Rico. It is of vital importance to their future that we do.

The Administration’s priority is to get a law enacted that will

make it possible to finally and fairly resolve the situation. We will

be flexible within the principles that the President has espoused so

that agreement can be reached. All of us who are committed to settling the issue should not let this opportunity pass.

Thank you.

[Statement of Mr. Farrow may be found at end of hearing.]

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Jeff. That was very good. I will assure that this is what hearings are all about. We will take your

comments very seriously and hope you will still be working with

Manase and seeing if some of these things can’t be added and subtracted from the bill. My goal is to keep you aboard and the President aboard, because I would like to see this done very quickly.

There is some comments about the length of time of implementing

the act, et cetera. I would like to see it done as rapidly as possible.

And we will work along the lines of achieving that. You have a responsibility to the Administration, but that Administration has a

responsibility to this Committee to try to achieve those goals together. We can’t do it separately. And I think we owe that to the

people of Puerto Rico.

The gentleman from Puerto Rico.

Mr. ROMERO-BARCELO ́. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to congratulate and congratulate the President on this statement. I think

it is a very, very significant statement. It is going to be definitely

an historical statement. The questions in the statement about the

language clears a lot of the air. I am sure it will have a great impact in Puerto Rico. Anything that makes such a statement from

the White House on Puerto Rico has a lot of meaning. And the peo-
93

ple understand that clearly and it helps in the debate so the people

learn to understand where everyone is coming from. The fact that

there are some people in this country that would like to impose a

will and would like to carry us in a different path doesn’t mean

that the majority of the people of the United States or the majority

of the Congressmen or Senators or the White House take those positions.

And some of the other statements in your statement also are

very, very positive and I think that now we have the proposal by

the commonwealth supporters and we will soon have the other proposals, then we can discuss the alternatives. And I am sure that

we can have something that will be fair, if not to everyone at least

to the majority and to the objective observers.

Thank you very much for your testimony. I have no questions.

Mr. FARROW. Thank you, Congressman.

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from American Samoa.

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I certainly thank

Mr. Farrow for his presentation this afternoon. Just one question.

You know, we have—the people of Puerto Rico have had this experience in the plebiscite of 1993 where there was no clear majority.

And you have expressed in your statement about the fact that

whatever is to come about, whether it be from this plebiscite process, that there should be a majority. You know, there is nothing in

the Constitution that says that the President has to be elected by

a majority vote. What happens, and as you well know, Mr. Farrow,

whenever you have three options it is a very, very difficult proposition to get a majority. What happens in the plebiscite if there is

no majority?

Mr. FARROW. Well, the legislation provides, and we think it is

proper, that there be a majority requirement. In the event of no

majority, that there be a reconsideration somewhere down the line.

Our only question is when that reconsideration ought to occur,

whether it ought to occur every four years or in a time determined

by the government of Puerto Rico.

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. You have also raised a question about that

this four-year period might be too long. Do you have a better suggestion as to the time period? I felt four years is a fair statement

for considering the referendums. If it triggers that process to take

place, do you feel that four years is not sufficient time or is it too

much time?

Mr. FARROW. I think it will depend on the situation. It is very

difficult to project right now what the results of referendum would

be. And depending on how close those results are, the government

of Puerto Rico might want to hold a referendum earlier or sometime later than that rather than set a specified time period. We

think that is a matter the government of Puerto Rico ought to determine.

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. So as much as you can say that the Administration definitely is fully committed to the proposition and the

plebiscite should be held by next year, hopefully? Is that a fair

statement? You are committed to that?

Mr. FARROW. It is a fair statement. And further, the President

looks forward, as I said, to implementing a majority decision during his term.
94

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Jeff. I appreciate it.

Mr. FARROW. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN. I would just like to compliment all the witnesses

today and the audience that conducted themselves admirably

today. I apologize for the interruptions. I believe this has been a

very beneficial hearing, and I deeply appreciate the Governor

chairing this meeting in a bipartisan way. And hopefully we can

continue this. The next hearings will take place in Puerto Rico. It

is my intent to move this legislation. It is my intent to see it pass

the House and be signed into law, but it also takes a lot of work,

a lot of communication with everybody involved. And try to avoid

the pitfalls of delay and impasse, because this is the period of time

I want to get this done.

I do thank you. Thank you very much. This meeting is adjourned.

[Whereupon, at 4:17 p.m., the Committee was adjourned; and the

following was submitted for the record:]

STATEMENT BY THE HONORABLE PEDRO ROSSELLO ́, GOVERNOR OF PUERTO RICO

Chairman Don Young; Ranking Democrat, Congressman George Miller; members

of the Committee on Resources:

My name is Pedro Rossello. Since 1993, I have been Governor of Puerto Rico. In

that capacity, on two occasions, I presented statements to the 104th Congress that

may be of interest to each of you. •On October 17, 1995, here in Washington, I addressed a hearing conducted jointly by this Committee’s Native American and Insular Affairs Subcommittee and by

the Subcommittee on the Western Hemisphere of the House Committee on International Relations. •Then, on March 23, 1996, I appeared before the Native American and Insular

Affairs Subcommittee at a hearing conducted in San Juan.

My October 1995 statement pertained to a November 1993 political status consultation, organized by the Government of Puerto Rico with the full support of all

three Puerto Rico political parties.

My March 1996 statement pertained to H.R. 3024: a bill filed by Chairman

Young, which bore the same title as the measure before us today.

Because of their relevance, and because they may be particularly useful to members of this Committee who did not serve on the aforementioned Subcommittees of

the last Congress, I shall be grateful if the Chairman will make copies of those

statements available to every member of the Committee on Resources of this 105th

Congress.

Although I am the president of a political party, and although I do strongly advocate one specific solution to Puerto Rico’s status dilemma, I wish to emphasize at

the outset that my declarations at this hearing shall be made solely in my role as

chief executive of the Government of Puerto Rico and on behalf of the people of

Puerto Rico, as the recipient this past November of the largest electoral mandate

granted to any gubernatorial candidate in Puerto Rico since 1964.

In addressing you as Governor, and as the spokesperson for a strong mandate

from the people to move toward the final definition and decision on our political status, I see it as my duty to concentrate exclusively on offering my assistance as you

commence the profoundly important process of evaluating H.R. 856, the United

States-Puerto Rico Political Status Act.

For the past eight years, both the people of Puerto Rico and the United States

Government have manifested a commendable commitment to addressing this issue

seriously, responsibly and in an impressively non-partisan manner.

In 1989, a pro-‘‘commonwealth’’ Governor enlisted the backing of all three Puerto

Rico political parties in soliciting action from the Federal Government. That petition

produced an earnest, positive response from a Republican President and a Congress

controlled by Democrats. More than two years of dedicated effort resulted from that

initiative. The effort fell short. But it did not fail. Rather, it left behind a valuable

foundation upon which we have been building ever since.

And so it was that my administration—led by a pro-statehood Governor—succeeded four years ago in maintaining a united front of Puerto Rico political parties
95

in resuming the quest for a solution to the status dilemma. And so it was too that—

with a Democrat in the White House and Republican majorities on Capitol Hill—

Washington has remained equally united, since 1995, in pursuit of a mutually satisfactory remedy to the universally acknowledged inadequacy of Puerto Rico’s current

relationship with the rest of our fellow citizens of the United States of America.

President Bill Clinton reiterated his commitment at the beginning of this year.

In a letter that was read aloud by his personal representative, during my secondterm inauguration ceremony in January, the President wrote: ‘‘I will work with you,

the islands’ other elected leaders, the Congress, and all concerned to establish a

process that would enable the fundamental issue of Puerto Rico’s political status to

finally be resolved.’’

Here in the House, for their part, Chairman Young and Ranking Member Miller

have mobilized a broad bipartisan coalition—with the solid backing of Speaker Newt

Gingrich and the gentleman from Puerto Rico, Congressman Carlos Romero-Barcelo ́.

On the Senate side, Chairman Frank Murkowski visited Puerto Rico this past

weekend, leading a bipartisan delegation from his Energy and Natural Resources

Committee. The Senators held lengthy meetings with senior officials from the political parties representing Puerto Rico status options.

In light of these developments, I can state for the record that the people of Puerto

Rico are looking forward with enthusiasm to the imminent exercise by Congress of

its constitutional responsibility to collaborate with us on converting the chronic conundrum of Puerto Rico’s status into a shining star of statesmanship.

I am convinced that together we can do it

Through determination, persistence, unflagging effort and an unshakable allegiance to patriotic civility, we can do it.

Moreover, we can do it expeditiously.

I commend you, Mister Chairman, for having requested of each Puerto Rico political party that it submit by March 31 a proposed definition which it believes will

be most appropriate for the status option it supports. It is my understanding that

each of the parties intends to comply with that request.

You acted expeditiously, Mr. Chairman, in filing H.R. 856.

You acted expeditiously in scheduling this hearing.

You acted expeditiously in requesting status definitions.

And I would urge that we likewise expedite the entire process contemplated by

this bill.

A year ago this week, in my testimony regarding H.R. 3024, I proposed that the

process be streamlined. Like that earlier bill, H.R. 856 envisions ‘‘a transition plan

of 10 years minimum which leads to full self-government for Puerto Rico consistent

with the terms of this Act...’’

Nothing has transpired during the past 12 months to alter my outlook on this aspect of the legislation. Accordingly, I take this opportunity to urge once again that

this bill’s three stages—initial decision, transition and implementation—be consolidated into two stages.

I feel certain that the transition and implementation stages can be combined in

such a way as to eliminate any need for conducting the interim referendum that

is stipulated by the bill under the provisions set forth in its transition stage.

If the people of Puerto Rico do embrace full self-government during the initial decision stage, then I see no reason why ten-or-more additional years must elapse before we are able to cast definitive ‘‘yes-or-no’’ votes on a Presidentially-submitted

and Congressionally-approved implementation formula.

A ‘‘streamlining’’ of this nature would save time, energy and money; it would facilitate completion of the entire process, with the utmost, focused attention to detail,

during a time period that could easily be reduced to a maximum of four-to-five

years.

But more than that, by expediting matters we can help to ensure that the United

States-Puerto Rico Political Status Act achieves its purpose because—by expediting

matters—we can greatly enhance the likelihood that the momentum of this historic

undertaking will not be weakened by unforeseen events that could occur as we go

forward.

And furthermore, it would send a strong message to all that Congress is ready

and committed to act.

When I first offered this suggestion at the San Juan hearing of March 1996, my

exact words were these: ‘‘Ten years, I respectfully submit, is an inordinately long

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; and almost nobody had ever heard of the Internet. A ten-year minimum, I believe, is more time than we need.’’
96

Today, in March 1997, I stand by those words. I earnestly propose that a mechanism be designed that will allow the people of Puerto Rico and our fellow citizens

throughout the United States to conclude, at the sunrise of the 21st century, an extremely significant item of unfinished business that has awaited this nation’s undivided attention ever since the twilight hours of the 19th century.

To that end and in that spirit, Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee, you

can count on me. You can count on me to work with you; with your Congressional

colleagues; with the President; and with the people of Puerto Rico. You can count

on my good faith, my good will, and my unwavering commitment to the fundamental principle of civil rights and human dignity that this bill so eloquently embodies: the principle of liberty and justice for all.

May God bless each and every person who participates in this noble endeavor.

Thank you very much.

STATEMENT OF SENATOR RUBEN BERRI ́OS-MARTINEZ, PRESIDENT, PUERTO RICAN

INDEPENDENCE PARTY

For almost a century Puerto Ricans of all political persuasions have struggled—

unsuccessfully—for the recognition of our full political rights as a people before a

Congress that has, for the most part, been hostile or insensitive to our demands.

Today—on the verge of the 21st century—it is a source of optimism that Congress

finally begins to recognize its centennial obligation to decolonize Puerto Rico.

But before H.R. 856 becomes an effective and acceptable instrument for the solution of Puerto Rico’s status problem, certain conditions should be met and certain

pitfalls avoided, some of which require major changes in the bill.

1. The essential objective and nature of the bill must be maintained at all costs.

This bill unambiguously faces and proposes a solution to the fundamental issue of

sovereignty—the issue of where will ultimate power reside—which is the crux of the

Puerto Rican status problem. In other words, it proposes a process for the definitive

solution of the status problem by promoting a decision between two paths; one,

under US sovereignty, leading to statehood, and the other under Puerto Rican sovereignty, leading either to independence or free association. Territorial Commonwealth on the other hand is viewed as the problem to be outgrown and superseded.

2. So long as the fundamental objective of the bill is preserved, the legitimate interests and demands of the participants in the status debate must be provided reasonable accommodation. This, of course, includes not only ‘‘independentistas’’ and

statehooders but, also thousands of Puerto Ricans who do not support either independence or statehood.

In this context, while independence and free association, as modalities of Puerto

Rican sovereignty, must continue to be grouped under the same heading on the proposed plebiscite ballot, their distinctiveness should nevertheless be clarified. Free

association and independence are members of the same family; but they are first

cousins, not identical twins.

I propose therefore that the bill be amended to ‘‘flesh out’’ the free association and

independence modalities within the ‘‘separate sovereignty’’ alternative, or as I prefer, the ‘‘Puerto Rican sovereignty’’ alternative.

If this proposal is accepted then it will not be necessary to include the territorial

status quo as an option. Even the Popular Democratic Party rejects the option of

an unincorporated territory subject to the power of Congress under the Territorial

clause of the US Constitution. While we should all favor ‘‘inclusiveness’’, it would

indeed be a perversion of that concept to include a colonial or territorial option that

nobody favors.

Territorial Commonwealth was included because the bill was attacked for excluding a substantial segment of Puerto Rican public opinion. But once the free association modality has been reformulated in such a way as to address the legitimate concerns of its proponents, there would be no need for its inclusion, and the bill would

once more guarantee a majority vote for one of the two paths leading to full self

government.

3. This bill should at least reflect a sense of Congress regarding the truly critical

questions which it would have to face and answer in the event of a statehood petition.

Congress should not convey the impression that a mere majority vote in the plebiscite is the only condition it would require in order to grant statehood. I am convinced that if this bill is perceived in Congress—rightly or wrongly—as an implicit

commitment to grant statehood after a majority vote by the Puerto Rican electorate,

it may never become law. The reason is simple. Such commitment would run contrary to legitimate political and economic concerns of those members of Congress
97

who, in the House or in the Senate, are uninclined to accept Puerto Rico as a state

or who question the wisdom of such an implicit offer.

Crucial questions regarding statehood for Puerto Rico arise, which should be addressed in this bill:

*Is it the sense of Congress that statehood for Puerto Rico would be possible unless English becomes the primary or common language of Puerto Ricans?

*Would statehood be a realistic option so long as Puerto Rico’s per capita income

remains—as it has for the past 50 years—one third that of the United States and

one half that of your poorest state, considering the repercussions of that reality on

the federal treasury?

*Is statehood conceivable without a solid and overwhelming political consensus in

its favor in Puerto Rico far beyond a mere majority?

*Is Congress willing to face a Caribbean Que ́bec if a minority for separate sovereignty should become a majority in the next generation?

Needless to say, this Congress cannot anticipate the answers to these questions

in a way that would bind a future Congress. The critical question, however, is a political one which only this Congress can answer: should Congress authorize a plebiscite with a statehood option, without first providing the people of Puerto Rico a

clear sense as to what criteria it would use to evaluate a statehood petition?

At a minimum. Congress should make clear that if the statehood alternative

achieves a sufficient majority but Congress does not then act favorably on the petition within a reasonably short period of time then the statehood alternative should

be deemed to have been rejected. Accordingly in order to achieve its primary objective, the bill should mandate that in such an eventuality the People of Puerto Rico

should then choose between the remaining decolonizing alternatives, that is between

independence and free association.

4. Fairness and objectivity should be maintained regarding the status definitions

as they might refer to the potential economic effects of the different alternatives.

As regards this issue, the bill is unbalanced and unjust and should be amended.

Congress has constitutional and international law obligations with Puerto Rico’s

decolonization, in addition to moral and political commitments after almost one hundred years of U.S. occupation. In this context, Congress should be explicit in its willingness to approve a smooth and fair transition towards independence, as well as

regarding the creation of a reparations or development fund. Such a fund would indeed be a small price to pay in order to end the overgrowing dependence on the federal budget promoted by the status quo and which would certainly multiply with

the two senators and seven representatives which statehood would entail. On previous occasions, both the House of Representatives and the Senate have demonstrated that such objectives can be attained.

Free trade and economic cooperation are not the exclusive prerogative of statehood. On the contrary, mutually beneficial and common sense solutions are clearly

available for independence in this age of globalization and regional economic arrangements. The bill should reflect these concepts in order to be fair and balanced.

There are hundreds of thousands of Puerto Ricans who are now inclined towards

statehood only because they have been led to think that a choice for independence

would lead to economic penalties imposed by the United States through a regime

of tariffs and trade restrictions. On the other hand they have been led to contemplate a statehood panorama of an eternal cornucopia of federal welfare funds

guaranteed by two senators and seven representatives. It is up to Congress to dispel

these myths by stating its sense as to what its trade and assistance policies would

be towards an independent Puerto Rico.

5. It is of the utmost importance that Congress face the matter of US citizenship

under the Puerto Rican sovereignty alternative in a clear and realistic manner. It

should begin its analysis by separating myth from fact.

I am firmly convinced that the principal value that the immense majority of Puerto Ricans attach to their US citizenship is the right to travel freely to and from the

United States. This should come as no surprise.

The importance of Puerto Ricans’ free transit into the United States, however,

cannot be underestimated. For almost one hundred years—even before Puerto

Ricans became US citizens in 1917—free transit and free trade have been part of

the US-PR relationship by virtue of US law and policy since 1900. More than two

million Puerto Ricans live in the United States either permanently or temporarily

and there is hardly anyone in Puerto Rico who does not have a close relative who

lives in New York, Chicago, Philadelphia or other cities.

It is within this historical context of free transit—existing before and after the

imposition of US citizenship—that the majority of Puerto Ricans react with apprehension at the threat of losing that freedom to travel which they equate to US citizenship.
98

As in the matter of trade and economic cooperation if this Congress expresses or

implies that free transit is only possible under statehood it will be promoting an artificial pro statehood majority that has nothing to do with the spirit of patriotic commitment to the United States which should be the real basis of a serious pro statehood sentiment. As recently as this month the governor of Puerto Rico, in promoting

this myth, insisted that regarding the plebiscite ‘‘the decision that must be made

is whether we want to be American citizens or not. That is the basic decision.’’

Loyalty to one’s nation and freedom to travel to other nations are, as Americans

well know, two different things. By separating the issue of free transit from the

issue of citizenship you will have defused the artificial growth of the statehood

movement.

As far as we independentistas are concerned we aspire exclusively to our own

Puerto Rican citizenship in an independent Puerto Rico. But as regards those Puerto Ricans born before independence who want to retain their US citizenship after

independence, they should be allowed to retain it. In any case, if they were not allowed to do so, the US courts would have the final word on the matter.

As regards Puerto Ricans born after independence, Congress would be wise to

allow for free transit arrangements between both countries. I remind you that a

very large percentage of the Puerto Rican nationality resides in the United States

and that it was the US who, after the invasion of our nation, created and promoted

free transit, and that at present there is free transit between Puerto Rico and the

US; so surely the United States would not be worse off under independence than

at present. If the European Community countries have successfully entered into

such free transit arrangements without a similar 99 years precedent, there is no

reason why the United States should have any problem in reaching a similar arrangement with an independent Puerto Rico.

6. The bill should be amended to substantially reduce the time frame provided for

the full implementation of the different alternatives.

In this respect, since the status alternatives require, by their very nature different

procedures and conditions for their implementation, the temptation of false symmetry should be avoided. Independence, for example, being an unalienable right of

the Puerto Rican people, should and could come into effect in a very reduced period

of time. Once independence has been proclaimed, a transition period involving economic and other matters would be implemented over an extended period of time.

On the other hand, statehood not being a right but a privilege to be granted at

the will of Congress, it would necessarily require a different time frame which

should be as short as practically possible. We believe that the more than 10 years

proposed in the bill should be drastically reduced. It would otherwise become a way

of avoiding the difficult decisions that sooner or later Congress will have to face regarding statehood.

7. The bill should guarantee that all the options have adequate and equal access

to public funds in the plebiscite campaign; that a reasonable limit on spending for

advertising beyond that provided for by public funds be imposed so as not to create

an unfair advantage for any option; and that government funds and agencies are

not improperly utilized to favor any option.

8. H.R. 856 should be amended as to who will have the right to vote in the plebiscite.

It should be obvious that if the plebiscite is not a general election to select public

officials but a special election to advance the cause of self determination of the Puerto Rican People, only Puerto Ricans—and not merely residents of Puerto Rico—

should have the right to vote. By Puerto Ricans I mean those born in Puerto Rico

or of Puerto Rican parentage who reside in Puerto Rico or who, though residing outside have the intention to return to live in Puerto Rico. As an exception those non

Puerto Ricans who have lived in Puerto Rico for a substantial period of time and

who intend to remain should also have the right to participate.

To allow non Puerto Rican residents of Puerto Rico to vote, or to exclude non resident Puerto Ricans, will undoubtedly have distorting effects on the election results

and call into question the legitimacy of the outcome. No objective observer would

seriously dispute, for example, that the overwhelming majority of the non-Puerto

Rican residents would vote for statehood, either because they are Americans residing in Puerto Rico or because, though originally from other countries, they became

US citizens by choice.

The anomalies of our colonial condition are such, however, that one may clearly

anticipate constitutional arguments as to the exclusion of non-Puerto Rican residents, and practical arguments as to the inclusion of Puerto Rican non-residents can

also be anticipated. But these constitutional and practical obstacles are certainly not

insurmountable to a Congress acting pursuant to its plenary powers under the territorial clause.
99

Even if this committee were unwilling, for whatever reason, to agree that the

plebiscite franchise be designed in accordance with our proposal, this does not mean

that the bill should not recognize the distorting effect that the electoral franchise

proposed in the bill implies.

Needless to say, an imperfect plebiscite is a better option than no plebiscite at

all, but this committee is by now advised that a revision of the bill’s franchise provisions is both necessary and possible and that not to do so will weaken the reliability

and legitimacy of the plebiscite results.

From my long experience with previous processes relating to Puerto Rico’s status,

I have no doubt that as the legislative process evolves, the issues I have raised

today before this Committee will emerge as crucial issues, either in the House or

the Senate.

If Congress addresses these issues we are convinced that fair and equitable legislation will finally emerge. We are willing to work with this Committee to draft the

necessary specific amendments to meet the objectives we have referred to.

Before concluding, I wish to set the record straight concerning the participation

of the Puerto Rican Independence Party in this plebiscite process.

We fully understand why the sponsors of the bill start from the premise that

statehood would be a legitimate form of self government for Puerto Rico. After all,

thirty six former territories have become states of the Union. In addition a large

percentage of Puerto Ricans favor statehood and even international law admits integration, in certain circumstances, as a way out of colonialism.

But the Puerto Rican Independence Party is convinced that integration to the

United States as a state of the Union is not a valid solution to Puerto Rico’s colonial

problem.

Puerto Rico is a distinct, mature, Spanish Speaking, Latin American, Caribbean

nation. To argue that Puerto Rico is not a nation is as absurd as to argue that

blacks in the US were not human beings before the abolition of slavery.

For a nation such as Puerto Rico, statehood would be a dilution, if not an abdication, of our right to govern ourselves as Puerto Ricans, no matter how intensely we

exercise our voting franchise. The problem of Puerto Rico is not a problem of the

disenfranchisement of a minority or an issue of civil rights, as some people seem

to believe. It is not a problem of individual rights it is a problem of national rights

of the inalienable right of a nation, of a people, to govern themselves.

Even Puerto Rican statehooders postulate our right as a people to our distinct

identity —‘‘Jı ́baro’’ statehood, they call it—which in part accounts for their success

at the polls. Puerto Ricans of all political persuasions proudly and forcefully proclaim and have even submitted for the Congressional Record that Puerto Rico’s language and culture are not negotiable under any status. As Gandhi once said, we do

not ‘‘want [our] house to be walled in on all sides and [our] windows to be stifled.

[We] want all the cultures of all lands to be blown about [our] house as freely as

possible. But [we] refuse to be blown off our feet by any.’’

You should be aware, therefore, that the primary loyalty of Puerto Ricans is to

Puerto Rico, not to any other nation, and that regardless of what this Congress may

resolve or believe, we Puerto Ricans are determined to preserve and develop our distinct national identity as a people.

For the US to accept as a state of the Union a distinct Spanish Speaking, Latin

American nationality with half the per capita income of the poorest state, would run

counter to its national interests, particularly when a substantial consensus regarding statehood is a practical impossibility in the foreseeable future. Que ́bec and Ireland are but contemporary reminders of the dangers that inevitably ensue when nations have attempted to absorb other nations. Nations by definition cannot give up

their inalienable right to self determination and independence that is, their right

to secede.

Independence, on the other hand, which is the ultimate empowerment, would

endow Puerto Rico with the political, fiscal and commercial flexibility indispensable

in this day and age to insert ourselves into the globalized economy, attract foreign

capital, strengthen our own, and thus fully develop our economic potential.

For Puerto Rico, independence would be the tool necessary to break the cycle of

impotence and dependence which has become endemic in our colonial relationship

and which would only turn more acute under statehood. This condition of dependency has constrained our economic development and undermined our dignity and

self esteem. Independence, in contrast with commonwealth or statehood, would

mean the beginning of the end of the ever increasing drain on the federal budget.
100

Moreover, it would be a source of incalculable good will for Latin America and the

Caribbean; an indispensable condition for the development of a forward-looking US

policy towards the region for the next century based on equality and cooperation.

We are thus convinced that when Congress finally works its will, when this process comes to its end, the United States government will come to the conclusion that

the only true option for both of our countries is independence.

But we are not there yet and it is thus necessary that the process work its way.

Let us, therefore, move ahead with the process.

The relationship between colonizer and colonized denies the essential equality of

nations in the same way that the relation between master and slave denies the essential equality of human beings. It denigrates the colonized and it demeans the

colonizer. For the honor and respect of both our nations let us bring it to an end.

STATEMENT OF ANIBAL ACEVEDO-VILA ́, PRESIDENT, POPULAR DEMOCRATIC PARTY, COMMONWEALTH OF PUERTO RICO

Good Morning.

I come before you today at the invitation of Chairman Young to attend these hearings with regard to H.R. 856, ‘‘The United States-Puerto Rico Political Status Act’’.

Ever since the creation of the unique status of Puerto Rico—Commonwealth, which

was crafted by the leadership of the Congress and Puerto Rico in a constructive

process, and was overwhelmingly approved as a compact by the people of Puerto

Rico and the United States in 1952—the Popular Democratic Party has actively participated in every status deliberation process.

We represent the preferred status formula of the people of Puerto Rico, having

won every status consultation ever undertaken. Our position has been supported by

a majority of the people in all three status plebiscites, in 1952, in 1967 and most

recently in 1993.

We believe in principles. We believe in democracy. We believe in constitutional

governments and the everlasting premise that the rule of law requires respect from

the government to commitments made by previous administrations, and a serious

recognition by all of judicial precedents. We believe in the most fundamental of

democratic principles: that all governments of the free world legitimize their condition as a government only with the consent of the governed.

I commend the sponsors of this bill for their interest in establishing a procedure

for the people of Puerto Rico to choose their final political status. I pledge the full

cooperation of our party to that end. As in every process before, the basic principles

of democracy, fairness and inclusiveness must always be present.

We have made every effort to evaluate, study and analyze H.R. 856 and conclude

that we cannot and will not support it as its stands. (Our position with regard to

this bill and a future process of self-determination for Puerto Rico is fully spelled

out in the two resolutions unanimously adopted by the General Council of our party,

which I am enclosing as appendices to this statement and which should be made

a part of the record.) Appendices C & D.

The objective of this bill is right, but the means devised to accomplish it are

wrong. This is not a balanced bill. This bill has a severe tilt. It is actually a statehood bill and as such is unacceptable.

The bias which mars this bill is glaring and offensive. Commonwealth status, the

preferred choice of the Puerto Rican people since its establishment in 1952, reaffirmed as recently as in the 1993 plebiscite called by the Statehood party itself,

is pictured in dark colors and dismissed as a colonial status, unworthy of consideration. Should the people of Puerto Rico churlishly decide to continue backing it, further plebiscites must be held, until statehood, independence or free association, involving the loss of United States citizenship, is chosen. It being well known that the

people of Puerto Rico want no pact on independence and take proper pride in their

American citizenship, the result is, of course, pre-ordained for statehood.

For the majority of the people of Puerto Rico that believe in autonomy and selfgovernment with American citizenship as a bond with the United States, this bill

offers no alternative. It will require that the more of 900,000 persons I represent

that are against annexation as a state, choose between a colonial denigrating status

or loosing our American citizenship. To vote in this plebiscite will force us to act

against our political beliefs and our freedom of speech. It will violate the principle

of equal protection and trample us upon our conscience.

When Congress decided back in 1917 to offer American citizenship to the people

of Puerto Rico, it was made completely disassociated from any thought of statehood

and specifically contemplating that it be an element of future autonomous self-government developments for the island. To unilaterally change these assumptions now
101

would confront Puerto Ricans with a conscience dilemma of no precedent in American History.

With this bill as it stands, Statehood becomes the only available alternative. This

anticipated result will be unfair both to Puerto Rico and the United States. The people of Puerto Rico would have to make a choice for statehood for the wrong reasons.

Not based on patriotism and a real commitment to the Union, but because they

have been left with no other real alternative. On the other hand, the U.S. Congress

will have before it a petition for Statehood, and a request for action, without having

considered properly the cultural, national, ethnic, linguistic, economic and social

consequences of statehood. As you can see, this bill will not solve any problem, but

rather create a bigger one.

Let there be no doubt that we want to participate in a fair and democratic process. As Chairman Young stated in September 17, 1990 with regard to another referendum bill for Puerto Rico: ‘‘a referendum should only be authorized by the Congress if it is to be fair to all parties and the statuses they advocate.’’ This should

be the guiding principle in this process of enacting legislation. With all do respect,

the bill under your consideration does not comply with the fairness standard you,

Mr. Chairman, previously established.

The assumptions of this bill, that it is not possible to have a non-colonial bilateral

relationship, based a mutual consent with American citizenship as a bond between

Puerto Rico and the United States, is against history, legal precedents and clearly

unacceptable for us.

We see the joint letter from Congressmen Young and Miller of March 3, 1997, giving the Popular Democratic Party the opportunity to present a new definition of

Commonwealth before March 31, as a new approach and openness, to have a referendum ‘‘fair to all parties and the statuses they advocate’’ and to revise the dispositions and assumptions of this bill which have until now made impossible any

meaningful participation for us.

A starting point in this process should be the express recognition of what the

present relationship is. The creation of Commonwealth status was a great joint

achievement of the government of the United States and the people of Puerto Rico.

Public Law 600 was enacted on July 3, 1950 by Congress authorizing the people of

Puerto Rico to draft and adopt a Constitution. Recognizing the sovereignty of the

people of Puerto Rico to establish its own Constitution, Congress clearly stated in

Public Law 600 that: ‘‘fully recognizing the principle of government by consent, this

act is now adopted in the nature of a compact’’, conditioning its effectiveness and

the perfectioning of the compact on it first being approved by the people of Puerto

Rico in a referendum.

Public Law 600 was overwhelmingly approved by the people. A Constitution was

adopted on a second referendum and approved by the Congress on July 3, 1952. In

Public Law 447, by which Congress accepted the Commonwealth Constitution, it is

clearly stated that Public Law 600 had been adopted as a compact between Congress and Puerto Rico. The Constitution of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico,

adopted by the People and approved by Congress clearly recognizes the sovereignty

of the people and the compact between Puerto Rico and the United States states:

‘‘Section 1. The Commonwealth of Puerto Rico is hereby constituted. Its political

power emanates from the people and shall be exercised in accordance with their

will, within the terms of the compact agreed upon between the people of Puerto Rico

and the United States of America.

‘‘Section 2. The government of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico shall be republican in form and its legislative, judicial and executive branches as established by

this Constitution shall be equally subordinate to the sovereignty of the people of

Puerto Rico.’’

Based on these actions, the United States Government made a solemn representation to the United Nations, on the basis of which Puerto Rico was struck out from

the list of non self-governing peoples in 1953. At that time, the United States government made clear statements before the United Nations with regard to the new

status of Puerto Rico of a bilateral compact that can only be changed by mutual consent:

‘‘The previous status of Puerto Rico was that of a territory subject to the full authority of the Congress of the United States in all governmental matters. The previous constitution of Puerto Rico was in fact a law of the Congress of the United

States, which was called an Organic Act. Congress only could amend the Organic

Act of Puerto Rico. The present status of Puerto Rico is that of a people with a constitution of their own adoption, stemming from their own authority, which only they

can alter or amend. The relationships previously established by a law of Congress,

which only Congress could amend, have now become provisions of a compact of a

bilateral nature whose terms may be changed only by common consent’’.
102

On November 27, 1953 the General Assembly of the United Nations approved

Resolution 748 VIII which specifically declares that: ‘‘In the framework of their Constitution and of the compact agreed upon with the United States of America, the

people of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico have been invested with attributes of

political sovereignty which clearly identify the status of self-government attained by

the Puerto Rican people as that of an autonomous political entity’’.

The United States Supreme Court has repeatedly held that Puerto Rico is to be

deemed ‘‘sovereign over matters not ruled by the [United States] Constitution’’; that

‘‘the purpose of Congress in the 1950 and 1952 legislation was to accord to Puerto

Rico the degree of autonomy and independence normally associated with a State of

the Union’’; that ‘‘Puerto Rico occupies a relationship to the United States that has

no parallel in our history’’; and that ‘‘Puerto Rico, like a state, is an autonomous

political entity’’ [Calero-Toledo v. Pearson Yacht Leasing Co., 416 US 663, 672-673

(1974); Rodrı ́guez v. Popular Democratic Party, 457 US 1, (1982); Posadas v. Tourism Co., 478 US 328 (1986); Examining Board v. Flores de Otero, 426 US 572,

(1976)]. While sitting in the Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, Judge, now Justice, Breyer stated in a landmark case [Co ́rdova v. Chase Manhattan Bank, 649 F.

2d 36, (1981)]:

‘‘In sum, Puerto Rico’s status changed from that of a mere territory to the unique

status of Commonwealth, and the federal government’s relations with Puerto Rico

changed from being bound merely by the territorial clause, and the rights of the

people of Puerto Rico as the United States citizens, to being bound by the United

States and Puerto Rico Constitutions, Public Law 600, the Puerto Rican Federal Relations Act and the rights of the people of Puerto Rico as United States citizens’’.

Of the various of cases decided by Federal Courts touching upon Commonwealth

status, opponents to this option single out the case of Harris vs. Rosario, 446 U.S.

651 (1980) to establish that Congress may, at any time, unilaterally alter or abolish

Commonwealth. However, the point of law before the Court in Harris vs. Rosario

dealt with the question of whether it was constitutional for an act of Congress to

deny Puerto Rico residents benefits under the AFDC program otherwise available

to that citizen if residing in the mainland. To justify unequal treatment between the

Puerto Rico residents and those of the several states in its brief discussion the Supreme Court made reference to the territorial clause of the U.S. Constitution.

However, there was no claim that the Commonwealth compact required that Congress must extend to Puerto Rico, in equal terms, all federal aid programs. Therefore, the holding in Harris vs. Rosario in no way invalidates the compact by virtue

of which Commonwealth was created. Moreover, in all the cases after Harris in

which the Supreme Court has confronted an issue regarding the nature of Commonwealth, the Court has validated the main principles of our present status. (See

Rodrı ́guez v. PDP, supra, 1982; Posadas v. Tourism Co., supra, 1986). (For further

discussion of Harris see Appendices B.)

The definition of Commonwealth contained on H.R. 856 denies these precedents,

presents Commonwealth as a classic colonial status and for the first time proclaims

the revocability of the American citizenship all Puerto Ricans enjoy since 1917.

Under these circumstances, Commonwealth followers which I represent, have no

place to vote on the ballot proposed by this bill. It will force us to choose between

a colonial alternative that goes against our beliefs and constitutional rights or, on

the other side, deprive our children and grandchildren of the American citizenship.

Two alternatives clearly unacceptable.

History shows that full autonomy and American citizenship are not mutually exclusive concepts. Moreover, American citizenship has always been the bond for a

permanent union entirely disassociated from statehood.

This principle was clearly outlined by President Taft in his 1912 State of the

Union address, advocating in favor of a bill pending in Congress to grant American

citizenship to all Puerto Ricans, where he stated:

‘‘I believe that the demand for citizenship is just, and that it is amply earned by

sustained loyalty on the part of the inhabitants of the island. But it must be remembered that the demand must be, and in the minds of most Puerto Ricans is, entirely

disassociated from any thought of statehood. I believe that no substantial approved

public opinion in the United States or in Puerto Rico contemplates statehood for the

island as the ultimate form of relations between us. I believe that the aim to be

striven for is the fullest possible allowance of legal and fiscal self-government, with

American citizenship as the bond between us; in other words, a relation analogous

to the present relation between Great Britain and such self-governing colonies as

Canada and Australia. This would conduce to the fullest and most self-sustaining

development of Puerto Rico, while at the same time it would grant her the economic

and political benefits of being under the American flag’’.
103

As to the legal problems that conceivably could be raised, by granting American

citizenship, Felix Frankfurter, when he was serving at the War Department, wrote

in 1914 and is cited in Mora v. Torres, 113 F.Supp. 309, 319 (District of Puerto Rico,

1953), waiving aside sham constitutional objections:

‘‘The form of the relationship between the United States and unincorporated territory is solely a problem of statesmanship.

‘‘History suggests a great diversity of relationships between a central government

and dependent territory. The present day demands upon inventive statesmanship is

to help evolve new kinds of relationships so as to combine the advantages of local

self-government with those of a confederated union. Luckily, our Constitution has

left this field of invention open’’.

Congressional and official actions after the enactment of Commonwealth have

been consistent with these principles and precedents that now this bill intents to

unilaterally revoke. There is ample evidence, moreover, that Congress has expressly

recognized the non-territorial character of Commonwealth Status. The report of

1964 of the federally created United States Puerto Rico Commission on the Status

of Puerto Rico (Public Law 88-271) states:

‘‘The Commission’s mayor conclusion is that all three forms of political status—

the Commonwealth, Statehood, and Independence—are valid and confer upon the

people of Puerto Rico equal dignity with equality of status and of national citizenship.

‘‘The Commonwealth relationship was established through bilateral agreement. It

is clear that the U.S. Government entered into a solemn agreement with the Puerto

Rican people in 1952 and that the agreement, referred to in the legislation as the

compact, bears permanent legal consequences.

‘‘A solemn undertaking of such profound character between the Federal Government and a community of U.S. citizens is incompatible with the concept of unilateral

revocation. It is inconceivable that either the United States or Puerto Rico would,

by an act of unilateral revocation, undermine the very foundation of their common

progress: the fundamental political and economic relationships which were established on the basis of mutuality.

‘‘The key to the continuation and development of the relationship between Puerto

Rico and the mainland is U.S. citizenship. This citizenship carries with it basic personal and institutional protections which cannot be encroached upon by the Legislature of Puerto Rico or the Congress of the United States’’.

Other Congressional documents are consistent with these precedents. The basic

principles regarding Commonwealth, that this bill pretends to deny—a bilateral relationship based on mutual consent with American citizenship as one of its components—have been recognized in all the bills that the Congress has seriously considered to further develop Commonwealth in the last 25 years. For example:

—H.R. 11200-1 introduced in Congress in 1975 to implement the result in favor

of Commonwealth in the 1967 referendum and approved by the House Sub-Committee of Insular Affairs. It defined Puerto Rico as an autonomous body politic organized by their own, free and sovereign will, joint in permanent union with the

United States with American citizenship.

—S. 712 approved by the Senate Energy Committee in August, 1989, recognizing

the bilaterality of the relationship and the permanence of the American citizenship.

—S. 244 was also considered by the Senate Energy Committee in 1991. It recognized Puerto Rico’s autonomy, bilateral compact, mutual consent and, U.S. citizenship as a bond of permanent union between the United States and Puerto Rico.

Final Committee vote was 10-10, although major concerns to the Commonwealth

definition were not reported.

—H.R. 4765 approved by the Insular Affairs Sub-Committee, by the Interior Committee and unanimously by the House of Representatives in August 10, 1990, allowing the people of Puerto Rico to vote for a New Commonwealth.

So far, I have been talking about the historic precedents that clearly show that

the assumptions under which this bill has been drafted are wrong. Now is time to

talk about the future. The Chairman, Mr. Don Young, and the ranking Democrat,

Mr. George Miller, have graciously asked me to submit a definition of Commonwealth.

The definition I am about to present is made recognizing the sovereignty of the

People of Puerto Rico to enter into a new relationship with the United States consistent with the principles of dignity, political autonomy and permanent union that

gave birth to the present Commonwealth status. With minor changes in order to adjust it to the implementation process required by H.R. 856, the Popular Democratic

Party believes that it would be adequate to work with the definition of a New Commonwealth adopted by this Committee in 1990 which was included in the report to

H.R. 4765 of the 101st. Congress approved by the Sub-Committee of Insular Affairs,
104

by the full Committee of the Interior, and unanimously by the full House on October

10, 1990.

Eleven members of this Committee, including Chairman Young and Congressman

Miller, were members of that Committee and voted in favor of the definition I will

now present. The New Commonwealth should be defined as follows:

‘‘(A) The new Commonwealth of Puerto Rico would be joined in a union with the

United States that would be permanent and the relationship could only be altered

by mutual consent. Under a compact, the Commonwealth would be an autonomous

body politic with its own character and culture, not incorporated into the United

States, and sovereign over matters covered by the Constitution of Puerto Rico, consistent with the Constitution of the United States.

‘‘(B) The United States citizenship of persons born in Puerto Rico would be guaranteed and secured as provided by the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution of the

United States and equal to that of citizens born in the several states. The individual

rights, privileges and immunities provided for by the Constitution of the United

States would apply to residents of Puerto Rico. Residents of Puerto Rico would be

entitled to receive benefits under Federal social programs equally with residents of

the several States contingent on equitable contributions from Puerto Rico as provided by law.

‘‘(C) To enable Puerto Rico to arrive at full self-government over matters necessary to its economic, social, and cultural development under its constitution, a

Special Constitutional Convention would submit proposals for the entry of Puerto

Rico into international agreements and the exemption of Puerto Rico from specific

Federal laws or provisions thereof. The President and the Congress, as appropriate,

would consider whether such proposals would be consistent with the vital national

interests of the United States in the transition plan provided for in Section 4 of this

Act. The Commonwealth would assume any expenses related to increased responsibilities resulting from these proposals.’’

This definition describes the minimum content of our aspirations. By offering a

definition which was the subject of serious study, was actively supported by Chairman Young and Congressman Miller among others, and met with the approval of

this Committee and of the whole House a few years ago we mean to show our desire

to facilitate the work of this Committee and bring about a plebiscite in which Commonwealth supporters may participate with a clear conscience.

By using the mechanism of a Constitutional Convention, which is already included in Section 4(b) (1) (B) of H.R. 856, to implement a vote in favor of the New

Commonwealth, we would adapt it to the implementation mechanism conceived by

this bill.

The Popular Democratic Party is looking with enthusiasm at the future. It is in

the process of reorganizing its leadership and currently involved in a healthy

generational transition that will guarantee a strong and rejuvenated party for years

to come. The definition I have presented today fully complies with the principles

contained in a document adopted last week by the Youth Organization of the Popular Democratic Party.

Commonwealth as an autonomic ideal for the future is the only status alternative

in Puerto Rico that harmonizes those aspirations and goals of the modern world by

protecting our identity and simultaneously guaranteeing our relationship with the

United States, with a common market, common citizenship, common defense and

common currency.

We believe that modern tendencies show that the ideas that will prevail in the

new century will be those similar to the basic principles of Commonwealth of national reaffirmation and political and economic integration among the peoples of the

world.

Thank you.

APPENDICES A

A NOTE ON THE POWER OF CONGRESS TO ENTER INTO A COMPACT WITH

THE PEOPLE OF PUERTO RICO

The Supreme Court of the United States has relied upon two sources to sustain

Congress’ power with respect to territories: the inherent and implied powers of the

United States as a sovereign and the territorial clause, Article IV, Section 3, Clause

2 of the United States Constitution. American Insurance Co. v. Canter, 26 US 511,
105

542-43 (1828). Under both powers Congress can make contracts or compacts binding

upon other Congresses.

The general power to make binding compacts and agreements is a necessary corollary of sovereignty. United States v. Bekins 304 US 27, 51-52 (1936). In Perry v.

United States, 294 US 330, 352, 253-54 (1935), regarding the gold clause in the

bonds of the United States, the Court plainly stated that ‘‘the right to make binding

obligations is a competence attaching to sovereignty’’. A Joint Resolution of Congress that attempted to override the obligation created by the bond was accordingly

held to be beyond Congressional power. See also: Union Pacific R.R. Co. v. United

States, 99 US 700, 719 (1870), where the federal government contracted with states

to grant them federal lands on certain conditions, the Court holding that such

agreements had to be honored by future Congresses.

Binding compacts and agreements can also be made under the territorial clause.

The power of Congress to contract is included within the power to ‘‘dispose’’ referred

to in that clause. See: United States v. Gratiot, 30 US (14 Pet) 526, 537-538 (1840),

regarding the lease of mineral rights on public lands and holding that Congress

could dispose partially, as well as totally of the property and territory of the United

States. See also: Ashwander v. T.V.A. 297 US 288 (1936).

The binding nature of contracts entered into pursuant to the territorial clause includes contracts made with the people of a territory. See Stearns v. Minnesota, 179

US 223 (1900), concerning a contract made between the United States and the territory of Minnesota relating to the grant of certain federal lands to the territory in

trust. Such an action was held binding on future Congresses.

Compacts made pursuant to the territorial clause may deal with governmental

rights. The Northwest Ordinance of 1787 provides the classic example. The Northwest Ordinance stated that several of its provisions ‘‘shall be considered as articles

of compact between the original States, and the people and States in the said territory, and forever remain unalterable unless by common consent’’. The Northwest

Ordinance was adopted by the Continental Congress under the Articles of Confederation and ratified by the First Congress under the new Constitution by Act of August 7, 1789, 1 Stat. 50. Story was of the opinion that the Ordinance bound Congress in the exercise of its otherwise absolute power under the territorial clause. 2

Story on the Constitution [Bigelow ed., 1891] sec. 1328.

Congress may relinquish or dispose of part of its territorial powers and retain others. The admission of a territory as a state is an example of total disposal. So is

the Tydings-McDuffie Act of 1934, 48 Stat. 761, which granted independence to the

Philippines. The Northwest Ordinance of 1787 represents an example of partial relinquishment or limitation of Congressional rights under the territorial clause.

There is no authority for the proposition that the United States is forced by its Constitution to opt only for total relinquishment of its powers under the territorial

clause. Independence and statehood are not the only ways out of territorial status.

As pointed by Felix Frankfurter in his days at the Bureau of Insular Affairs at the

War Department (see Mr. Acevedo Vila ́’s statement before this Committee today),

the field is constitutionally open to inventive statesmanship.

The validity of the compact entered into in 1952 between the people of Puerto

Rico and the government of the United States was duly recognized by United States

representatives at the United Nations in 1953. (See Mr. Acevedo Vila ́’s statement

for the appropriate quote).

At various times, although there have been occasions to the contrary, the United

States Department of Justice has admitted the constitutional possibility of a compact between the people of Puerto Rico and the government of the United States.

On April 2, 1962, it stated that the more reasonable conclusion would be ‘‘to read

the Constitution as not restricting Congress’ power to construct such political relationships with the territories as it may consider necessary in the light of particular

instances, including one in which it permanently divests itself of part of its territorial powers’’. (J. Trı ́as Monge, Historia Constitucional de Puerto Rico, Rı ́o Piedras,

Editorial de la Universidad de Puerto Rico, 1983, vol. 4, p. 184).

The United States-Puerto Rico Commission on the Status of Puerto Rico, established by Congress in 1964, 78 Stat. 17, concluded in its 1966 report that ‘‘All three

status alternatives—the Commonwealth, Statehood, and Independence—are within

the powers of the people of Puerto Rico and the Congress to establish under the

Constitution’’. Report of the United States-Puerto Rico Commission on the Status

of Puerto Rico, 1966, p. 6.

On May 12, 1975, the United States Department of Justice, being consulted by

the White House as to the constitutionality of the proposed Compact of Permanent

Union between Puerto Rico and the United States (H.R. 11200 and H.R. 11201,

121st Congress, 1st Sess.) concluded that ‘‘it is possible for Congress to bind future

Congresses with respect to Puerto Rico by means of a ‘compact’. This may be viewed
106

either as the vesting of certain rights, see, e.g., Downes v. Bidwell, 182 US 244, 261-

71 (1901), or as the granting of a certain measure of independence which once

granted cannot be retrieved. Thus, specifically, Article 21 of the proposed Compact,

requiring mutual agreement for amendment to the Compact, would, in our belief,

be constitutional. Indeed, its explicit statement would appear to be an improvement

over the situation under the present Compact where there is some question as to

the ability of Congress to change its provisions’’. (President Ford’s Library, Norman

E. Ross Files, Ad Hoc Committee, folders 2-3, letter dated May 12, 1975 from A.

Mitchell McConnell, Acting Assistant Attorney General, Legislative Affairs, written

as an answer to the request of James M. Cannon, Assistant to the President for Domestic Affairs).

As respects court opinions, the question as to the power of Congress to enter into

a binding compact with the people of Puerto Rico has not yet been directly at issue,

but many rulings of the Supreme Court of the United States and the Court of Appeals for the First Circuit are incompatible with the argument that for Congress to

enter into a binding compact would be constitutionally impossible. Among such rulings are the recognition that Puerto Rico is sovereign over matters not ruled by the

Constitution of the United States; that Puerto Rico has been accorded the degree

of autonomy and independence normally associate with States of the Union; that

Puerto Rico occupies a relationship to the United States that has no parallel in

American history; and that, accordingly, upon the establishment of Commonwealth

status, Puerto Rico ceased to be a territory of the United States subject to the plenary power of Congress. (See the note on Harris v. Rosario for the appropriate citations).

APPENDICES B

A NOTE ON HARRY v. ROSARIO

Harris v. Rosario, 446 US 651 (1981), held in a two-paragraph per curiam opinion,

citing Califano v. Torres, 435 US 1 (1978), that Congress was empowered to treat

Puerto Rico differently than a state in granting aid to families with dependent children. The Court briefly referred to the territorial clause as the basis for that power.

The Court, it should be noted, did not face in Harris the question whether Congress

retained plenary power to legislate for Puerto Rico and accordingly said nothing

about that. In order to address such a momentous issue a full-dress opinion would

naturally have been required, rather than the summary action taken. The Court

just ruled in Harris that Congress can under the territorial clause treat Puerto Rico

differently than a state as respects the application of aid programs. The power of

Congress to do so has, of course, never been challenged by the government of Puerto

Rico, as it actually provides one of the constitutional bases for the unique nature

of Commonwealth status. The interpretation of Harris advanced by critics of Commonwealth status simply misses the substantial distinction between the power of

Congress to treat Puerto Rico differently than a state and the power to legislate for

the unincorporated territories basically at its pleasure.

Harris does not, therefore, support the understanding of its meaning propound by

critics of Commonwealth status. Such an interpretation of Harris runs counter to

other decisions of the United States Supreme Court issued both before and after

Harris.

Should the construction put on Harris by critics of Commonwealth status to be

correct, why is it that neither the United States Supreme Court nor the Court of

Appeals most familiar with Puerto Rican matters, that for the First Circuit, not only

has ever failed to follow such an interpretation, but actually ruled to the contrary?

Contrary to the bizarre interpretation of Harris favored by critics of Commonwealth status, these are some of the statements issued by the United States Supreme Court and the Court of Appeals for the First Circuit on the status change

represented by the establishment of the Commonwealth:

•‘‘We readily concede that Puerto Rico occupies a relationship to the United States

that has no parallel in our history...’’ Examining Board v. Flores de Otero, 426 US

572 (1972).

•‘‘Puerto Rico is to be deemed sovereign over matters not ruled by the Constitution’’. Calero Toledo v. Pearson Yacht Leasing Co., 416 US 663 (1974); Rodrı ́guez v.

Popular Democratic Party, 457 US 1 (1982); Alfred L. Snapp & Son Inc. v. Puerto

Rico, 458 US 592 (1982), Posadas de Puerto Rico Assc’n v. Tourism Co., 478 US 328

(1986).
107

•‘‘The purpose of Congress in the 1950 and 1952 legislation was to accord to Puerto Rico the degree of autonomy and independence normally associated with States

of the Union’’. Examining Board v. Flores de Otero, supra.

•‘‘Puerto Rico, like a state, is an autonomous political entity’’. Rodrı ́guez v. Popular Democratic Party, supra.

•‘‘The theme that consistently runs throughout the legislative history of Puerto

Rico’s attainment of Commonwealth status is that Commonwealth represents the

fulfillment of increasing self-government over local affairs by the people of Puerto

Rico...In sum, Puerto Rico’s status changed from that of a mere territory to the

unique status of Commonwealth. And the federal relations with Puerto Rico

changed from being bounded merely by the territorial clause, and the rights of the

people of Puerto Rico as United States citizenship, to being bounded by the United

States and Puerto Rico Constitutions, Public Law 600, the Puerto Rican Federal Relations Act and the rights of the people of Puerto Rico as United States citizens’’.

Co ́rdova & Simonpietri, Inc. v. Chase Manhattan Bank, 649 F2d 3 6 (1st Cir. 1981).

•‘‘Thus, in 1952, Puerto Rico ceased being a territory subject to the plenary powers of Congress’’. United States v. Ouin ̃ ones, 758 Fed. 2d 40 (1st Cir. 1985).

There is accordingly no basis in law for the proposition that Harris establishes

that Puerto Rico is still an unincorporated territory of the United States subject to

the plenary power of Congress under the territorial clause.

STATEMENT OF LUIS A. FERRE ́, FORMER GOVERNOR OF PUERTO RICO, NEW

PROGRESSIVE PARTY

Chairman Young and Members of the House Natural Resources Committee:

Good Afternoon!

My name is Luis A. Ferre ́.

I have advocated statehood for Puerto Rico during my adult life, which extends

today to 93 years.

I served as Governor of Puerto Rico from 1969 to 1973 and I appear before you

as Founding President of the New Progressive Party, committed to achieve statehood for Puerto Rico, which won the 1996 election with a majority vote of 1,006,331

or 51.4% for Governor of Puerto Rico, a majority of the Senate with l9 seats out

of 28, a majority of the House with 37 out of 54 seats, 54 mayors of a total of 78

municipalities and a vote of 973,654, or majority for Resident Commissioner to Congress.

The New Progressive Party stands firmly behind the Young Bill, H.R. 856. We

are all happy, indeed, that you have all subscribed H.R. 856, which finally opens

the road for Puerto Rico to make a decision on its ultimate political status in the

dignified manner that becomes the United States Congress and the people of the

United States, including statehood as an alternative, which was the implicit understanding under which the people of Puerto Rico welcomed the American forces of

General Nelson Miles in 1898.

Upon landing, General Nelson Miles published a proclamation which read in part,

‘‘Our military forces have not come to make war on the people of the country—but,

on the contrary, to bring protection,— promote your prosperity, and bestow the immunities and blessings of our enlightenment and liberal institutions and government.’’

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 United States citizenship. Accordingly, both

political parties that participated in the elections of 1900, under the leadership of

the two most important and respected leaders, Barbosa and Mun ̃ oz Rivera, included

statehood in their platforms, and gave their full support to you assumption of our

destiny on an equal political basis and moral responsibility.

Unfortunately, and to everybody’s disappointment, Congress enacted 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 historical precedent of accepting territories only to become states. In spite of this disappoinunent,

the people of Puerto Rico did not lose their confidence in the ultimate spirit of justice and moral responsibility of the United States and persisted in their demands

for United States citizenship, as a step to ultimate statehood.

We are now approaching one hundred years from the date of the signature of the

Treaty of Paris, which bestowed upon Congress the power to determine the political

destiny of Puerto Rico, as at last outlined, with options for full self-government, including statehood, in Young Bill H.R. 856.
108

It took Congress 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 Constitutional 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 to other amendments to the Jones Act of 1917. The Federal Relations Act remained unchanged, maintaining Puerto Rico, as a non-incorporated Territory under the Territorial Clause of the United States Constitution and the full

sovereignty of Congress.

We voted in favor of the Constitution drafted by the Convention under the clear

understanding that the Commonwealth (E.L.A.), as defined therein, was to be a

transitory status that kept the way open for Puerto Rico to achieve statehood or

independence, at a future date, if the people so decided.

Several attempts were made afterwards to interpret and modify Law 600, which

were rejected by Congress.

In 1964, and to clarify the meaning of Law 600, under which the Constitution of

Puerto Rico was granted, the United States-Puerto Rico Status Commission as appointed. I was appointed member of the Status Commission on behalf of the statehood position.

During the Commission proceedings, I was able to argue against the misleading

campaign of the advocates of Commonwealth status, that statehood for Puerto Rico

was not attainable and that it would be economically disastrous for the Island and

an economic burden to the United States, assuming the position that I had been

sustaining since November 23, 1949, when I testified before the sub-committee of

the Committee on Labor and Education of the House of Representatives of the

United States, that to the contrary, Puerto Rico could assume the full economic responsibilities of statehood and it would be in the long run an asset to the United

States, while the territorial status of Commonwealth would perpetually be a burden.

And I added and repeat today, that if we are American citizens, then we must

be given the tools that our fellow American citizens in Continental United States

have to solve their problems; and these tools are equal rights under statehood. Only

by having two Senators and six Congressmen who can be on the alert all the time

and who have the power to protect our interests, can the American citizens of Puerto Rico give their economy the necessary impetus to solve their problems.

Finally, the Status Commission Report came out with the following conclusion

amongst others: ‘‘Economic studies indicate, that sustained economic growth, under

the present status and continuation of the special arrangements will make statehood with adequate but not extraordinary or unprecedented provisions for transition, fully possible, without severe risks.’’

‘‘With respect to the nature of the compact agreed upon under Law 600, the Supreme Court of the Untied States is the final interpreter, and has not expressed

itself, as yet, on these matters.’’ This was in 1966. Since then, it has expressed itself

in several instances, in particular, in the case of Harris vs. Rosario, in which it

ruled that Congress had the authority to discriminate against the United States citizens of Pueblo Rico, since Puerto Rico was held under the Territorial Clause of the

Constitution.

Let me add some political considerations for the admission of Puerto Rico as a

state, that I expressed before the Sub-Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs of

the House of Representatives of the United States Congress on December 7, 1959,

and which I think are still pertinent today.

‘‘The admission of Puerto Rico as a state would greatly enhance the position of

the United States in world affairs. It would be the logical conclusion of a process

which started in 1898, when Puerto Rico came under the American flag. Puerto Rico

before the year 1900 had the old European authoritarian social structure. This

structure has gradually evolved into a democratic society under the American influence, which began by teaching our youth the American principles of individual liberty, equality of opportunity and respect for human dignity, through the school system and the political institutions, which were established after the year 1900.’’

‘‘This has been, to my mind, the most significant change that Puerto Rico has undergone under the American flag. The successful achievement of our economic

wellbeing is, therefore, a challenge to the American citizens of Puerto Rico and to

our fellow citizens of the Mainland; a challenge to show the world that the American

way is the way to both economic success, social improvement and political freedom,

which can usefully serve as a pattern to solve the vaster problems of other underprivileged countries of the world. A challenge of great political and human

potentialities, which may be of great world significance.’’
109

‘‘With respect to the relations of the United States and Latin America, statehood

for Puerto Rico would have still greater significance. It would serve to improve and

solidify the position of America as a friend and partner, for it would be the best

proof that our Good-neighbor policy is not a mere diplomatic posture, but that it is

an honest and sincere expression of respect of North America for Latin America. It

would make Latin America feel, that through Puerto Rico and through its representation in Congress, their problems and aspirations would be better understood, because of our common cultural origin and tradition.’’

‘‘As Americans identified with the political and social philosophy of America and

its institutions of law, we would be able to better interpret our foreign policy to

them and help the United States to succeed in bringing better understanding and

cooperation in the common problems of our hemisphere.’’

And at the present moment, the need to maintain and further develop the commercial interchange with Latin American, which is our natural market, when we

are loosing the European market to United Europe and the Pacific markets to Japan

and China, is essential to our success and prosperity.

The growth of the statehood forces have been overwhelming since 1968. In 1964,

the Pro-commonwealth Party had 487,280 votes or 59.4% of the vote and the Prostatehood Party had 284,627 or 34.6%. In the last election of 1996, there was a complete reversal. The Statehood Party obtained 963,536 votes, or 51.3%, and the Procommonwealth Party 855,960 votes, or 45.5%, which shows a clear growing trend

for statehood.

We feel, therefore, that Puerto Rico is ripe to become a state after almost a hundred years of successful democratic apprenticeship and to assume its full political

rights and responsibilities. During all this Century, more than 200,000 Puerto

Ricans have served with distinction in all the wars that United States has been involved with more than 6,000 casualties and in several cases with higher casualties

than some states. More than 2,000 Puerto Ricans soldiers served in the Gulf War,

amongst whom was a grandson of mine in the 1st Armored Division. Four, such as

Fernando Luis Garcı ́a, who gave their lives, heroically, in the line of duty, have

been condecorated with the Congressional Medal of Honor.

Other distinguished leaders who have, also, served the Nation are: Admiral

Horacio Rivero, in 1968, Commander in Chief of NATO Forces in Southern Europe

and later Ambassador to Spain; Vice Admiral Diego Herna ́ndez, 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 Me ́ndez, Jr., as Deputy Surgeon General

of the U. S. Army.

The real test for Puerto Rican statehood should be how much we share common

values with fellow citizens of the 50 states, and how much Puerto Ricans believe

in, honor, and defend the Constitution of the United States. A look at the myriad

ways Puerto Ricans have served the United States over the last 99 years is enough

to pass the test.

President Clinton has just appointed Mrs. Aida Alvarez to his Cabinet, as head

of Small Business Administration.

Puerto Rico is participating, successfully and with distinction, in Mainstream

American 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 professionals, in all fields of activity: Thousands of physicians and engineers, thousands of teachers and professors, in schools and universities.

In the arts and humanities, our rhythms and melodies have contributed to enrich

American music: Justino Dı ́az and Pablo Elvira have been great voices at the Metropolitan Opera; our great actors, like Jose ́ Ferre ́r and Rau ́l Julia ́, have been American favorites.

We are contributing to enrich our cultural patrimony through Museum collections.

Today you can see on loan at the National Gallery of Art in Washington, the painting, Flaming June, by Lord Leighton, which is the key painting and masterpiece of

the Victorian Exhibition.

In the area of civil government, amongst many others, Judge Juan Torruella, chief

Justice of the U. S. First Circuit of Appeals; Judge Jose ́ Cabranes is member of the

United States 2nd Circuit of Appeals.

In the area of sports, we have contributed with many baseball players, amongst

whom, Roberto Clemente has been included in the Hall of Fame; Charles Pasarell,

in 1969, was #1 tennis player in the United States, and now, Gigi Ferna ́ndez a tennis champion; as well as, Chi Chi Rodrı ́guez, a golf professional.

And last, but not least, to show how much Puerto Rico is embedded in American

life, it was the Puerto Rican judge of the Southern District of New York, Sonia
110

Sotomayor, who as a fearless jurist, a couple of years ago, decided 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 one of their favorite sports. Nobody could be part of America, more than this 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 that time has come to 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 3.6 million disenfranchised American citizens of Puerto Rico. We congratulate you for taking the proper step, with H.R. 856, to comply with your moral

duly, as it becomes the United Slates Congress and our fellow citizens of the United

States.

STATEMENT OF JEFFREY L. FARROW, CO-CHAIR OF THE PRESIDENT’S WORKING GROUP

ON PUERTO RICO

Mr. Chairman and distinguished Members:

Thank you for inviting the Clinton Administration to testify on—

(1) the general idea of authorizing the people of Puerto Rico to express their preference regarding their islands’ relationship to the United States before the end of

1998 and

(2) the bill that the Chairman and other Members have sponsored to provide a

process leading to full self-government for the Commonwealth, H.R. 856.

Let me begin by expressing appreciation for the interest and initiative of Chairman Young and the other primary sponsors of H.R. 856 in Puerto Rico’s political

status dilemma: It is a matter of transcendent importance, concerning the political

rights of millions of U. S. citizens and a major factor in determining the approach

to many of the serious economic and social challenges faced in the islands.

It is also, however, extremely complex and sensitive, involving much of the range

of Federal policy, central questions of identity, a century of history, the interests of

political parties that are based on conflicting visions of what the best status would

be, and differences so intense that they hinder action on the issue itself and other

issues as well.

President Clinton is dedicated to supporting the people of Puerto Rico’s decision

of what status their islands should have. He has pledged to back statehood or independence if Puerto Ricans vote for either one and to do his best to make the Commonwealth arrangement work better for them if they want to continue it.

He has also, though, recognized that the frustrating debate is likely to persist

until the Federal Government clarifies what the options really are and how they can

be implemented: The differing status aspirations that Puerto Ricans have long discussed largely hinge on fundamental Federal decisions that have not been made.

The President has, therefore, favored Puerto Ricans making a choice in concert

with congressional action in a process that is developed together with their representatives.

Establishing a process that would enable this matter to finally be resolved is his

highest priority regarding the islands. And he is fully committed to working with

you and others in the Congress, with Puerto Rico’s elected leaders, and with all concerned to establish it as soon as possible.

The President’s position is that the Federal Government should—

(1) provide the people of Puerto Rico with options that are serious and fair responses to their diverse, expressed aspirations and

(2) commit to act on implementing an option that is authorized by a majority vote

in the islands.

He very much hopes that such a process will be underway next year .. . the centennial of the U. S. acquisition of the islands. He looks forward to our entering the

new millennium having concluded the debate and implementing the will of the

Puerto Rican people.

To facilitate enactment of the law that is needed, the Administration offers the

following comments on H.R. 856 and urges the Committee to consider them.

Options

The bill would provide Commonwealth, nationhood, and statehood options.

Democratic principles require that the expressed aspirations of Puerto Ricans be

central to the development of the options (which must also be viable from the Federal perspective). The President regards this as an integral part of a sound process.

We, therefore, view Chairman Young’s agreement with Senior Democrat Miller to

give Puerto Rico’s major political parties until March 31st to submit alternatives to
111

the options in the bill and to seriously consider their proposals as a very constructive step and we appreciate the role that Governor Rossello and Resident Commissioner Romero-Barcelo also played in it being taken. The parties are each recognized

as the leading advocates for one of the three status formulas that substantial numbers of Puerto Ricans have supported: Commonwealth, statehood, and independence.

The Administration encouraged such an outreach and strongly supports the procedure that was agreed upon. Consequently, we would like to work with the Committee in fashioning the options—considering the proposals of the parties and others

as well as U. S. necessities—after the parties have had this opportunity to advance

their ideas to you.

Referenda

The bill would ostensibly require—

(1) a referendum before 1999 and

(2) further referenda at least every four years thereafter in the event of: no option

obtaining a majority; a majority for the Commonwealth option, or Puerto Rican rejection of Federal status implementation legislation.

Rather than suggest a mandate, it would be more appropriate to simply provide

a process for and facilitate a status choice. This is the approach that was used in

past legislation on the islands’ political development. (Public Laws 81-600 and 82-

447, which helped establish the governing arrangement for Puerto Rico, including

the Commonwealth Constitution and the Puerto Rican Federal Relations Act; Public

Law 88-271, which established a joint Federal-Commonwealth status commission;

and the status process bill that the House passed in 1990.)

We also suggest giving the Government of Puerto Rico flexibility on calling additional votes. Further votes might not be desired by Puerto Ricans so often and in

such a case the call for revoting at least every four years would be a disruptive burden. Additionally, if Puerto Ricans were to reject Federal statehood or nationhood

implementation legislation, it probably would not make sense for them to vote again

absent further Federal action.

Transition and Implementation

The bill would call for a plan for a transition of at least 10 years in the event

of a majority for either nationhood or statehood.

Since the measures that would need to be taken have not been specified and

would change from time to time, we recommend that the length of a transition be

set in the transition plan prepared in consultation with Puerto Rico’s leaders. Congress would still have its say over the duration since the plan would require congressional (as well as Puerto Rican) approval.

A more fundamental problem is that H.R. 856 would require that a law be enacted at the end of a ‘‘transition’’ to nationhood or statehood—in addition to beforehand—in order to actually implement a status change.

The Administration favors prompt, final action on implementing a status change

if chosen by Puerto Ricans. The purpose of a transition should be to permit significantly different policies to be implemented on an orderly basis. A further decision

and, possibly, further requirements at the end of a ‘‘transition’’ could make the period only a partial transition or, even, overturn the status choice. Rejection or new

conditions after substantial fiscal and program changes had been made could be

very problematic. The Federal Government and Puerto Ricans should have greater

assurance of actually implementing a status before heading down the path toward

it.

English Language Provisions

The bill includes several provisions regarding the use of the English language

that should be mentioned.

One would establish a policy of English being the ‘‘common language of mutual

understanding’’ in the United States.

Such a policy is unnecessary and could create divisiveness. We are also concerned

that it could be used to question statehood as an option for Puerto Rico. The language that most of the islands’ U. S. citizens have always used should not be a barrier to full participation in the Federal system if they want it.

Another provision would call for measures to enhance English education in public

schools in a transition to statehood.

We understand it to intend measures that would supplement educational practice

in the islands, consistent with local control of schools.

Finally, there are provisions that suggest an intent to make English the official

language of the Federal Government and a need to use English—including that

Puerto Ricans should use it ‘‘to enjoy the full rights and benefits of their citizenship.’’
112

As you may be aware, the President indicated his intent to veto a bill last year,

H.R. 123, that would have required the Federal Government to conduct most of its

official business in English only. Legislative statements on a need to use English

could be used by others to promote goals which are disharmonizing and diversionary. They could also unduly influence the Puerto Rico status decision. And, of

course, Puerto Ricans should be able to continue to enjoy their citizenship rights

and benefits whether they continue to use Spanish or not.

Problematic Statements

The bill would also make some other statements or suggestions which would not

be part of the procedure for resolving the status issue that are problematic. These

provisions relate to the current situation and have contributed to controversy about

the bill in Puerto Rico.

History has given us the conflicting facts and ambiguities that have fueled the

islands’ divisive and distracting status debate for decades. Rather than litigate them

now when there is a general consensus on what needs to be done to resolve the dilemma, we think it would be more advisable to simply concentrate on resolving it:

establishing a process that includes—

(1) providing the people of Puerto Rico with options that can end the debate and

(2) providing for Federal action on implementing their choice.

Mr. Chairman, it is time for the Federal Government to meet its responsibilities

regarding the Puerto Rico status question and provide such a process; Puerto Ricans

have been asking for the United States to act for years. H.R. 856 provides a basis

from which to act in the House. Working together and with others, we can ensure

that our great country lives up to its ideals in the case of our 3.7 million fellow citizens in the islands. It is of vital importance to their future that we do.

The Administration’s priority is to get a law enacted that will make it possible

to finally and fairly resolve the situation. We will be flexible within the principles

that the President has espoused so that agreement can be reached. All of us who

are committed to settling the issue should not let this opportunity pass.

STATEMENT OF GOVERNOR CARL T.C. GUTIERREZ, CHAIRMAN, GUAM COMMISSION ON

SELF-DETERMINATION

The Guam Commission on Self-Determination strongly supports H.R. 856 and

urges its swift passage. Guam and Puerto Rico have a strong historical bond: both

territories were acquired by the United States as a result of the Treaty of Paris ending the Spanish-American War in 1898. Now, almost 100 years later, both territories eagerly await a new relationship with the United States appropriate for the

twenty-first century.

However, while each territory desires and deserves a new relationship with the

United States, those relationships will by definition be different. H.R. 856 embodies

the choices available to Puerto Rico regarding its future status, and the people of

Guam are fully supportive of the people of Puerto Rico having a relationship with

the United States that reflects the will of their people.

Unlike Puerto Rico, statehood is not an option for Guam in the foreseeable future.

Because statehood is not an option for Guam, any comparisons between Guam’s status efforts and Puerto Rico’s efforts are not helpful. Those who would link the two

efforts do a disservice to both territories. The only similarity is that we have both

waited a very long time to resolve our status issues, and we are both mutually supportive of the efforts of our peoples to achieve political dignity. We have our own

answer to the question of a new relationship between our people and the United

States, an answer that is appropriate for Guam and is consistent with the choices

that we have at this time. We endorse a process that calls for consideration of

Guam’s status as a separate question for this Committee and for the Congress—we

would prefer that attention then be given to what is unique about Guam and

Guam’s quest.

We sincerely commend Chairman Young, Ranking Member Miller and the bipartisan cosponsors of H.R. 856 for your commitment to a process of self-determination

for the people of Puerto Rico. We also want to thank the Chairman for his commitment to hold hearings on Guam’s status after the Committee has concluded its consideration of Puerto Rico.

From the Pacific to the Caribbean, we join together as two peoples linked by a

common history and a common journey, the quest for our inalienable rights to selfdetermination. The Congress’s commitment to this process marks a defining moment in this 98 year journey. We look forward to working with the Committee on

Resources to realize this historic opportunity and we fully support the Chairman’s
113

efforts in redefining Puerto Rico’s relationship with the United States. Across two

seas, from the east and from the west, a question echoes in Chamorro, Spanish and

English, ‘‘Is there a place for us in this community?’’

STATEMENT OF FRED M. ZEDER II, RANCHO MIRAGE, CALIFORNIA

Mr. Chairman:

In 1982 I was appointed by President Ronald Reagan with Senate confirmation

to serve as Ambassador in the post of President’s Personal Representative for Micronesian Status Negotiations. In that capacity I concluded status treaties which had

been under discussion for over a decade, and by the end of 1983 on behalf of the

United States I signed the Compact of Free Association with the Republic of the

Marshall Islands, the Republic of Palau, and the Federated States of Micronesia.

From 1983 to 1986 I also represented the Reagan Administration in Congressional

hearings which led to approval of the Compact of Free Association Act (P.L. 99-239),

effective January 14, 1986. On November 3, 1986, President Reagan issued Proclamation 5564, ending the U.N. trusteeship in the Pacific islands based on implementation of the Compact. At that time I returned to the private sector, after initiating

measures to decommission the National Security Council interagency office which

successfully had supported fulfillment of my negotiating mission and Presidential

instructions.

I hardly need remind you of those events. As the Ranking Minority member on

the Interior and Insular Affairs Committee during that period, you asked many of

the tough questions that the Administration and the island governments needed to

answer in order to persuade Congress to approve the Compact. Because you addressed these issues based on principle without allowing partisanship unduly to influence your position, in my view there is no one better prepared to provide stewardship in Congress regarding the matter of self-determination for Puerto Rico.

In this regard, I have had the opportunity to review materials concerning the definition of free association which were submitted to the Committee during hearings

in 1996 on H.R. 3024. In order to correct clever but misleading interpretations presented to the Committee regarding the legislative history of the Compact for associated republics in the Pacific, the following subjects are addressed below:

Status of Puerto Rico Compared to Trust Territory

Citizenship in Trust Territory Compared to Citizenship of Persons Born in Puerto

Rico

Comparison of Decolonization Processes for Trust Territory and Puerto Rico

Basis for U.S. Sovereignty in the Commonwealth Territories

Nationality and Citizenship in Associated Republics

Separate Nationality and Citizenship as Required Elements of Separate Sovereignty

Summary of Governing Principles of Citizenship for Associated Republic Status

(Free Association)

While there are important similarities and analogies to be drawn between the

decolonization process for Puerto Rico and that resulting from the Micronesian status negotiations, there also are fundamental structural differences between Puerto

Rico’s current status and that of the trusteeship for the Pacific islands. The distinctions which must be drawn in this respect have profound legal and political significance in defining options for Puerto Rico. The following discussion is based on the

existing Congressionally approved precedents, which establish how applicable international law and practice regarding free association can be implemented consistent

with the U.S. constitutional process.

Status of Puerto Rico Compared to Trust Territory

In the case of the Federated States of Micronesia, the Republic of the Marshall

Islands and the Republic of Palau, the status of their peoples while still within the

former trust territory had been determined and controlled by the U.S. Congress

under a Trusteeship Agreement with the United Nations. In one sense, the Trusteeship Agreement was merely an internationally approved form of plenary U.S. governmental authority over the trust territory as provided by the U.N. Charter. This

Congressional authority was implemented not on the basis of U.S. sovereignty, but

rather under the trusteeship agreement as a treaty between the U.S. and the U.N.

to which the U.S. became a party through the foreign affairs powers in article II,

section 2 of the U.S. Constitution, as well as relevant provisions of article I, section

8.

As such, the power of the federal government over the trust territory was equivalent to—and in some respects arguably even greater than—the power of Congress
114

under article IV, section 3, clause 2 of the Constitution to govern the unincorporated

territories over which the U.S. acquired actual sovereignty under the Treaty of

Paris. For under Article 3 of the Trusteeship Agreement the U.N. had agreed that

the U.S. would ‘‘have full power of administration, legislation and jurisdiction over

the territory...and may apply to the trust territory, subject to any modifications

which the administering authority may consider desirable, such of the laws of the

United States as it may deem appropriate...’’

Under this virtually unrestricted power, analogous to the broad powers of Congress over the U.S. territories under the Territorial Clause, the U.S. made many

Federal laws applicable to the trust territory, and also created a trust territory government under a separate body of trust territory law which legalized less-than-equal

citizenship status for trust territory citizens—even in comparison to those with full

U.S. citizenship living and working in the trust territory itself. Puerto Ricans are

familiar with the fact that the legal and political rights of all U.S. citizens residing

in Puerto Rico are less than when those citizens reside in one of the states, but in

the trust territory the U.S. citizens residing there had preferences, legal rights,

privileges and benefits that the trust territory citizens did not enjoy.

This was possible because U.N. trusteeship status existed under international

law, rather than U.S. sovereignty. Consequently, those born in the trust territory

never had U.S. citizenship, and the U.S. Constitution did not apply directly or of

its own force. Even the ‘‘fundamental rights’’ doctrine of the Insular Cases did not

apply directly to the trust territory because it was not ‘‘Territory or other Property

belonging to the United States’’ for purposes of article IV, section 3, clause 2 as construed by the Supreme Court in that line of cases. Although there had been some

confusion about this during the trusteeship period, the non-applicability of the Territorial Clause to the trust territory was confirmed by Congress in approving the

negotiated free association treaty, and by the federal courts in cases which include

Juda v. United States, 6 Cl. Ct. 441 (Cl. Ct. 1984).

Citizenship in Trust Territory Compared to Citizenship of Persons Born in Puerto

Rico

Under the U.N. Trusteeship Agreement people born in the trust territory were

given the status of ‘‘citizens of the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands.’’ This is

another aspect of U.S. trusteeship treaty implementation in the Pacific islands that

is analogous to the exercise of actual sovereignty by the U.S. in Puerto Rico pursuant to which the people of Puerto Rico were given the status of ‘‘citizens of Puerto

Rico’’ under the Foraker Act between 1900 and 1917.

Rather than being a form of indigenous nationality and citizenship arising from

an exercise of the inherent sovereignty of the people, in the case of both Puerto Rico

and the trust territory these territorial citizenship arrangements were conferred in

an exercise of U.S. authority which was predicated on the non-self-governing status

of the territorial populations concerned. The only difference is that in the case of

Puerto Rico the source of the authority for classification of territorial citizens was

the Territorial Clause, and in the case of the trust territory the source of that authority was the U.N. Trusteeship Agreement as a treaty.

In both cases discriminatory citizenship classifications and measures based thereon adopted by Congress or the Executive Branch of the U.S. federal government—

which would not withstand constitutional scrutiny if applied to U.S. citizens in one

of the states of the union—were held by the federal courts to be permissible as long

as the territorial status continued. This remains true in Puerto Rico even though

the Foraker Act citizenship has been replaced with statutory U.S. citizenship under

the Jones Act, now codified at 8 U.S.C. 1402. See, Harris v. Rosario, 446 U.S. 651

(1980).

Although the inhabitants of the trust territory were never given the legal status

of U.S. citizenship, in both the case of Puerto Rico and the trust territory it was

clear that the decolonization process would not be completed until each territory got

out from under the less-than-equal citizenship prescribed by the U.S. in the exercise

of plenary powers over less-than-fully-self-governing peoples. For the currently federated Micronesian islands, the Marshalls and Palau that meant ending the application of the Trusteeship Agreement, which was accomplished in 1986 for the

Marshallese and Micronesians, and in 1993 for Palau. In the case of Puerto Rico

it means ending application of the Territorial Clause.

Comparison of Decolonization Processes for Trust Territory and Puerto Rico

Understanding decolonization of the trust territory under U.N. auspices is instructive with respect to decolonization for Puerto Rico and the nature of the commonwealth structure of self-government as long as Puerto Rico remains under the Territorial Clause. For example, it is interesting to note that even after the people of the

trust territory had exercised self-determination to create local constitutional govern-
115

ments in the 1978-1981 period, the U.S. retained the ultimate authority granted

under Article 3 of the U.N. Trusteeship Agreement. This, again, is analogous to the

retention by the Congress of Territorial Clause authority after Puerto Rico established its constitution under P.L. 600 in 1952.

In the case of Puerto Rico, failure to complete the decolonization process begun

in 1952 precludes full extension of the U.S. Constitution or equal citizenship and

full self-government within the federal constitutional system. Thus, if full equality

and the related benefits of U.S. federalism are desired by the people of Puerto Rico,

the decolonization process needs to be completed in favor of full political integration

to realize that desire.

Similarly, if the people of Puerto Rico desire a completely separate identity and

existence apart from the U.S.—not just social and cultural distinctness but separation in the legal and political sense of another constitutional nationality like Cuba

or the Philippines—it is necessary to complete the decolonization process begun in

1952 in favor of independence or free association. For just as the U. S. had to end

the trusteeship before the world would fully recognize the status of the associated

republics under the Compact of Free Association, international recognition of Puerto

Rico as an independent or free associated nation should not be expected until and

unless Congress exercises its Territorial Clause power in conjunction with an exercise by the President of the foreign policy power by approving as a treaty an agreement ending U.S. sovereignty, nationality and citizenship in Puerto Rico.

To illustrate the point, even after the Marshall Islands called itself a ‘‘Republic’’

under its own constitution in 1978, the U.S. and the community of nations, including international organizations, did not recognize it as a nation or a legal government in the international sense because the status of the government was established under the Trusteeship Agreement, which remained in force and continued the

virtually plenary authority of Congress. Only in 1986 when the U.S. acted to effectively end the application of the U.N. trusteeship to the Marshall Islands, so that

the treaty relationship between the U.S. and the free associated nations under the

Compact of Free Association replaced the U.N. Trusteeship Agreement as the legal

basis for the status of these new nations, did the international community generally

begin to recognize that the decolonization process was complete for these territories,

including the Republic of the Marshall Islands.

This demonstrates the need under both international law and the U.S. constitutional process to complete decolonization based on a valid self-determination process

and accepted definitions in order successfully to implement a permanent status—

be it integration or separate sovereignty—that will be recognized by the world as

a form of full self-government and not merely a more politically correct form of colonialism. Thus, there is a need for Puerto Rico to become fully integrated or a separate sovereign in order to end application of the Territorial Clause and become fully

self-governing under a recognized definition of that term.

Basis for U.S. Sovereignty in the Commonwealth Territories

Perhaps also of interest in relation to the situation in Puerto Rico, another part

of the Pacific islands trust territory, the Northern Mariana Islands, did not adopt

the free association separate sovereignty model of independence. Instead, the Northern Mariana Islands adopted the Puerto Rico model of an unincorporated territory

with statutory U.S. citizenship and a structure of local constitutional self-government under the ‘‘commonwealth’’ label.

As a result, U.S. sovereignty was extended to the Northern Mariana Islands based

on approval of the commonwealth status by the voters there in a 1976 plebiscite,

rather than by a treaty of cession as in the case of Puerto Rico. This was the legal

basis upon which application of the Trusteeship Agreement was terminated and the

Territorial Clause became applicable to the NMI—which is now an unincorporated

territory based on the consent to the people.

Thus, establishment of the commonwealth structure of local constitutional selfgovernment with the consent of the people in the CNMI also changed the political

status of that island territory from being part of an international trusteeship to territorial status under U.S. sovereignty. The result is a status virtually the same as

that which Pueno Rico has due to the extension of U.S. sovereignty under the Treaty of Paris combined with approval of the commonwealth structure of local constitutional self-government by the voters of Puerto Rico in 1952.

The historical ironies of this decolonization process are profound. For the Northern Mariana Islands are only 100 miles from Guam, which was ceded to the U.S.

under the Treaty of Paris along with the Philippines, Puerto Rico and Cuba. However, instead of coming under U.S. sovereignty along with neighboring Guam, essentially by historical accident the Northern Marianas became a League of Nations

mandate administered by the Japanese.
116

The Japanese mandated area was in the larger geographic region known as ‘‘Micronesia,’’ and included both the Eastern Carolines and the Western Carolines—islands chains now comprised within the associated republics of the Marshall Islands,

Palau and the Federated States of Micronesia. Because of its cession to the U.S.

under the Treaty of Paris, Guam was not included in the Japanese mandate.

The Japanese abused the League of Nations mandate by using the islands to perpetrate illegal international aggression, among other things staging elements of the

attack on Pearl Harbor from the Marshall Islands. Upon being invaded and occupied

by Japan during WWII, Guam temporarily was governed for the first time under

the same power that ruled the rest of the Micronesian islands within the mandated

area. Much of the famous ‘‘island-hopping’’ campaign of WWII took place within the

Japanese mandate area, and both Guam and the Northern Marianas were liberated

from Japanese totalitarianism in some of the bloodiest fighting of WWII.

However, the Northern Marianas were not ceded to the U.S. by Japan at the end

of WWII, as nearby Guam and the other Treaty of Paris territories had been at the

end of the Spanish American War. Instead, because they had been under the

League of Nations mandate system, the Northern Marianas and the rest of the Micronesian islands were placed under the new U.N. trusteeship system and administered by the United States. Guam was restored to unincorporated territorial status

under the Treaty of Paris.

The technical legal title of the trusteeship treaty between the U.N. and the U.S.

was ‘‘Trusteeship Agreement for the Former Japanese Mandated Islands.’’ Politically, this meant the islands were part of an internationally supervised

decolonization process. However, as a practical and legal matter the trusteeship

treaty with the U.N. conferred on the United States powers of administration in the

Northem Mariana Islands and the rest of the trust territory at least comparable

to—and, again, arguably greater than—those which it had regarding the Treaty of

Paris territories over which the U.S. had sovereignty resulting from cession by

Spain after losing a war with the United States.

Thus, notwithstanding the advent of the international trusteeship system, the

U.S. ended up governing the Northern Marianas and other islands it occupied after

the allies defeated Japan in WWII, just as it ended up governing the Treaty of Paris

territories after the defeat of Spain in 1898. However, both the Treaty of Paris territories still under U.S. sovereignty and the trust territory were designated ‘‘non-selfgoverning’’ areas subject to decolonization consistent with Article 73 of the U.N.

Charter.

In the case of the Northern Marianas, the U.S. addressed its obligations regarding

decolonization by supporting the self-determination process leading to the new commonwealth structure of local constitutional self-government established for the

CNMI in 1976. This new constitutional status was formally implemented along with

the Compact of Free Association under Presidential Proclamation 5564 on November

3, 1986. This was sufficient to persuade the U.N. to accept the U.S. determination

to cease reporting to the U.N. on the CNMI, just as the new constitutional status

of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico in 1952 was deemed sufficient by the U.N. in

1953 for the U.S. to stop reporting on Puerto Rico.

While the Puerto Rican and CNMI commonwealth models adopted with approval

of the peoples concerned represent sufficient self-government to end reporting to the

U.N., the form of local self-government established in each case is still subject to

the Territorial Clause power of Congress and does not constitute a form of full selfgovernment based on equality. Therefore the ultimate fulfillment of the

decolonization process has not been completed.

Thus, the CNMI self-determination process under the U.N. trusteeship system

has produced for the Northern Marianas the same unincorporated territory status

as neighboring Guam, the very result which might have obtained had it been ceded

to the U.S. along with Guam in 1898. Despite the fact Guam has been part of a

different political order than the CNMI throughout most of this century, the common Chamorro culture and language continue to thrive today in both territories.

Some people believe Guam and the CNMI should be reunited to their pre-colonial

condition of inter-relationship, and that whether the ultimate status of the islands

is full integration with the U.S. or separate sovereignty it should be as one people.

That is a matter to be resolved through the self-determination process regarding the

ultimate status of Guam and the CNMI. Interestingly, Guam is still under an

orgamc act without a local constitution, but as a result of the combined self-determination process for political status and establishment of a local constitution in

1976 the CNMI has a degree of local self-government comparable to that of Puerto

Rico.

Nationality and Citizenship in the Associated Republics
117

Turning now to the question of citizenship implications of free associated nation

status, under Section 141 of the Compact of Free Association citizens of the Freely

Associated States are non-immigrant aliens under U.S. immigration and nationality

law, but there is a waiver of visa requirements so that they may enter, reside and

be employed in the U.S. during the period of free association. This visa waiver arrangement is not a constitutional right, but a privilege under a treaty which is unilaterally terminable by the U.S. or the free associated nations.

Any period of residence in the U.S. under this visa waiver does not count toward

naturalization in the United States, and eligibility for naturalization must be established on a basis other than birth or citizenship in the trust territory or one of the

associated republics to emerge therefrom. Similarly, in the case of a U.S. territory

such as Puerto Rico which chooses separate sovereignty, it is clear for reasons discussed below that neither birth in the former U.S. territory, statutory U.S. citizenship based thereon due to birth in a U.S. territory, nor relationship to a person with

such statutory citizenship will provide a basis for naturalization in the U.S. following establishment of separate sovereignty.

Against this background, the Committee must carefully scrutinize the characterizations—in materials submitted during hearings on H.R 3024 in San Juan on

March 23, 1996—regarding the testimony on the Pacific islands free association pact

by a former State Department officer, James D. Berg. Mr. Berg was assigned to my

NSC staff during the hearings on the Compact, and I can speak with authority

about the meaning of his testimony during questioning by former Congressman

John Seiberling.

In this regard, Congressman Seiberling’s questions, as quoted at page 5-6 of the

legal memorandum attached to the testimony of the PROELA witness presented to

the Committee at its hearing on H.R 3024 on March 23, 1996, correctly noted that

Section 172 of the Compact of Free Association does not address the issue of dual

nationality or citizenship. See, Hearing Report, Subcommittee on Native American

and Insular Affairs, Committee on Resources, H.R 3024, San Juan, Puerto Rico,

March 23, 1996, p. 136-137. However, since the official section-by-section analysis

relating to this provision of the treaty included a background explanation which addressed the issue of dual citizenship, Congressman Seiberling asked and Mr. Berg

answered the question regarding dual citizenship as recorded in the hearing and included in the material submitted to the Committee.

The statement regarding dual citizenship in the section-by-section analysis quoted

on page 3 of the PROELA testimony (Hearing Report p. 127), and Mr. Berg’s reiteration of that statement in response to Mr. Seiberling’s question, correctly states U.S.

law regarding dual citizenship. Specifically, consistent with 8 U.S.C. 1481 and the

U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Afroyim v. Rusk, a person who has U.S. nationality

based on birth or naturalization in the United States does not automatically lose

U.S. nationality by acquiring citizenship of another country.

It is well-established under U.S. law and practice that a person with citizenship

conferred under and protected by the U.S. Constitution based on birth or naturalization in a state must renounce that status voluntarily and with the intention to relinquish U.S. nationality in order for loss of nationality and citizenship to occur. However, the Afrovim case would not apply to termination of statutory U.S. nationality

and citizenship under the Supreme Court’s ruling in the case of Rogers v. Bellei.

This is especially clear where the citizenship issues arises in the context of the

law of state succession upon establishment of separate sovereignty based on an act

of self-determination by the people of Puerto Rico. In that circumstance, there would

not be the same due process issues that would arise if Congress simply terminated

the statutory citizenship of persons who already had acquired it based on birth in

an unincorporated territory, especially if Congress provided for an election between

retention of statutory citizenship rights or transfer of allegiance and citizenship to

the new sovereign. Under the Supreme Court’s decision in Bellei there would be

none of the 14th Amendment issues that would arise in a case where the nationality

and citizenship of a person born or naturalized in one of the States of the Union

is involved.

Because the Federated States of Micronesia, Republic of the Marshall Islands and

Republic of Palau have separate sovereignty and are foreign countries under the

Compact of Free Association, a U.S. citizen who acquires dual citizenship in those

nations will be treated under U.S. law in the same manner as a U.S. citizen who

acquires a second citizenship in any other foreign country. Thus, no special dual citizenship arrangements were made under the Compact of Free Association, and existing U.S. law governs this matter without modification related to the Compact of

Free Association.

It would be misleading to suggest that the exchange between Mr. Berg and Mr.

Seiberling provides support for the view that the free association status established
118

under the Compact of Free Association created any new or special right, or that the

background explanation on this issue in the section-by-section analysis simply can

be converted into a provision of law governing the nationality and citizenship status

of the people of Pueno Rico should they exercise their right of self-determination in

favor of separate sovereignty.

If the people of Puerto Rico vote to establish separate Puerto Rican sovereignty,

the procedures for transition to separate nationality will be determined by Congress

and subject to approval by the people of Puerto Rico. All parties will be required

to take into account, among other things, the international law of state succession.

Based on U.S. and international practice, Congress presumably will provide for U.S.

sovereignty, nationality and citizenship to be terminated in favor of separate Puerto

Rican sovereignty, nationality and citizenship.

The PROELA proposal that virtually 100 percent of the population of Puerto Rico

could keep the current U.S. nationality and statutory citizenship status granted

under the Treaty of Paris and the Territorial Clause, and at the same time also acquire separate Puerto Rican nationality and citizenship under a new governmentto-government treaty relationship establishing separate sovereignty, is legally inconsistent and politically incompatible with separate sovereignty for Puerto Rico. The

idea that under separate sovereignty the people of Puerto Rico would acquire a citizenship right superior to the current limited statutory citizenship—that is to say a

guaranteed and enforceable right comparable to the 14th Amendment citizenship

protected by the U.S. Constitution under the Afroyim case—is even more implausible.

This would amount to an upgrade from the current statutory citizenship status

of person born in Puerto Rico under 8 U.S.C. 1402, based on a vote by the people

of Puerto Rico to terminate U.S. sovereignty in Puerto Rico in favor of separate sovereignty. As discussed below, there are political, legal and constitutional reasons

why that simply is not going to happen under any circumstances.

Separate Nationality and Citizenship as Required Elements of Separate Sovereignty

While it is possible that some temporary exceptions and special rights for people

with current statutory territorial citizenship may be part of the transition process

for Puerto Rico if the people choose separate sovereignty, the general result will be

that the people of Puerto Rico will become nationals and citizens of Puerto Rico and

U.S. nationality and citizenship conferred during the territorial period will end. In

the case of the Compact of Free Association for the Federated States of Micronesia

and the Republic of the Marshall Islands, Congress granted special temporary immigration status for the citizens of the free associated nations when the separate sovereignty status was implemented. However, this arrangement is terminable by the

U.S., and under this terminable arrangement the citizens of these associated republics are alien non-immigrants under U.S. law.

Based on existing U.S. policy and practice regarding free association, as well as

Congressionally determined principles which constitute precedent in these matters,

establishment of full and effective separate nationality is a necessary element of

separate sovereignty and nationhood itself. Once separate Puerto Rican nationality

and citizenship is established, the eligibility of Puerto Rican citizens for U.S. nationality and citizenship status will be determined and controlled by U.S. law.

Similarly, U.S. citizens born in a state of the union with 14th Amendment protection who are eligible under Puerto Rican law to acquire Puerto Rican citizenship

will not lose their status as U.S. nationals by acquiring Puerto Rican nationality,

unless they also renounce U.S. nationality with that intention. But persons born in

Puerto Rico with statutory U.S. citizenship under 8 U.S.C. 1402 will lose their statutory U.S. citizenship if they do not elect to keep it, or if they acquire or have Puerto Rican nationality and citizenship once separate sovereignty is established. This

is because the U.S. has a legitimate interest in limiting statutory U.S. citizenship

conferred during the territorial era once separate sovereignty is established.

This must be reflected in any decolonization measure approved by Congress, especially because given the size of the Puerto Rican population in the U.S. and in

Pueno Rico—creation of automatic mass dual citizenship at the time of establishing

separate nationality would undermine both U.S. and Puerto Rican sovereignty.

Summary of Governing Principles of Citizenship for Associated Republic Status

(FREE ASSOCIATION)

There are many other important points that I could make about the

decolonization process for U.S. administered trust territory in the Pacific, and this

really has been the bare minimum necessary to set the record straight on a very

complex historical and political process. Again, in my judgment this was necessary
119

given the liberties that have been taken with the truth by some of the proponents

of free association for Puerto Rico.

Free association may be a solution for Puerto Rico’s status, but the people there

will never be given a chance to make that decision for themselves unless it first is

defined accurately and honestly.

Ironically, the hardest thing about decolonization seems to be that there are always people who do not trust the people to determine their own destiny. So there

often is an attempt to stack the deck by defining the choices based on political and

economics gimmicks that favor one political group over another, instead of using

straightforward definitions based on the basic structure of the actual status options.

This actually results in delay of self-determination and decolonization, because

those who think the people are not wise enough to choose between accurate and realistic options try to manipulate the ballot language. In the case of Palau, for example, the attempt to promote the anti-nuclear agenda that was part of the ‘‘politics

of the moment’’ back in 1982 delayed Palau’s Compact of Free Association for years.

This forced the U.S. to terminate the trusteeship for the Marshall Islands, the Federated States of Micronesia and the Commonwealth of the Nonhern Mariana Islands

and leave Palau behind as a U.N. trust territory.

That was a difficult and unwelcome political and diplomatic task for the U.S. during the last years of the Cold War era—but it was a challenge the U.S. faced up

to and overcame out of our commitment to self-determination and decolonization for

the people of those two new sovereign nations who had decided to take a stand as

allies of America. In the case of the Marshall Islands, the decision to implement the

Compact and thereby ensure U.S. access to Kwajalein was an important element of

the strategic defense initiative which contributed to the end of the Cold War.

As for Palau, its Compact of Free Association eventually entered into force, but

by then the Cold War was over. Ironically, while pursuing a short-sighted anti-nuclear agenda largely at the urging of non-Palauans with an anti-U.S. agenda, Palau

missed its chance to participate more fully in the success of President Reagan’s

strategy to end of the uncontrolled superpower nuclear arm’s race.

To help Congress avoid the same kind of mischief in the final stage of the

decolonization process for Puerto Rico, perhaps it would be useful for me to try to

state the clear citizenship implications of free association for Puerto Rico in the

most succinct and plain language possible:

For Puerto Rico to be a nation in the legal and political sense, it must separate

from the U.S. legally and politically. Separation of sovereignty, nationality and citizenship is necessary if the relationship between the U.S. and Puerto Rico is to be

governed by a bilateral pact under which Puerto Rico has the status of independence or free association. The very term ‘‘bilateral pact’’ in this context means two

separate nations exercising separate sovereignty to create a pact of association.

The current ‘‘commonwealth’’ status of Puerto Rico, though it is translated into

Spanish as something akin to ‘‘Free Associated State,’’ is not free association as recognized by the U.S. or the international community. Free association based on a bilateral pact requires separate sovereignty, nationality and citizenship.

The Congress of the United States has the constitutional power to terminate the

current statutory citizenship of persons born in Puerto Rico if separation of sovereignty occurs. That which Congress creates by statute it can end by statute, as

long as due process and equal protection rights of those affected are respected.

The irrevocable citizenship which U.S. citizens born or naturalized in the states

have under the 14th Amendment does not extend to persons who have statutory

U.S. citizenship based on birth in Puerto Rico as an unincorporated territory. The

statutory U.S. citizenship which Congress conferred on people born in Puerto Rico

in 1917 is not full, equal, guaranteed, or irrevocable constitutional citizenship.

That means that except as Congress in its discretion may provide the ‘‘dual citizenship’’ rules that apply to a person with full U.S. citizenship who acquires another

nationality do not apply to person with statutory citizenship based on birth in Puerto Rico. If the people of Puerto Rico exercise self-determination in favor of separate

sovereignty and nationality they must expect their U.S. citizenship will come to an

end.

So in the most simple terms, there is a choice to be made between U.S. nationality

and Puerto Rican nationality. Upon recognition of a separate sovereign nation of

Puerto Rico, in order to give effect to that new status the Congress will require an

election between retention of statutory U.S. citizenship and the new Puerto Rican

nationality and citizenship. Mass dual citizenship would frustrate the succession of

state process and undermine the national sovereignty of both nations.

In order for a bilateral pact to establish a free association status and relationship

to the U.S. based on international law, the pact would have to replace common nationality and citizenship with separate nationality and citizenship, in which the citi-
120

zens of each nation will be aliens when present in the sovereign territory of the

other.

While special residence, travel and employment exceptions can be made to the immigration laws, citizens of Puerto Rico will have the status of non-immigrant aliens

for purposes of U.S. law under a free association treaty. Even such limited special

rights or privileges, like the overall relationship of free association, will be terminable at will by either of the governments concerned acting unilaterally in the

exercise of its sovereignty.

Birth in Puerto Rico or relationship to a person with U.S. citizenship due to birth

in Puerto Rico will not provide a basis for acquisition or continuation of U.S. citizenship by naturalization.

These are not arbitrary requirements. For without adherence to these principles

free association consistent with the U.S. political system would become merely another form of colonialism in which persons with common citizenship but residing in

different jurisdictions have less than equal rights.

In addition, based on the precedents established by the U.S. in its relations with

the associated republics of the Pacific, it is clear the U.S. Congress will never approve an arrangement in which virtually 100% of the population of a foreign nation

has U.S. citizenship.

This would usurp and undermine U.S. sovereignty, as well as make a mockery

of Puerto Rican nationality and a fraud of Puerto Rican sovereignty. As clever as

some may try to be in arguing that such mass dual citizenship is possible, the Congress quite properly will be even more determined and resourceful in protecting U.S.

sovereignty by preventing mass dual citizenship.

If Puerto Rico is to make free association the vehicle of full self-government, it

must face reality and not simply try to transform the ambiguity of the last fogy

years into a new false doctrine or poetical status myth. Those who truly believe in

separate Puerto Rican sovereignty will realize that dual citizenship is not compatible with the goal of separate nationhood for Puerto Rico.

Like independence, free association means leaving the U.S. political union to become a member of the international community. Even if you have a special close

relationship under a free association treaty it is temporary and can be terminated

at any time.

In order to support this summary I am attaching hereto a brief background paper

describing free association in a more generic way as it relates to the self-determination process in Puerto Rico.

This letter and the attachments are due, again, to my concern that in Puerto Rico

and the record before Congress there is accurate information available about true

legal nature and political effects of the decolonization process which the U.S. successfully implemented with respect to the former Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands.

In closing, I wish you every success in your attempt to reverse the effects of decades of anachronistic territorial administration in Puerto Rico in a way that enables

the people to redeem their dignity by making a determined choice between real options that can be implemented free of perverse ambiguities. Only in that way will

the citizenry of the island, in the same manner as all the citizens in this nation,

be enabled to realize their human and cultural potential, and protect their Godgiven liberty.

Whether that is accomplished through integration leading to statehood, independence, or independence with free association (associated republic status), history calls

on the Congress and the people of Puerto Rico to end the current temporary status

and achieve full self-government as the new century begins.

UNDERSTANDING FREE ASSOCIATION AS A FORM OF SEPARATE SOVEREIGNTY AND POLITICAL INDEPENDENCE IN THE CASE OF

DECOLONIZATION OF PUERTO RICO

BY AMBASSADOR FRED M. ZEDER, II

Consistent with relevant resolutions of the U.N. General Assembly, Puerto Rico’s

options for full self-government are: Independence (Example: Philippines); Free Association (Example: Republic of the Marshall Islands); Integration (Example: Hawaii). See, G.A. Resolution 1514 (1960); G.A. Resolution 1541 (1960); G.A. Resolution 2625 (1970).

For purposes of international law including the relevant U.N. resolutions international conventions to which the U.S. is a party, the current status of Puerto Rico
121

is best described as substantial but incomplete integration. This means that the

decolonization process that commenced in 1952 has not been fulfilled.

As a matter of U.S. domestic constitutional law, a territory within U.S. sovereignty which has internal constitutional self-government but is not fully integrated into the national system of political union on the basis of equality remains

an unincorporated territory, and can be referred to as a ‘‘commonwealth.’’ (Example:

Puerto Rico and the Northern Mariana Islands).

For purposes of U.S. constitutional law, independence and free association are status options which are created and exist on the international plane. Thus, instead

of the sovereign primacy of Congress under the territorial clause, the sources of constitutional authority with respect to nations with separate sovereignty include the

article II, section 2 treaty-making power and the applicable article I, section 8 powers of Congress such as that relating to nationality and immigration law.

Relations between the U.S. and a nation which is independent or in free association are conducted on the basis of international law. Thus, independence and free

association are status options which would remove Puerto Rico from its present existence within the sphere of sovereignty of the United States and establish a separate Puerto Rican sovereignty outside the political union and federal constitutional

system of the United States.

Instead of completing the integration process through full incorporation and statehood, either independence or free association would ‘‘dis-integrate’’ Puerto Rico from

the United States. This would terminate U.S. sovereignty, nationality and citizenship and end application of the U.S. Constitution in Puerto Rico. In other words,

the process of gradual integration which began in 1898, and which was advanced

by statutory U.S. citizenship in 1917 and establishment of constitutional arrangements approved by the people in 1952, would be terminated in favor of either independence or free association.

Under either independence or free association the U.S. and Puerto Rico could

enter into treaties to define relations on a sovereign-to-sovereign basis. Free association as practiced by the U.S. is simply a form of independence in which two sovereign nations agree to a special close relationship that involves delegations of the

sovereign powers of the associated to the United States in such areas as defense

and other governmental functions to the extent both parties to the treaty-based relationship agree to continue such arrangements.

The specific features of free association and balance between autonomy and interdependence can vary within well-defined limits based on negotiated terms to which

both parties to the arrangement have agreed, but all such features must be consistent with the structure of the agreement as a treaty-based sovereign-to-sovereign

relationship. In U.S. experience and practice, even where free association has many

features of a dependent territorial status the sources and allocation of constitutional

authority triggered by the underlying separation of sovereignty, nationality and citizenship causes the relationship to evolve in the direction of full independence rather

than functional re-integration.

Free association is essentially a transitional status for peoples who do not seek

full integration, but rather seek to maintain close political, economic and security

relations with another nation during the period after separate sovereignty is

achieved. Again, this could be accomplished by treaty between independent nations

as well. Thus, free association is a form of separate sovereignty that usually arises

from the relationship between a colonial power and a people formerly in a colonial

status who at least temporarily want close ties with the former colonial power for

so long as both parties agree to the arrangements.

Free association is recognized as a distinct form of separate sovereignty, even

though legally it also is consistent with independence. Specifically, free association

is consistent with independence because, as explained below, the special and close

bilateral relationship created by a free association treaty or pact can be terminated

in favor of conventional independence at any time by either party.

In addition, the U.S. and the international community have recognized that a separate nation can be a party to a bilateral pact of free association and be an independent nation in the conventional sense at the same time. For example, the Republic of the Marshall Islands is party to the Compact of Free Association with the

United States, but has been admitted to the United Nations as an independent nation.

Thus, the international practice regarding free association actually is best understood as a method of facilitating the decolonization process leading to simple and

absolute independence. Essentially, it allows new nations not prepared economically,

socially or strategically for emergence into conventional independence to achieve

separate nationhood in cooperation with a former colonial power or another existing

nation.
122

Under international law and practice including the relevant U.N. resolutions and

existing free association precedents, free association must be terminable at will by

either party in order to establish that the relationship is consistent with separate

sovereignty and the right of self-determination is preserved. This international

standard, also recognized by the U.S., is based on the requirement that free association not be allowed to become merely a new form of internationally accepted colonialism.

Specifically, free association is not intended to create a new form of territorial status or quasi-sovereignty. It is not a ‘‘nation-within-a-nation’’ relationship or a form

of irrevocable permanent union, but is, again, a sovereign-to-sovereign treaty-based

relationship which is either of limited duration or terminable at will by either party

acting unilaterally.

In other words, both parties have a sovereign right to terminate the relationship

at any time. The free association treaty may provide for the terms and measures

which will apply in the event of unilateral termination, but the ability of either

party to do so can not be conditioned or encumbered in such a manner that the exercise of the right to terminate the relationship effectively is impaired or precluded.

For that reason, the territory and population of each nation involved must be

within the sovereignty, nationality and citizenship of that nation, and the elements

and mechanisms of the free association relationship must be defined consistent with

that requirement. Separate and distinct sovereignty and nationality must be established at the time of decolonization and preserved under the relationship or the ability of either party to terminate will be impaired.

Thus, the major power may grant to people of the free associated nation special

rights normally associated with the major power’s own citizenship classifications,

such as open immigration and residence rights.

However, these arrangements are subject to the same terminability as the overall

relationship, and thus may be either for a limited duration or subject to unilateral

termination by either party at any time.

Consequently, there can be no permanent mass dual nationality because this

would be inconsistent with the preservation of the underlying separate sovereignty.

Any special rights or classifications of the major power extended to the people of

a free associated nation are more in the nature of residency rights and do not prevent either nation from exercising separate sovereignty with respect to the nationality its own population.

Upon termination of the free association relationship by either party, any such

classifications or special residency rights will be subject to unilateral termination as

well. Both during and after any period of free association, the people of each of the

two nations will owe their allegiance to and have the separate nationality of their

own country. Any attempt to deviate from these norms of international law and

practice would undermine the sovereignty of both nations, as would impair the right

of self-determination which must be preserved to ensure the relationship is based

on consent rather than coercion.

In summary, the United States recognizes each of the three U.N. accepted status

options for Puerto Rico to achieve full self-government. One of those options, integration, is within U.S. sovereignty and the federal political union, the other two,

independence and free association, exist without U.S. sovereignty, nationality and

citizenship.

Obviously, Puerto Rico can not act unilaterally to establish a new status. This is

so not only because of U.S. sovereignty and the authority of Congress under the territorial clause, but also because Puerto Rico seeks the agreement of the U.S. to the

terms under which any of these options would be implemented. This means Congress must agree to the terms under which a new status is defined and implemented.

There is no right on the part of Puerto Rico unilaterally to define its relationship

with the United States. Nor would it be consistent with U.S. commitments to respect the right of self-determination for non-self-governing people under U.S. administration to dispose of the territory of Puerto Rico in a manner which does not take

into account the freely expressed wishes of the residents.

Thus, as the two parties which must define and carry out a future relationship

based on consent and the right of self-determination which each must exercise, Congress, on behalf of the United States, and the people of Puerto Rico, acting through

their constitutional process, must decide whether decolonization will be completed

through completion of the process for integration into union or separation and nationhood apart from the U.S. for Puerto Rico.
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200