U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

43–194 CC WASHINGTON : 1997

PUERTO RICO STATUS

FIELD HEARING

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED FIFTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

ON

H.R. 856

SAN JUAN, PUERTO RICO, APRIL 19, 1997

Serial No. 105–28

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

RON KIND, Wisconsin

LLOYD DOGGETT, Texas

LLOYD A. JONES, Chief of Staff

ELIZABETH MEGGINSON, Chief Counsel

CHRISTINE KENNEDY, Chief Clerk/Administrator

JOHN LAWRENCE, Democratic Staff Director

T.E. MANASE MANSUR, Republican Professional Staff

MARIE FABRIZIO-HOWARD, Democratic Professional Staff
(III)

C O N T E N T S

Page

Hearing held April 19, 1997 ................................................................................... 1

Statement of Members:

Kennedy, Hon. Patrick J., a Representative in Congress from the State

of Rhode Island ............................................................................................. 4

Miller, Hon. George, a Representative in Congress from the State of

California ....................................................................................................... 3

Rodriguez, Hon. Charlie, Designee for the New Progressive Party, San

Juan, Puerto Rico .......................................................................................... 10

Romero-Barcelo ́, Hon. Carlos A., Resident Commissioner in Congress

from the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico ..................................................... 6

Underwood, Hon. Robert A., a U.S. Delegate from the Territory of Guam . 5

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 321

Young, Hon. Don, a Representative in Congress from the State of Alaska;

and Chairman, Committee on Resources .................................................... 1

Statement of Witnesses:

Agostini, Juan Antonio, President, Pax Christi-Puerto Rico, San Juan,

Puerto Rico .................................................................................................... 122

Arraiza, Manuel Fermin, President, Puerto Rico Bar Association, San

Juan, Puerto Rico .......................................................................................... 175

Benitez, Prof. Margarita, AFELA, San Juan, Puerto Rico ............................ 117

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 264

Bhatia, Hon. Eduardo, Designee for the Minority Leader of the SenatePopular Democratic Party, Senate of Puerto Rico ..................................... 110

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 112

Cintron-Garcia, Hon. Angel M., Designee for the Speaker of the House,

Puerto Rico House of Representatives, San Juan, Puerto Rico ................ 188

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 190

Colon, Rafael Hernandez, former Governor of Puerto Rico, Ponce, Puerto

Rico ................................................................................................................. 53

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 55

Fonalledas, Zoraida F., Republican National Committeewoman, San

Juan, Puerto Rico .......................................................................................... 194

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 197

Irizarry, Hon. Carlos Vizcarrondo, Popular Democratic Party, Puerto Rico

House of Representatives, San Juan, Puerto Rico ..................................... 144

Irizarry-Mora, Prof. Edwin, Economic Advisor, Puerto Rican Independence Party, Puerto Nuevo, Puerto Rico ....................................................... 116

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 146

Mari, Emilio A. Soler, President, Puerto Rican Democratic Action Foundation, San Juan, Puerto Rico ..................................................................... 152

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 154

Martin-Garcia, Hon. Fernando, Designee for the Puerto Rican Independence Party, San Juan, Puerto Rico .............................................................. 28

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 32

McClintock-Hernandez, Kenneth, Designee for the President of the Senate, Senate of Puerto Rico, San Juan, Puerto Rico .................................... 180

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 182

Miranda-Marı ́n, Hon. William, the Mayor of Caguas, Caguas, Puerto

Rico ................................................................................................................. 119

Additional remarks by .............................................................................. 259

Morales-Coll, Eduardo, President, Ateneo Puertorriqueno, San Juan,

Puerto Rico .................................................................................................... 160

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 162
Page

IV

Statement of Witnesses—Continued

Pietri, Ivar, San Juan, Puerto Rico ................................................................. 221

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 224

Reichard, Hector, Esquire, President, Puerto Rico Chamber of Commerce,

Washington, DC ............................................................................................ 237

Rodriguez-Orellana, Hon. Manuel, Designee for the Minority Leader of

the Senate-Puerto Rican Independence Party, Senate of Puerto Rico,

San Juan, Puerto Rico .................................................................................. 131

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 134

Valle, Etienne Totti Del, Esquire, San Juan, Puerto Rico ............................ 209

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 213

Velasco, Ramo ́n L., President, Association of Pro-Commonwealth Attorneys ................................................................................................................ 283

Velez, Hon. Damaris Mangual, Designee for the House Minority LeaderPuerto Rican Independence Party, Puerto Rico House of Representatives, San Juan, Puerto Rico ........................................................................ 138

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 140

Vila, Hon. Anibal Acevedo, President, Popular Democratic Party, San

Juan, Puerto Rico .......................................................................................... 13

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 17

Additional material supplied:

Agostini, Juan Antonio, Spokesman, Direcive Board, prepared statement

of ..................................................................................................................... 243

Cardona, Hector Reichard de, Chamber of Conmerce, of Puerto Rico,

prepared statement of ................................................................................... 311

Fermin, Manuel Arraiza, Presidente, Colegio de Abogados de Puerto Rico,

prepared statement of ................................................................................... 306

Gonzalez, Hon. Ferdinand Lugo, Representative, District 19, Mayagu ̈ ez,

Estado Libre Asociado de Puerto Rico, prepared statement of ................. 279

Ramos, Luis Vega, President, PROELA, prepared statement of .................. 292
(1)

PUERTO RICO STATUS

SATURDAY, APRIL 19, 1997,

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES, San Juan, PR.

The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:55 a.m. at the

Drama Theater at the Centro De Bellas Artes Luis A. Ferre, San

Juan, Puerto Rico, Hon. Don Young (Chairman of the Committee)

presiding.

Mr. YOUNG. The Committee will come to order.

It is my intention to make an opening statement; and then I will

recognize Mr. Miller, then Mr. Kennedy, then Mr. Underwood and,

in closing, Commissioner Romero-Barcelo ́.

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

Mr. YOUNG. It is a pleasure to be in Puerto Rico to continue the

work of Congress in resolving Puerto Rico’s status. I believe the

hearings today in San Juan and Monday in Mayaguez on the

United States-Puerto Rico Political Status Act, H.R. 856, are an important part of the process leading to a response of the Puerto

Rican House Concurrent Resolution 2 of January 23rd of this year,

asking for a federally authorized vote on Puerto Rico’s political status before the end of 1998.

As a person from Alaska, when we approached Puerto Rico yesterday I was stunned again by the shear beauty of the island’s

mountains, the greenness of those mountains, the white beaches

and blue tropical sea, as I looked out over those beaches today and

last night.

Another fact that struck me as I looked out over historic San

Juan was the realization that the population of this city is twice

the size of the entire State of Alaska. What an island! It is no wonder the islands of Puerto Rico have been so prized and the object

of many battles during the past centuries, including the SpanishAmerican War in 1898.

In fact, the principal reason we are here today dates back to

when the U.S. flag was being hoisted nearly 100 years ago. A legitimate question has since been raised and has yet to be answered:

Should the United States flag in Puerto Rico remain as it is today,

be eliminated, or replaced by a flag with an additional star? Each

choice has a corresponding effect on how it shall be applied to the

United States Constitution and nationality and citizenship.
2

While the U.S. Constitution follows the flag, Congress determines the extent of the application, and today in Puerto Rico the

U.S. Constitution applies only in part. United States nationality

also follows the flag and the U.S. Constitution, which in Puerto

Rico today is both U.S. nationality and statutory U.S. citizenship.

This is one of the fundamental questions with related issues we are

attempting to resolve through these hearings.

Last month, the House Committee on Resources began the consideration of the United States-Puerto Rico Political Status Act,

H.R. 856, with testimony in Washington from six Members of Congress, the Governor of Puerto Rico, the three political party presidents of Puerto Rico and the Administration. Their views are only

the beginning of the record which will be added to by the statements which will be presented here today in San Juan and Monday

in Mayaguez. It is not the location of the hearings where the statement is given that is important. It is the substance of the testimony that is important.

During congressional consideration last year of the United

States-Puerto Rico Political Status Act, numerous thoughtful and

meaningful suggestions were offered in testimony. Before the end

of the 104th Congress in 1996, over 30 major and minor changes

were incorporated into the bill, which was reintroduced this year

as H.R. 856. I expect many of the proposals presented during these

hearings will result in additional changes to the current bill, H.R.

856.

However, the bill’s fundamental structure for resolving Puerto

Rico’s political status has broad bipartisan support in Congress.

The multi-staged approach is sound and offers the best approach

to address the many legal, economic and political issues that are

a part of this self-determination process. A multi-staged process

will ensure that each step taken is manageable and practical, both

for the United States and Puerto Rico. In addition, the bill guarantees that the people of Puerto Rico will have the final say in each

stage of the process. Although after these hearings the Congress

will enact the law defining the terms of the process and any change

in status, the people of Puerto Rico will have the final say in approving each step in the path to full self-government.

In order to obtain a broad cross-section of the views of the people

of Puerto Rico regarding their political status preference and this

process, a large number of witnesses have been invited to appear

before this Committee. I appreciate the cooperation of each participant in complying with Congressional rules which are required in

other hearings throughout the nation.

Before we begin with our panel of the distinguished witnesses

and hearing opening statements representing the three political

parties of Puerto Rico, followed by elected officials and other leaders, I want to share a part of a letter I received after our hearings

on this bill in San Juan on March 23rd of last year from Pilar

Barbosa Rosario, Official Historian of Puerto Rico. This is still in

my possession. It says:

‘‘Greetings to my friend Don Young.

‘‘This is a personal note written, March 24th, 1996.

‘‘As daughter of Jose Celso Barbosa and Official Historian of

Puerto Rico, I try to be impartial and see other points of view. But
3

when you are almost 99 years of age and have done research for

45 years, from 1921 to 1966, on Barbosa’s private and public life,

it is quite difficult to maintain completely neutral in our historical

interpretations.

‘‘Let me congratulate all persons involved in preparing the hearing. The hearing was well organized and the people involved, Congressmen, visitors and Puerto Ricans, we all learned a lot.

‘‘To me it was a demonstration that in spite of our colonial status

Puerto Ricans have developed and adapted American democracy to

our own political ideologies. They are a product of our relations

with the U.S. but adapted to our Puerto Rican way of life, different

from U.S. and different from other Caribbean nations and Hispanic-American countries. To us Puerto Ricans that is not surprising but to our visitors from the U.S., Hawaii or Latin America,

it is something unique—it is Puerto Rican.

‘‘So help us God that Pilar Barbosa could live three more years

to see what all this results in. So help me God, it is now or never.

‘‘Sincerely yours, Pilar Barbosa Rosario.’’

I was saddened to hear of our loss earlier this year with the

passing of Donˆ a Pilar. What a grand lady and fellow citizen. Her

opinion regarding this process to resolve Puerto Rico’s political status deserves respect and should be treasured, particularly as one

who was born in the 19th century, before the United States flag

was raised in Puerto Rico.

I believe her hopes for the results within 3 years will happen.

Now definitely is the time for Congress to formally start the process to permit the people of Puerto Rico to vote to continue local

self-government under Commonwealth, separate sovereignty or

statehood. There is a serious determination in Congress to solve

Puerto Rico’s status problem as a top priority of national importance. I also believe that everyone who participates in these hearings on the United States-Puerto Rico Political Status Act, or any

other part of the bill’s self-determination process, will contribute to

the final resolution of Puerto Rican status, and will in fact 1 day

‘‘see what all this results in.’’

The gentleman from California.

STATEMENT OF THE HON. GEORGE MILLER, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

Mr. MILLER. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I am delighted to be here this morning for these hearings, to be in Puerto

Rico; and I want to thank our colleague, Carlos Romero-Barcelo ́, for

the invitation to come to Puerto Rico to conduct these hearings and

thank him and the people for their hospitality.

My statement will be very short. I think these are very important hearings; I think these are very timely hearings; and, hopefully, these hearings are such that they will allow us to draw to

a conclusion the question that has remained open so very long,

both here in Puerto Rico and in the United States, and that is the

status, the permanent status, of Puerto Rico.

That is a decision that I have tried to maintain from the outset.

It is a decision for the people of Puerto Rico. It is a decision that

will then have to be accepted by the Congress of the United States;
4

and, therefore, we must have a very frank and a very open process

to help us arrive at that decision.

I believe that after many false starts, many misrepresentations,

that this process is, in fact, different. I believe that this process

can, in fact, at the end provide for the status determination of

Puerto Rico.

I look forward to the testimony of our witnesses. I hope they

bring to these hearings a spirit of cooperation and of helping us to

make the determinations. There are many considerations that we

will have to make at the conclusion of these hearings so that this

process can carry forth the commitment for the resolution of this

issue after its conclusion, and I look forward to these hearings and

the ones on Monday and look forward to hearing from the witnesses today.

Thank you very much.

Mr. YOUNG. I thank the gentleman from California.

The gentleman from Rhode Island, Mr. Kennedy?

STATEMENT OF THE HON. PATRICK J. KENNEDY, A U.S.

REPRESENTATIVE FROM RHODE ISLAND

Mr. KENNEDY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for calling these hearings and thank

you for introducing the United States-Puerto Rico Status Act, H.R.

856, which I have been proud to cosponsor with you.

This legislation has inspired what Governor Rossello has called

‘‘a defining moment for Puerto Rico.’’ For almost a century, the people of Puerto Rico have contributed to the social, economic and cultural history of the United States of America. They have fought

alongside other Americans in war, and they have shared our times

of domestic struggle. It is only fitting that the Congress act to extend to the people of Puerto Rico the opportunity to enjoy the full

and complete measure of the rights and privileges that are commensurate with the full application of the Constitution.

As Governor Ferre has said, with citizenship comes certain rights

and responsibilities. And as a strong proponent myself of adding

the shining star of the Caribbean to our own flag of the United

States, I want to say that I eagerly await the plebiscite that is

sanctioned by this legislation.

It has been my long-standing belief that times have changed for

Puerto Rico. Where Commonwealth status was a good beginning,

I believe that living for today means living for statehood. The time

is right for the island to take its place at the table of States and

receive its share and entitled share of opportunities. If we want to

talk about equality for all Puerto Ricans, we should give them a

voice in the government that affects their lives.

As my good friend Carlos Romero-Barcelo ́ has said, ‘‘Our Nation

cannot continue to preach democracy throughout the world while it

continues to disenfranchise and deny political participation and

economic equality to 3.8 million people of its own citizens.’’

Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you once again for conducting

these hearings. I look forward to the testimony we will receive

today; and, again, it is great to be back in this beautiful island of

Puerto Rico.

Thank you very much.
5

Mr. YOUNG. I thank the gentleman.

The gentleman from Guam has a great interest in this process,

too. Mr. Underwood.

STATEMENT OF THE hon. robert a. underwood, a u.s. delegate

from the territory of guam

Mr. UNDERWOOD. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Good morning, and thank you, Mr. Chairman, and our good

friend, the Resident Commissioner of Puerto Rico, Carlos RomeroBarcelo ́, for the opportunity to be here in beautiful Puerto Rico.

Today and on Monday the Committee will hear from representatives of various points of view and from all segments of Puerto

Rican society about the most fundamental issue any people can

deal with—their political future. The seriousness of this issue is

underscored by the attention given to the hearings here in Puerto

Rico and, of course, the spirit of the people as is reflected in the

highly charged demonstrations.

The process of conducting congressional hearings depends upon

a sense of fairness and commitment and the leadership of those

committees which conduct those hearings; and I am pleased to acknowledge the leadership of this Committee—yourself, Mr. Chairman, Don Young, and the Ranking Member, George Miller—that

while they may not agree on many issues before the Nation, they

certainly agree that Puerto Rico deserves a fair hearing in Puerto

Rico.

This is a level of commitment which not only reflects well upon

the leadership of the Committee but the importance and seriousness of the issues which we will be confronting and have been confronting on this issue.

Mr. Young’s project, as it is reported here in the press, is in reality part of a larger project all of us continue to labor in. All of

us are participants in the great American project, the project of

perfecting democracy; and the project continues whether the issues

before us are about racial injustice, ethnic division, equal opportunity, the appropriate relationship between States and the Federal Government and, as it is today, the relationship between the

Federal Government and an appendage, a separate body politic to

that government.

In the case before us today, that entity is Puerto Rico; and, in

its existing form, the Commonwealth is described in various ways,

depending upon one’s vision for the future. It is a colony seeking

first-class citizenship. It is a freely associated State. It is a nation

awaiting deliverance.

I don’t think this it is for us to decide. I think that is for the people of Puerto Rico to decide in concert with the Federal Government; and I think our responsibility as a Committee is to ensure

that the process which is ultimately developed allows for fairness

and, most importantly, closure.

It should be a process which does not move the people to a choice

out of desperation or frustration; and it should be a process in

which the options are clear and direct, at least on the ballot. I

think we can leave it up to elected officials later during campaign

season to mischaracterize each other’s positions. It should be a proc-
6

ess which leads to change, if this is the desire of the Puerto Rican

people.

This is why in your legislation, Mr. Chairman, the Federal Government’s responsibility to act is so important in this legislation.

The Federal responsibility must be consistent with the modern 21st

century understanding of decolonization, and it must lead to a

process which forces expeditious action.

My role in the process is unique. I represent an island which is

seeking resolution of its own political status. I share more in common with the Resident Commissioner than with other Members of

the House of Representatives. I represent an island which came

under the U.S. flag through the treaty of Paris ending the SpanishAmerican war.

In the March hearing in Washington, Governor Rossello stated

that Puerto Rico has been a colony longer under the U.S. flag than

anyone else. Guam was invaded by U.S. Marines in June of 1898,

and Puerto Rico’s experience came a month later. So we win on

that score.

Due to our similarities as historical appendages to the Federal

politic and due to our common colonization even by Spain, which

dates back 325 years for Guam, I feel a special responsibility not

to evaluate the efforts of the Puerto Rican people but instead to facilitate the aspirations of the people to move toward the full

decolonization of their homeland. And I believe that, under your

leadership, the Committee comes to this hearing with open hearts

as well as open ears.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. YOUNG. I thank the gentleman from Guam.

It is my great honor now to introduce someone who does not need

introduction. The gentleman has led this program for many, many

years, my good friend, Don Carlos. He has done well. He is not only

a good member of my Committee, I think he does an excellent job

in Washington for Puerto Rico.

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

RESIDENT COMMISSIONER FROM THE COMMONWEALTH OF

PUERTO RICO

Mr. ROMERO-BARCELO ́. Thank you. Thank you very much, Mr.

Chairman, and thank you to the other Members.

I would like to begin my remarks today by welcoming back all

of the Committee members to the beautiful capital of San Juan, the

oldest city in the United States. San Juan was colonized and became a city in 1521. That was quite a bit before St. Augustine in

Florida. As a matter of fact, it was our first Governor, Ponce de

Leon, who was the first European to start the colonization of what

is now the United States of America.

I want to commend you, Mr. Chairman, for your initiative in

scheduling these two hearings on H.R. 856, the United States-Puerto Rico Political Status Act, and for your commitment to achieving

full self-government and ending the disenfranchisement of the 3.8

million U.S. citizens of Puerto Rico. Thanks to your leadership on

this issue, we have been able to reach the point where we are

today.
7

In addition, I want to take this opportunity to thank our Ranking

Minority Member, my good friend, George Miller, for his efforts in

helping to provide a process in which Puerto Ricans will have the

opportunity to decide freely, without ambiguity and decisively on

what the island’s future relationship with the United States should

be.

I want to thank my colleagues, Patrick Kennedy and Bob Underwood, for also taking time out of this congressional recess to be

here with us and for giving this issue the importance they have already given to it. Their participation is very meaningful not only

to me personally but I am sure to all of the people of Puerto Rico.

Last, but not least, I want to thank the 84 Members of Congress

and the 12 Members of the Senate who have already cosponsored

this legislation. It is clear that the U.S. Congress has finally made

it a top priority to resolve the Puerto Rican status issue, and the

bipartisan consensus grows every day for a federally sponsored

plebiscite next year.

The Clinton administration has also joined in expressing its support for this process. During the Committee’s hearing in Washington last month, the President’s spokesperson, Jeffrey Farrow,

stated that establishing a process that would enable the people of

Puerto Rico to decide their future relationship with the United

States was President Clinton’s highest priority regarding this island.

In addition, he indicated that the President hoped that such a

process would be under way next year, the centennial of the U.S.

acquisition of the islands.

It was also mentioned that the President looked forward to our

entering the new millennium having concluded the debate and implementing the will of the Puerto Rican people.

So make no mistake about it. After 100 years, the Puerto Rican

colonial dilemma has finally become a national issue and one that

two active branches of the Federal Government recognize has to be

resolved as soon as possible.

Mr. Chairman, the hearings that this Committee will be celebrating here today and next Monday are truly historic in nature.

The members of this Committee will have an opportunity to hear

from over 50 witnesses representing all of the political spectrum of

the island. I do not recall a hearing in any of my Committees during my tenure in Congress where we had so many witnesses to testify on one single subject.

In that regard, Mr. Chairman, these hearings are unprecedented;

and you and Mr. Miller are to be praised for the fairness, the openness and inclusiveness of this process. The Committee has tried to

receive the widest input from as many people and sectors as possible; and everyone who has expressed interest has been given the

opportunity to participate and state his or her point of view, either

by submitting a written statement or by testifying personally.

Back on March 3rd, 1997, exactly 80 years and 1 day after Puerto Ricans were granted U.S. citizenship, Chairman Young and Congressman Miller sent a letter to the presidents of the three political

parties in Puerto Rico, requesting them to submit to Congress the

status definition which they believe would be most appropriate for

the status option they supported.
8

While the party presidents were assured that the specific definitions regarding their status preferences would be presented to all

of the Committee members for consideration at the time of the

markup, Mr. Young and Mr. Miller were clear in stating that there

was no purpose in presenting the people of Puerto Rico a status

definition which does not represent an option that the Congress

will be willing to ratify should it be approved in a plebiscite.

If there is something to be learned from our previous locally

sponsored plebiscites, it is that the only way that we will be able

to finalize once and for all this frustrating debate is if the U.S.

Congress clarifies what the options really are and how it is willing

to implement the people’s choice. Only then will the people of Puerto Rico be able to reach an informed decision on their future. No

more false promises; no more wish-lists. The people of Puerto Rico

need realistic and viable options, and it is our responsibility as

Members of Congress to provide them with those options.

During today’s hearing we will have the opportunity to hear

from, among others, the three party presidents or their representatives, all of whom submitted a response to Chairman Young and

Mr. Miller’s request.

The new Progressive Party was in full agreement with the definition of statehood that was included in the bill and did not submit

any changes.

The Independence Party proposed some minor changes to the

definition that I am sure will be discussed in more detail here

today.

But we should not be concerned with these two definitions, because they are clear. In the case of statehood, there are 50 more

examples; and everyone knows what independence means and

what it entails.

It is the definition of the so-called new Commonwealth that concerns us, because, once again, the Popular Party was given the opportunity to come up with a definition of Commonwealth that is

constitutional, realistic, viable and, most of all, a definition that the

U.S. Congress can accept.

Unfortunately, it is quite evident that the definition of the new

Commonwealth submitted by the Popular Party does not meet the

aforementioned requirements. Basic attributes of the proposed definition, such as the permanent nature of the relationship, the mutual consent language, the existence of a compact, the constitutional guarantee of U.S. citizenship, and the equality of treatment

under Federal programs without income taxes are clearly unacceptable to Congress because they are either unconstitutional, unrealistic, politically unacceptable or all of the above.

First of all, the so-called Commonwealth status can never be permanent in nature, precisely because it is a colonial relationship

which the U.S. cannot maintain. The president of the Popular

Party, Anibal Acevedo Vila, was the first one to admit this fact in

the congressional hearings that were held in Washington last

March 19th.

It is clear the Congress cannot constitutionally bind itself never

to alter the current or any future territorial relationship between

the United States and Puerto Rico nor renounce its constitutional

power under the territorial clause which states that Congress shall
9

have the power to dispose of and make all needful rules and regulations respecting the territory or other property belonging to the

United States, article 4, section 3.

As long as Puerto Rico remains an unincorporated territory, the

U.S. Congress retains the authority to act unilaterally and to determine which Federal laws will apply or not in Puerto Rico.

But what strikes me as the most absurd of the statements in the

definition is the claim that Puerto Rico be an autonomous body

politic, sovereign over matters covered by the Constitution of Puerto Rico, while at the same time demanding that Congress guarantee forever the U.S. citizenship of persons born on the island

with the same rights, privileges and immunities provided for in the

U.S. Constitution.

Once again, the Popular Party talks about the rights, privileges

and benefits of U.S. citizenship; but the words responsibility and

obligation are nowhere to be seen in their definition.

Furthermore, the fact is that the current citizenship status of

persons born in Puerto Rico exists at the discretion of Congress.

Because the Constitution has been partially extended to Puerto

Rico, particularly the fundamental rights of due process and equal

protection, Congress obviously cannot exercise its discretion in an

arbitrary and irrational way. But the suggestion that the current

citizenship can be guaranteed forever and it is irrevocable by future Congresses is dangerously misleading. No such statutory status can bind a future Congress from exercising its constitutional

authority and responsibility under the territorial clause.

In the U.S. constitutional system, equal political rights come

with full and equal citizenship based on birth in one of the States

of the Union or naturalization. Birth on an unincorporated territory like Puerto Rico does not confer a citizenship status protected

by the 14th amendment of the Constitution, as indicated by the

fact that the U.S. citizens in Puerto Rico do not have the same economic and political rights as citizens of the States; and Puerto Rico

is subject to laws passed by the U.S. Congress in which they have

no voting representation.

It is time for the pretense and the partisan mischief to end. It

is time for all of us to put hypocrisy aside and be truthful about

what the real choices are for Puerto Ricans. It is time to decide if

we want to have full self-government and full empowerment that

will allow us to search for a brighter future in equality with our

fellow citizens, or we would rather live hanging on to an outdated

colonial relationship of the past.

As we approach a century of U.S. sovereignty over Puerto Rico,

the time has come to empower the people by giving them clear

choices which they understand and which are truly decolonizing so

we can reveal Puerto Rico’s true desire through a lifetime act of

self-determination.

Mr. Chairman and fellow members, I want to once again thank

you for your interest and attention to this vitally important issue.

I look forward to the testimony of our distinguished guests and to

further congressional action on this subject. The 3.8 million U.S.

citizens of Puerto Rico deserve no less.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. YOUNG. Thank you. I thank the gentleman.
10

We now will have the first panel, the Honorable Charlie

Rodriguez, the designee for the New Progressive Party, San Juan,

Puerto Rico; the Honorable Anibal Acevedo Vila, President, Popular

Democratic Party, San Juan, Puerto Rico; the Honorable Fernando

Martin-Garcia, designee for the Puerto Rican Independence Party,

San Juan, Puerto Rico.

Please take your seats.

Gentlemen, because you are representatives of the three different

parties today, I will use a little discretion and allow you more time

than the 5 minutes. We will try to keep to the 5-minute rule, but

with respect to your individual positions, I will be very lenient for

a moment as long as you don’t go on all day.

Charlie—Mr. Rodriguez, you are up first.

STATEMENT OF HON. CHARLIE RODRIGUEZ, DESIGNEE FOR

THE NEW PROGRESSIVE PARTY, SAN JUAN, PUERTO RICO

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Thank you.

Good morning, Chairman Young, Ranking Democrat George Miller, Congressman Romero-Barcelo ́, members of the Resources Committee. On behalf of Governor Pedro Rossello and the 3.7 million

U.S. citizens, welcome to Puerto Rico.

Today I come before you wearing two hats, representing the New

Progressive Party of which the Governor is president, and as the

president of the Puerto Rico Senate. In both capacities I support

the Committee’s tireless efforts over the last 3 years in the exercise

of its responsibilities under the Constitution’s Territorial Clause toward crafting Federal legislation that will finally offer Puerto

Ricans, for the first time, the right to freely determine their political status and to resolve our century-old political relationship with

the United States under a congressionally sponsored plebiscite.

We have talked long enough in Puerto Rico about our political

status. We have talked for 100 years. It is time now to act and to

find out how strong is the creed of equality, democratic values, and

pluralism of our Nation once the voice of the people of Puerto Rico

is heard in the proposed 1998 plebiscite.

I want to make three essential points:

First, that the constitutional integrity of the status options offered in the 1998 plebiscite must not be compromised. These options must reflect what is constitutionally attainable within the

powers of Congress under the Territorial Clause. They must honestly describe to the people of Puerto Rico what is legally possible,

not what is in consistent with the Constitution, impractical economically or politically, or subject to the vicissitudes of future negotiations. The people of Puerto Rico are closely monitoring these

events, and they are expecting a clear and precise message from

Congress of what may constitutionally be offered in the definitions

of the three competing formulas.

For these reasons, the Committee should adopt, in their entirety,

the three status option definitions as set forth in the proposed legislation. Congress must state with clarity that U.S. citizenship cannot exist in a status formula with sovereign powers.

Second, it is important that the process you have developed to

provide for full self-government for the island through a self-deposition of the people of Puerto Rico in conjunction with the Federal
11

Government must not be compromised. It is crucial that the process be sound, all inclusive, and provides a peaceful, democratic, and

internationally recognized process for all persons, parties, and interests in the island to finally resolve Puerto Rico’s 500-year old

march toward decolonization.

Finally, your presence here today is due in part to the initiative

of the Puerto Rico Legislature’s two concurrent resolutions seeking

Congress’s response to our island’s ambiguous political status left

unresolved by the 1993 plebiscite. We hope to continue to work

with you to realize our objective, a 1998 plebiscite in which full

self-government for Puerto Rico is initiated.

As the Governor’s representative, I want to reaffirm our party’s

support of the definition of statehood contained in H.R. 856. We believe it fairly and accurately reflects both the benefits and obligations that Statehood entails. It should be adopted in its entirety as

a stated valid option for the status plebiscite scheduled for 1998.

Puerto Ricans should be well informed of what statehood means

under this definition. They should know that statehood is the only

formula that guarantees our U.S. citizenship, putting us on equal

footing with all other Americans. They should know that statehood

is the only formula that guarantees the protection of the U.S. Constitution. They should know that statehood is the only formula that

guarantees the Presidential vote and the election of two Senators

and at least six Members of Congress who will shape the laws that

affect our daily lives.

They should also know that statehood is the only formula that

guarantees Americans citizenship to our children, grandchildren,

and all future generations born in Puerto Rico. They should know

that only statehood guarantees the entire application and full funding of Federal programs, which will be provided to the State of

Puerto Rico on parity with the rest of the States of the Union.

They should know, too, that these benefits—citizenship, equal

rights, full funding—carry with them the duty to pay Federal income tax, a duty that will ultimately be offset by a corresponding

reduction in island taxes as Federal funds compensate for local outlays.

They should know that the 51st State of Puerto Rico can continue to have both Spanish and English as its official State languages, a right reserved and guaranteed to all other States under

the Constitution’s 10th Amendment, a right that can only be

changed through a constitutional amendment made applicable to

all the States, not just one or a few.

They should know the commitment of our Nation to democratic

values, multiculturalism, and pluralism, all central to the American Dream.

One thing we already know is that when the Nation has required

our presence in the battlefields in the First and Second World

Wars, Korea, Vietnam, the Persian Gulf, Somalia, and Bosnia, we

have been in the front lines, attesting to our commitment to democratic values and ideals.

I invite you to visit the memorial dedicated by the people of

Puerto Rico dedicated to the hundreds of citizens, the people who

made the ultimate sacrifice of their Nation. This memorial is located on the south side of our Capitol.
12

Puerto Ricans are so committed to our American citizenship and

to our relation with our Nation that in a poll conducted by a local

paper on July 23, 1990, 43.5 percent expressed that if Puerto Rico

became a sovereign nation, they would move to the continental

United States; 42 percent said they would remain; and 15 expressed to be undecided. The poll revealed that 60 percent of our

youth would move to the United States. If the same question were

polled today, the numbers would be even higher than those in

1990.

In a more recent poll, 91 percent of those interviewed stated that

U.S. citizenship was very important. Surprisingly, 53 percent of

independence supporters polled said they consider U.S. citizenship

very important.

In sum, the statehood definition clearly and precisely declares to

voters that it is the only formula that puts Puerto Rico on an equal

footing with all the other States and confers on its residents the

same constitutional rights and responsibilities as all other U.S. citizens enjoy.

Chairman Young, as stated in the letter signed by you and

Chairmen Burton, Gallegly, and Gilman on February 9, 1996, in response to the 1993 plebiscite, I quote: There is a need for Congress

to define the real options for change and the true legal and political

nature of the status quo, so that the people can know what the actual choices will be in the future, end of quote.

That you have accomplished with H.R. 856. The status options

as defined in the bill meet your criteria. They should stand as written, or otherwise the self-determination process will be compromised, as it was in 1993.

The process is important. The 1998 plebiscite campaign will be

free of the demagoguery and rhetoric characteristic of past status

votes where one party or the other impugned the legality of one or

more of the options or questioned Congress’s willingness to implement the results.

Rather, this campaign will be waged on the merits of the status

options, what is good for Puerto Rico and Puerto Ricans, what can

be done, and the implications of choosing one path over the other.

Second, the bill encompasses all status options, thereby establishing its credibility and claim to inclusiveness. Every legitimate

internationally recognized status option is offered to voters of every

persuasion, a democratic process that denies no one their say but

one which recognizes that the majority rules.

Putting on my Senate hat, let us remember that it was a Puerto

Rico legislature that requested Congress to respond to the results

of our 1993 plebiscite in which none of the options, for the first

time since 1952, received a majority vote among our electorate.

H.R. 856 is the final manifestation of Congress’s response to our

two concurrent resolutions, and, as I have stated already, it is a

clear and definite framework, providing both legitimate status options capable of implementation and a self-determination process

consistent with democratic norms and internationally accepted

practices. H.R. 856 should be enacted as written.

With your continual assistance, Puerto Rico and the residents of

this island will enter the next millennium confident in their future
13

as first class American citizens, confident in their future and the

American Dream.

The conscience of the democratic world will be closely watching

this process. The international community will finally judge the

firmness of our Nation in respecting the will of the people of Puerto

Rico freely expressed in 1998, a democratic process which will be

a test for the democratic institutions of our Nation.

Puerto Rico stands as the final frontier of the U.S. promise of the

American Dream to all who live within its national borders. After

500 years of colonialism, 100 under the U.S. flag, it is time to provide the people of Puerto Rico with full and equal access to that

dream, a dream whose constitutional underpinnings we have defended abroad with valor for over 80 years.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of this Committee.

[Applause.]

Mr. YOUNG. I thank the gentleman.

I will allow that to a short degree, but not too much, because we

have a long witness list. I appreciate the enthusiasm.

I notice—and I will go to the next witness in a moment—I notice

that you carefully said ‘‘the final frontier.’’ If you had stated ‘‘the

last frontier,’’ I would have been mightily offended, because that is

the motto of our State.

Now we have the president of the Popular Democratic Party. Mr.

Vila, you are up.

STATEMENT OF THE HON. ANIBAL ACEVEDO VILA, PRESIDENT, POPULAR DEMOCRATIC PARTY, SAN JUAN, PUERTO

RICO

Mr. VILA. Good morning. It is a pleasure to welcome you to the

Estado Libre Asociado de Puerto Rico.

[Applause.]

Mr. YOUNG. You have just taken some of the time away, and let’s

be very careful of what we are doing.

You are up.

Mr. VILA. In my previous experience before you, I expressed the

views of our matter regarding the tenets of political formula to

which we are audience here. It is, as you know, a formula that

stresses the values and aspirations of the United States, preserving

at the same time our distinct national and cultural identities. This

is a status that has served the people of Puerto Rico well, that has

allowed the sons and daughters of this island to work toward a

common ideal of progress and well-being and to avoid the clashes

between otherwise unaccommodating visions.

If improved, Commonwealth can serve both our people and your

people even better. This is why we have tried for many years, and

continue to try now, to allow our present status to achieve its full

potential. It is not surprising then that our definition of ‘‘Commonwealth’’—the way in which we describe the essence of our beliefs—

is neither new to our people nor alien to this Committee.

Accordingly, I do not come today to go once again over terrain

that has been very well covered in the past. Today, I would like to

address issues that are most significant for the process that you

have commenced and that still wait to be discussed.
14

In this day and age, there is no right to self-determination if the

process for its exercise is not adopted by consensus but by the

sheer exercise of the will and power of one of the parties.

May I, in this respect, point out two glaring defects of this bill

besides others which we have mentioned in the past. This bill does

not recognize the sovereignty of the people of Puerto Rico to freely

choose among all the alternatives preferred by the different sectors

of the Puerto Rican society.

Accordingly, it does not comply with the elemental requirements

concerning the exercise of the right to self-determination, the need

that the process be made subject to the approval of the people concerned or, at least, adopted by consensus of the leading political

groups that represent the people.

The common history shared between Puerto Rico and the Congress has had two good examples of this. When Puerto Rico exercised, without exhausting, its self-determination right in 1950, the

people validated the process proposed by Congress with its vote.

Later, in the 1989–91 plebiscite process, the U.S. Congress validated that process by getting the support and consensus of the

three political parties on the island.

As Chairman Young clearly stated, during that process back in

1990—and I am quoting—a referendum should only be authorized

by Congress if it is to be fair to all parties and the statuses that

they advocate.

That same principle was reaffirmed recently with regard to this

process by the President of the United States, the Honorable William Jefferson Clinton, in a letter to the president of the Popular

Democratic Party on April 4, 1997, where he states: I have made

it clear that the Federal Government should offer the people of

Puerto Rico serious and fair options that are responsive to their diverse aspirations for their islands.

If, notwithstanding the fact that the procedure for the establishment of Commonwealth required the approval by the people, that

process is not satisfactory to some of you, what could be said about

this process that until now has been established unilaterally? Why

not follow now the same consultation that governed the constitutional reforms in the 1950’s? Why should this bill seek to impose

a given procedure, tilting the table to favor a formula that has

never commanded a majority in this society?

Or is it that half a century after we initiated the self-determination process, statehood followers have finally come to realize that

the table needs tilting in order to prevent another defeat for statehood? Is it that you are now willing to follow them in such a monumental hoax?

This is not a question of naked power to do something, as debates concerning this bill have pitifully assumed. This is a question

of honest statesmanship and solemn respect or the principles of democracy and government by consent.

Before this bill goes further, you might as well tell, loud and

clear, whether you are willing to honor the procedural principles of

self-determination that have governed the proposals for changes in

our relations or whether you pretend to impose the rules unilaterally.
15

We must assume that the joint letter from Congressmen Young

and Miller of March 3, 1997, giving the three political parties an

opportunity to present a new definition for each formula, and this

second round of hearings before the Committee is a new approach

of openness, to have a referendum fair to all parties and the

statuses they advocate, and to revise the provisions, findings, and

assumptions of this bill which have, until now, made impossible

any meaningful participation for us.

On March 19, I submitted the definition of the new Commonwealth to this Committee. It describes the minimum content of our

aspirations. It is substantially similar to the ‘‘Commonwealth’’ definition included in the Committee report of H.R. 4765, a bill approved unanimously by the full House of Representatives on October 10, 1990.

The definition of the new ‘‘Commonwealth,’’ as well as the definition of ‘‘statehood’’ and ‘‘independence’’ included in the report to

H.R. 4756 and approved by this Committee and the whole House,

were the result of intense discussions and study, after which the

definitions presented by the three parties were modified before

being adopted by the House.

The report on H.R. 4765 stated specifically that inclusion of the

definition—and I quote—constitute a good faith commitment to

consider those matters contained in the conceptual descriptions of

the status that receives majority support in the referendum in responding to the expression of will by the Puerto Rican people.

The record said—and I am still quoting—these descriptions cannot be fairly termed wish lists . . . this section would pledge that

the Committees will seriously and fully review and respond to the

proposals.

In short, there was no absolutely no legal impediment to the

adoption and enforcement of the Commonwealth option there, and

there is none now. The only thing needed is your political will and

your commitment to fair play.

What should be under discussion now before Congress is what

best serves the interests of all parties to the present process and

how to give meaningful content to Puerto Rico’s right to self-determination without artificially raised or dubious legalisms to obscure

the nature of the policy decisions required.

These are not times to be narrow minded. We must build on our

past and look to the future. Europe is currently creating a whole

new and dynamic relationship which includes a common market,

common citizenship, and most likely common currency, and he

United States has to look to the future with an attitude that will

encourage, not impede, this type of arrangement.

The development of the new Commonwealth is consistent with

these modern tendencies of national reaffirmation and political and

economic interdevelopment among the peoples of the world. The

majority of Puerto Ricans believe in autonomy and self-government

with U.S. citizenship as a bond with the United States. The current

status of Puerto Rico needs development, not demolition. Thus——

[Applause.]

So far, I have expressed myself in English in an effort to facilitate your understanding of our positions and underscore the claim

of inclusion that my party has been stressing since my first appear-
16

ance last month. Now, I want to express myself from the heart, and

because my heart thinks, feels, and dreams in Spanish, it can only

speak in Spanish.

Puerto Rico, Puerto Rico es un pueblo orgulloso de su identidad,

de su cultura, de su idioma. Algunos pequen ̃ os incidentes

dramatizan nuestro sentido de identidad propia. Recuerdo como si

fuera hoy, la ilusio ́n y la an- y luego la angustia cuando apenas

tenı ́a diecise ́is an ̃ os, de las Olimpiadas de Montreal por momentos,

nuestro equipo de baloncesto parecı ́a que iba a triunfar sobre el de

Estados Unidos, para despue ́s terminar derrotado. Recuerdo. . . Y se

me aprieta el corazo ́n. . . Una noche aquı ́ en San Juan, en los juegos

Panamericanos de 1979, cuando un Puertorriquen ̃ o, nadando en el

uniforme de los Estados Unidos, gano ́ una medalla de oro para los

Estados Unidos. Esa atleta saco ́ de su uniforme una pequen ̃a

bandera Puertorriquen ̃a en sen ̃ al clara que para e ́l, aquella medalla

tambie ́n era nuestra. Y recuerdo . . . [Applause] Y recuerdo . . . [Applause] Y recuerdo como todo un estadio . . . Miles de personas, nos

pusimos de pie para entonar nuestro himno, La Borinquen ̃ a, en un

reclamo de que aquella medalla era nuestra.

En mis treinta y cinco an ̃ os, he visto y vivido orgullo y

compromiso de este pueblo, con mantener su relacio ́n con los

Estados Unidos y especialmente, su ciudadanı ́a Americana.

Recuerdo claramente. . . [Applause] Recuerdo claramente a nuestros

soldados, cumpliendo con su obligacio ́n, partiendo orgullosamente a

defender los principios y derechos de los Estados Unidos, con la

bandera Americana adherida a su uniforme militar y la bandera

Puertorriquen ̃ a en sus manos. Esa es la realidad del

Puertorriquen ̃ o de entrar al nuevo milenio. Esa es la realidad que

solo puede armonizar el Estado Libre Asociado. Esa es la realidad

. . . [Applause] Esa es la realidad. . . Que este proyecto pretende no

reconocer, pero au ́n, peor au ́n. . . Pretende destruir. Ha quedado

demostrado que este proyecto al tratar de destruir el ELA, tendrı ́a

el efecto de obligar a los Puertorriquen ̃ os a escoger entre dos (2)

soledades. La soledad de perder su identidad, lenguaje y cultura a

cambio de preservar su ciudadanı ́a. . . O la soledad de perder su

ciudadanı ́a a cambio de preservar su identidad. El Estado Libre

Asociado . . . [Applause] El Estado Libre Asociado nos ha liberado

de esta soledad, al permitirnos armonizar ambos tesoros. Hace

treinta an ̃ os, el Premio No ́bel de Literatura Garcı ́a Ma ́ rquez

escribio ́, ‘‘Las estirpes condenadas a cien an ̃ os de soledad. . . No

tenı ́an una segunda oportunidad sobre la tierra.’’ Sen ̃ ores

Congresistas, no somos una estirpe, somos un pueblo. Sen ̃ ores

Congresistas, no condenen a Puerto Rico a ‘‘cien an ̃ os de soledad.’’

Tenemos derecho a una segunda oportunidad y la estamos

exigiendo. A nombre de mi pueblo, que es y sigue siendo

mayoritariamente estadolibrista, me reafirmo en nuestro derecho,

a entrar al nuevo milenio en harmonı ́a con ustedes. . . Y con nuestro

inquebrantable espı ́ritu y esencia Puertorriquen ̃ o. Que el Sen ̃ or los

ilumine. Thank you.

[Applause.]

[The prepared statement of Mr. Vila follows:]
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Mr. YOUNG. Fernando, you are next.

STATEMENT OF THE HON. FERNANDO MARTIN-GARCIA, DESIGNEE FOR THE PUERTO RICAN INDEPENDENCE PARTY,

SAN JUAN, PUERTO RICO

Mr. MARTIN-GARCIA. Members of Committee, I will be developing

my testimony for the benefit of the people in Puerto Rico, and for

your benefit I have provided you with a translation.

Mr. YOUNG. We have read that, Fernando. Thank you.

Mr. MARTIN-GARCIA. Sen ̃ ores miembros del Comite ́: Comparezco

ante ustedes en representacio ́n de Rube ́n Darı ́o Martı ́nez,

Presidente del Partido Independista Puertorriquen ̃ o del cual soy

Vice-presidente. El Senador Berrı ́os se encuentra hoy fuera de este

edificio, donde el Partido Independentista ha convocado una

manifestacio ́n de respaldo a la independencia de Puerto Rico. . . Y

de rechazo a cualquier posible decisio ́n por parte del Gobierno de

los Estados Unidos de reubicar en Puerto Rico, al Comando Sur del

Eje ́cito de los Estados Unidos. Las manifestaciones tambie ́n

rechaza los planes de la Marina de instalar en Puerto Rico el

sistema de radar conocido como ‘‘Sobre el Horizonte.’’

Constituye una contradiccio ́n, que mientras se plantea el disen ̃ o

de un vehı ́culo legislativo que aspira a descolonizar a Puerto Rico,

las fuerzas armadas de Estados Unidos pretendan reforzar y

ampliar su presencia en Puerto Rico. Hemos expresado ya esta

propuesta a la Casa Blanca y nos proponemos hacerlo de manera

formal pro ́ximamente.

Debo sen ̃ alar adema ́s que hablemos de elevar nuestra denuncia

ante la comunidad internacional y en particular, ante el Comite ́ de

Descolonizacio ́n de Naciones Unidas.

El 31 de marzo, el Partido Independista envio ́ al Comite ́ la

definicio ́n de la fo ́rmula de independencia que proponemos sea

incluido en el proyecto de la Ca ́mara 856. Aunque la independencia

es una condicio ́n polı ́tica claramente definida en el Derecho

Internacional, hemos elaborado una propuesta que describe dicha

condicio ́n de forma sencilla y especı ́fica. En ella se precisa en primer lugar, el a ́mbito pleno de soberanı ́a del que quedarı ́a investido

un Puerto Rico independiente tanto en sus asuntos internos como

externos. Se afirma adema ́s, lo que en otras circunstancias

histo ́ricas serı ́a innecesario, que los Puertorriquen ̃ os tendra ́n su

propia ciudadanı ́a, es decir, la ciudadanı ́a de la Repu ́ blica de Puerto Rico.

Se Tambie ́n lo relativo a los derechos individuales adquiridos en

el a ́mbito econo ́mico, como lo serı ́an las pensiones del Gobierno

Federal o bajo el Seguro Social y la Ley de Veteranos, pues aunque

la continuidad de esos pagos no podrı ́a ser cuestionada y no

mencionarlo especı ́ficamente pudiera generar incertidumbre entre

los sectores ma ́s vulnerables de nuestra sociedad.

Por u ́ltimo, la propuesta incluye algunos de los temas

fundamentales, que inevitablemente habrı ́an de ser incluidos en un

futuro Tratado de Amistad y Cooperacio ́n entre ambas naciones.

Estos incluyen la transicio ́n econo ́mica de la dependencia actual a

la interdependencia equilibrada, el tra ́nsito de bienes y personas

entre Estados Unidos y Puerto Rico, y nuestra insistencia en el derecho de Puerto Rico a su eventual desmilitarizacio ́n.
29

Debo expresarme ahora con respecto a las definiciones de las

dema ́s for ́rmulas que al presente se incluyen en el proyecto de ley,

particularmente al status quo territorial, es decir el ELA actual, y

la alternativa de la estadidad. Al desenmascarar la realidad colonial y territorial del Estado Libre Asociado, el Comite ́ le da la

razo ́n a las renuncias que el independentismo Puertorriquen ̃ o ha

venido haciendo consistentemente. . . Desde 1950 en todos los foros.

Tiene adema ́s razo ́n el Comite ́, al partir de la premisa de que del

Derecho Constitucional Norteamericano, cualquier status que no

sea la estadidad o la soberanı ́a propia, ya sea e ́sta en la

independencia o en la libre asociacio ́n, tiene forzosamente que ser

uno de cara ́ cter territorial, colonial y temporero. Merece por ello,

tambie ́n reconocimiento que el proyecto subraye la precariedad de

la actual condicio ́n territorial, al requerir que en el caso de que no

las resultara en el apoyo mayoritario, el pueblo Puertorriquen ̃ o

debera ́ volver a ser consultado a mediano plazo hasta que logre

superar por voluntad propia, el status colonial.

La propuesta del nuevo ELA que tiene ustedes ahora ante su

consideracio ́n, en nada modifica el cara ́ cter colonial del viejo ELA.

Au ́n si el Congreso aceptara el intento de cuadrar el cı ́rculo

constitucional que una vez ma ́s ha propuesto el liderato del partido

popular, permanecerı ́a Puerto Rico sujeto a la aplicacio ́n unilateral

de la legislacio ́n que los Estados Unidos creyera necesaria, y

permanecerı ́a en nuestra Constitucio ́n y nuestras leyes,

subordinadas a la Constitucio ́n de los Estados Unidos y a sus

tribunales.

Estos vicios nada ma ́s bastarı ́an para condenar la definicio ́n del

nuevo ELA al mismo safaco ́n colonial de su predecesor. [Applause]

De la misma manera. . . De la misma manera que el Comite ́ ha

hablado con claridad y franqueza sobre el ELA actual, debe hacerlo

tambie ́n con respecto a este u ́ltimo y desesperado esfuerzo, de

poner al dı ́a el fraude que en 1950 se perpetro ́ contra nuestro pueblo. Con respecto a la estadidad [Applause] . . . Con respecto a la

estadidad, por otro lado, estamos convencidos de que el enfoque del

proyecto esta ́ profundamente equivocado. El realismo y el propo ́sito

de enmienda que el proyecto muestra en la aceptacio ́n del cara ́ cter

colonial y territorial del ELA, no esta ́n presentes en la

conceptualizacio ́n de la alternativa estadista.

Con respecto a la estadidad, el proyecto encubre los criterios

anticipables con que el Congreso evaluarı ́a una peticio ́n de

estadidad, que pudiera darse en un plebiscito de Puerto Rico, como

resultado del miedo y la dependencia generada por el colonialismo.

La raı ́z fundamental del problema, una que el proyecto

peligrosamente ignora, es que Puerto Rico es una nacio ́n distinta

a los Estados Unidos. Nunca en su historia [Applause] . . . Nunca

en su historia se ha enfrentado los Estados Unidos a una peticio ́n

de estadidad por parte de una nacio ́n diferente o por motivos tan

perestres desesperados como los que llevarı ́an a muchos

Puertorriquen ̃ os a votar por ella.

Constituye un profundo error de juicio el creer que el problema

polı ́tico principal de la nacio ́n Puertorriquen ̃ a es la limitacio ́n de su

franquicia electoral en lo que respecta al voto por el Presidente y

el Congreso de los Estados Unidos. Eso es igual a pensar que el

problema Palestino encontrarı ́a solucio ́n con la extensio ́n de la
30

franquicia electoral de Israel a los Palestinos de Gaza o de la

margen occidental. Es no entender el por que la franquicia electoral

Brita ́nica no fue suficiente para impedir la culminacio ́n de la

independencia de Irlanda y la persistencia hoy dı ́a de esa misma

lucha en Irlanda del Norte. O por que cada vez ma ́s que Quebecuas

aspiran a su propia soberanı ́a, a pesar de tener igualdad de

derechos polı ́ticos con los dema ́s ciudadanos del Canada ́. Los

Puertorriquen ̃ os no somos una minorı ́a dispersa, desarticulada, o

asimilada. . . Dentro de los Estados Unidos. Somos una

nacionalidad Latinoamericana, hispano-parlante, que se ha

formado a trave ́s de quinientos an ̃ os, orgullosa de su identidad, y

que tiene como asiento nacional un territorio Cariben ̃ o

geogra ́ficamente definido donde su cultura nacional es

indisputadamente dominante, en todas las manifestaciones de su

vida colectiva. En este sentido tan crı ́tico y tan transcendental,

Puerto Rico no es Tejas o Alaska, o ni siquiera Hawai, donde los

nativos de extraccio ́n Hawaiana, para la fecha de la estadidad en

1959, apenas constituı ́an una pequen ̃ a minorı ́a desplazada en su

propia tierra, dominada por los anglos y homogenizada cultural y

lingu ̈ ́ısticamente a los Estados Unidos desde hacı ́a mucho tiempo.

®Que ́ peso tiene para este Congreso, en lo que a la estadidad se

refiere, que la inmensa mayorı ́a del pueblo Puertorriquen ̃ o no esta ́

dispuesto a negociar nuestra identidad de pueblo y el prevenirlo de

nuestro idioma verna ́ culo?

®Que ́ peso tiene para este Congreso, que tanto el

independentismo Puertorriquen ̃ o como el derecho internacional,

insisten en la independencia como un derecho inalienable e

irrenunciable de los pueblos, y que por lo tanto, nuestra lucha por

la independencia continuarı ́a como lucha por la secesio ́n si Puerto

Rico fuera un estado?

®Que ́ peso tiene para este Congreso, el que au ́n bajo las premisas

mμs ilusorias de cualquier estadista, nunca habra ́ en Puerto Rico

en el futuro predecible, nada que se aproxime a un consenso

sustancial con respecto a la estadidad?

®Que ́ peso tiene para este Congreso el que la motivacio ́n fundamental de una gran parte de los estadistas, no sea el afa ́n de

integrarse y asimilarse constructivamente a los Estados Unidos y

a su cultura sino a la inseguridad econo ́mica y la dependencia que

ha generado el colonialismo?

El Congreso debe buscar la forma de anticipar su juicio sobre

estos temas cruciales o correr el riesgo de que la expresio ́n electoral

a favor de la estadidad sea una artificial y basada en premisas

erro ́neas. En todo caso, tarde o temprano el Congreso tendrı ́a que

enfrentar estos problemas.

Lo anterior no debe usarse como argumento para que no se

apruebe un proyecto de plebiscito. Ello serı ́a condenar a Puerto

Rico al colonialismo por inaccio ́n. Sino un argumento para que el

voto sea uno genuinamente informado a base de consideraciones

que son previsibles y que son conocidas.

Y a claro al sector estadista desde ahora, cuales son los te ́rminos

y condiciones referentes a las preguntas que he formulado y que

este Congreso considera serı ́an indispensables para que la

estadidad pudiera ser una posibilidad real. No hacerlo solamente
31

pospondra ́ el problema para un momento futuro, en el cual su

manejo sera ́ ma ́s difı ́cil y costoso para todas las partes.

Por u ́ltimo, quiero exhortar a los miembros de este Comite ́ a que

ejerzan sus mejores oficios para que el Presidente Clinton resuelva

un asunto que tiene bajo su consideracio ́n en este momento y cuya

adecuada resolucio ́n constituirı ́a un gesto de buena fe que avaları ́a

el compromiso del Gobierno de los Estados Unidos con la libre

determinacio ́n. Se trata de la excarcelacio ́n de quince

independentistas Puertorriquen ̃ os . . . [Applause] Que cumplen

condenas de ca ́ rceles. . . De ca ́ rceles. . . Ca ́ rceles Federales por casos

vinculados a la lucha por la independencia. La duracio ́n de las

sentencias es absolutamente desproporcionada a los delitos por los

cuales fueron convictos, y no cabe lugar a dudas de que

consideraciones polı ́ticas dictaminaron la excesiva severidad de las

sentencias. Les solicito que le expresen al Presidente que por

razones tanto humanitarias como polı ́ticas, debe acceder a la

conmutacio ́n de estas sentencias, asunto sobre el cual existe amplio

apoyo en Puerto Rico, ma ́s alla ́ de lı ́neas partidistas.

Muchas gracias [Applause].

[The prepared statement of Mr. Martin-Garcia follows:]
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44

Mr. YOUNG. I want to thank all three honorable gentlemen for

their testimony. And, Mr. Miller, I hope you were listening to some

of the gentlemen’s testimony instead of some radio station. Are you

ready?

Mr. MILLER. Yes.

Mr. YOUNG. Mr. Miller.

Mr. MILLER. Thank you very much.

When I joined Congressman Young in sending a letter to the

leaders of the three parties, it was with the belief that this debate

within Puerto Rico has a long and important and quietly colorful

history and part of the culture of Puerto Rico. And I want to tell

the three of you that you adequately confirm my belief on that matter. I think it makes it all the more important in terms of our deliberations.

If I might, I want to maybe raise a couple of points, and please

feel free, all of you, to respond.

First, I think it is important that we think of this process as

dealing with the future. I think it is very important that we understand that, that whatever actions the people of Puerto Rico take

and the Congress of the United States takes, it will be about dealing with the future and not the past. That is part of the reason,

again, that I sent the letter along with Congressman Young.

There is no question that throughout this process one of the parties will continue to characterize the other in the give and take of

the political dialog and in the testimony that we have already received and will continue to receive.

I will say, however, that when I look at the definitions that were

submitted for a new Commonwealth for our consideration when we

get to the process of writing the legislation, my reading of it is that

there is not much there that there is not some precedent for in previous actions within the Congress of the United States with our

treatment of our own citizens or of our various relationships with

territories under the control of the United States.

So I do not find it a terribly foreign concept. It is very similar

to what this Committee reported in 1990, and it does arrive at a

suggestion for the relationship in the future. Whether or not it can

be represented as providing full citizenship or not, I am not convinced that it does that.

But it does recognize that, as we have established certainly in

the past, there are certainly levels of citizenship and there are levels of citizenship that cannot be arbitrarily denied once granted

under the Fifth Amendment. That does not just go to people born

in the United States, those constitutional rights go with the responsibility of the Government not to be arbitrary and to be rational in its decisions.

Those would be my comments on that, and you are free to comment on that.

Obviously, the definitions of ‘‘statehood’’ are various and speak

for and, in fact, probably do provide for the full body of benefits of

being a citizen of the United States and all of the responsibilities,

and go to the question that our colleague has argued so very often

in the Committees that I share with him, about how do we continue to justify treating citizens of the United States differently be-
45

cause of this status and how long can we continue to do that? I

think that is clearly drawn into issue.

Mr. Martin, with respect to the basic, fundamental, ideological

difference of those two positions and yours, again, very, very well

articulated, if I understand you, you would suggest that statehood

would not cleanse the stain of colonialism, that this is a relationship that eventually would erupt, would tear into the basic fabric

of Puerto Rico.

Mr. MARTIN-GARCIA. Congressman, what I believe very firmly is

that the right of self-determination of the Puerto Rican people,

Puerto Rico cannot self-determine itself out of the right to self-determination. That is the right that assists us as a people, and certainly this generation cannot take it away from the next.

From my point of view, from the point of view of the independence movement, the right to struggle for our national independence

would not in any way be hampered or impeded by the possibility

of statehood.

I think it would be a grave mistake on the part of the United

States to enter into such an unstable relationship when there is no

consensus in Puerto Rico about it, there never will be, and when

most people in Puerto Rico, who in my judgment are statehooders,

and I know a lot of them are basically for reasons that have to do

with insecurity, for reasons that have to do with fear, and very little of the kinds of things that have made people in the past join

the union.

This would be the first time in history where a different nation

would be knocking at the doors of the United States, and it would

mean, I think, a terrible precedent for the United States and one

that it would have to think very clearly about.

The questions that I raised in my statement as to whether Congress is willing to face a petition of statehood for Puerto Rico, taking into account those matters, is one that I think raises matters

that have to be made at some point explicit by the Congress; explicit, if through no other way, by some kind of sense of the Congress resolution, maybe using the kind of congressional policy

statement that you have been using to build with respect to the

language issue.

Certainly Congress must transmit to the people of Puerto Rico

whether these issues are important issues. Is it important for the

Congress for the people of Puerto Rico to somehow show a vocation

and a willingness to assimilate into the mainstream of the United

States? Not as a constitutional requirement, I am not talking about

that, but as a political requirement, whether at some point the

United States would be willing to accept a State in which a substantial minority of people are definitely opposed to statehood—not

merely cold toward the idea, but most definitely opposed to this notion.

I do not know what is going to be done with the pro-independence followers in the statehood. Maybe they will put us in a reservation of some sort.

Mr. MILLER. I would appreciate it if the audience, to some extent,

could listen to the chair, because now your applause is now coming

out of my time.

Mr. YOUNG. Your time is up, by the way.
46

We will, if it is necessary, have a second round if you would like,

if you could make it short.

Mr. MILLER. If they could just comment, if you do not mind.

Mr. YOUNG. Yes, if you would like to, but make it short, because

then we have to go to the next one.

Mr. VILA. Well, I really appreciate your comments, and the fact

that our party even represented a definition of a ‘‘New Commonwealth’’ is a direct consequence of the joint letter both of you sent

to us that, as I say in my testimony, we see as an openness and

a new approach that will allow us to participate.

In terms of looking to the future, that is one of the problems we

have with this bill, because it wants to make a judgment that we

cannot agree on the past. If we are going to look to the future, let

us look to the future.

And the definition of a ‘‘New Commonwealth’’ that we presented

is precisely—if someone has any doubts about what happened back

in 1950 and 1952, let us do it the right way now. As you say, everything we have proposed, there is some experience in the United

States with our proposition.

I just want to make one comment with regard to citizenship. As

I see it, basically what you are meaning is that because we are not

a State, U.S. citizens residing in Puerto Rico perhaps do not vote

for a President and a Congressman, but it has nothing to do directly with citizenship. That is a problem of residence, if a U.S. citizen living outside the United States is not entitled to vote because

he is not a resident of one of the 50 States.

We have heard a lot that we are second class citizens. In Royer

v. Bailey, a case before the Supreme Court in 1971, the Supreme

Court said, ‘‘Neither we are persuaded that a condition subsequent

from this area impressed one with second class citizenship.’’

That cliche is too handy and too easy and, like most cliches, can

be misleading. And perhaps that is one of the problems we have

been having all this time; it is misleading.

Mr. RODRIQUEZ. I agree with you, Congressman, the statehood

definition is a very clear definition. It is not a wishing list. This

is something we know occurs with those who become full-fledged

American citizens. How can we not see in as a civil rights issue?

It was the other week in Birmingham, Alabama, that I went to

the Institute of Civil Rights and I saw there U.S. citizens fighting

to have equal rights, the same rights that we are denied because

we live in Puerto Rico, the same rights we are denied because we

cannot vote for the President, who can send us to fly anyplace

around the globe to fight for democracy and for this Nation.

The fact that I really get my heart squeezed when I see a Puerto

Rican mother who cannot receive equal health benefits because she

is not living in one of the 50 States, although she is an American

citizen, it also breaks my heart when I see that this lady could

have probably had her son killed in action in any of the battlefields, defending this Nation, but she is not entitled to the same

rights as other mothers who also gave their children for this Nation in one of the 50 States.

I also have my heart squeezed when I see that our children cannot receive the same education as other U.S. citizens who live in

the 50 States are entitled to receive.
47

I also get my heart squeezed when I see that Puerto Ricans cannot have the same benefits as any other U.S. citizen who lives in

the 50 States.

And I really regret to see Puerto Ricans leaving our island to go

up to the mainland just to receive those benefits. Almost 3 million

Puerto Ricans live on the mainland, and the reason they have left

is because they are denied the same rights that other U.S. citizens

have if they live in the 50 States.

So our position is very clear of what we want for Puerto Rico. We

want equality. It is a civil rights issue.

Mr. YOUNG. I will remind everybody in the audience, I know you

are having a good time, you are doing what you want to do, and

I have been very lenient, but I am going to call this meeting over

at 3 o’clock. And that means that many of your fellow men cannot

testify before this Committee, because every time you do what you

have just done, you take the time away from the members of the

Committee that would like to ask questions to solve a problem and

from the witnesses, very frankly, that want to testify. Is that understood?

Mr. Kennedy.

Mr. KENNEDY. I would like to find out, under the definition of

‘‘New Commonwealth,’’ exactly how the issue of sovereignty would

play out. Would the United States retain national sovereignty, or

would Puerto Rico have its own separate sovereignty?

Mr. VILA. The concept of sovereignty has changed a lot during

the last 200 years. At one time the sovereign was the key, and for

many years it was even under the concept of sovereignty that many

acts of tyranny were done around the world.

Today, who is sovereign is the people. And the first thing that

this Committee has to recognize is that if we enter into this relationship we call the New Commonwealth, it is a decision of the people of Puerto Rico; it is a sovereign decision of the people of Puerto

Rico.

Once we enter into this arrangement, the definition clearly states

that Puerto Rico will be sovereign over all matters contained in our

Constitution. So to me it is clear. It is a two-step: First, that the

decision, whether we stay in this relationship, whether we change

it, it is a decision that belongs to the people of Puerto Rico. That

is sovereignty.

Mr. KENNEDY. So where would the United States retain any sovereignty if the people were to remain United States citizens? Over

those citizens? How would that work?

Mr. VILA. The United States will have the powers that the people

of Puerto Rico have delegated to the United States within this arrangement. That is nothing new for the United States, neither for

the entire world.

The fact that you can make a compact with what was in the past

called a territory is not only done by the United States, it is around

the world.

When the United States came to Puerto Rico in 1898, we had a

special arrangement with Spain. We were Spaniard citizens. We

had autonomy. The special charter could only be amended if the

people of Puerto Rico will accept it—in a sense, basically the same

concept we want right now to clarify.
48

Some people, I have heard, are telling the world that the United

States is less of a nation than Spain back in 1898. And, to me, that

is unbelievable.

Mr. KENNEDY. Well, this is a good debate, because this debate

has been going on in our own United States history as to what the

role of the Constitution of the United States is. And from what I

hear you saying, you are saying you will be subject to your own

Puerto Rican Constitution and the United States Constitution will

not apply to the people of Puerto Rico.

Mr. VILA. No, we have not said that. I have not said that.

Mr. KENNEDY. So you are saying that if the Constitution of the

United States says, the 14th Amendment, we want equal protection

for all, and we have had instances in our own country’s history

where different locales have rejected—they have said we want

States rights or, as you well know, there is an argument that we

fought over, and Senator Rodriguez was speaking about it, civil

rights, and the notion that the United States Constitution, which

guarantees that people are treated equally no matter where they

live in the United States, that is fundamental to United States citizenship.

If you want to be a citizen, you have to know that with that you

have to live in a country that respects equal opportunity for all.

And if the people of Puerto Rico are not treated the same——

[Applause.]

I know the idea here is that if a person of United States citizenship was not being treated under our Constitution with respect and

dignity for their rights, I would want to make sure that the United

States Constitution was enforced to make sure that their rights

were protected.

Now, how would that be done if the United States does not have

any sovereignty, if you will, when it comes to——

[Wild applause as someone enters.]

I would like to now ask Mr. Martin-Garcia——

Mr. VILA. So that was not a question? I thought it was a question.

Mr. KENNEDY. Please, your answer.

Mr. VILA. I did not know if you were making another argument

for statehood.

Mr. KENNEDY. What is your answer?

Mr. VILA. The definition clearly states that a United States citizen, persons born in Puerto Rico, will be guaranteed and secure

as provided by the 5th Amendment of the Constitution of the

United States and equal to that of citizens born in the several

States.

With regard to sovereignty, as I said, it says that Puerto Rico

will be sovereign over matters covered by the Constitution of Puerto Rico, which is exactly what the Supreme Court of the United

States has said many times. So I do not see what is your concern.

Mr. KENNEDY. Well, that was the——

Mr. VILA. I can understand that you might be in favor of statehood, but that is not no reason——

[Applause.]

Mr. YOUNG. The gentleman’s time has expired, and again I want

to remind, every time this occurs, it is just that much less time.
49

The gentleman from Guam.

Mr. UNDERWOOD. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

And I congratulate all three of you for excellent statements.

I could not help but notice that as we got progressively over to

the right, we got more and more Spanish, and only Fernando was

able to inspire applause from people who were wearing both blue

shirts and red shirts. So maybe you are on the crest of a tide there.

Mr. MARTIN-GARCIA. A sign of things to come.

Mr. UNDERWOOD. It strikes me that the last time we were here

and we were discussing the issue, the question always seemed to

me that here everything becomes an indicator of your political status choice. Everything, from the selection of a color of a necktie to

everything else, apparently seems to be connected in some way or

another of a political status option. And in that discussion, the last

time we were here, I was concerned that it did not look like people

wanted to move toward a common process. And if we do not have

a common process, this kind of discussion will inevitably continue

forever.

I think we are moving beyond that, and I think, through the

leadership of the Committee, we have moved beyond that and we

are now at a point where we are trying to figure out what is an

appropriate definition.

Now, all of us are involved in politics, and I think it is clear that

a legal definition is different from a philosophy; bedrock principle

is different from a campaign commitment or from a political party

program. And in the process of making these definitions, it seems

to me that sometimes, obviously, the statehood definition is a little

bit more forthright, although I think, obviously, it is written in a

way that makes it stand as the most favored option.

But coming back to that issue, it seems that everyone is trying

to now deal with the definitional issue as a way to not merely define what option is being advertised but as a way to campaign for

it and at the same time articulate a program of action.

I am wondering what your comments individually might be to

that point, that is there a way that we can arrive at a legal definition which is shorn of aspirations? because the question that is before the people is, what do you aspire to? and to try to give as

much as possible a legal definition to that.

And maybe we can start with you, Charlie.

Mr. RODRIQUEZ. Congressman, the fact that our definition, as

you say, may be looked as a most favored option, it is because it

is the most favored option if you are a U.S. citizen and you want

U.S. citizenship. If you want that, you want to have equal rights.

If you want that, you want to have the same benefits.

Now, you cannot come here and say, or anyone could come here

and say, listen, we want to have a relationship with the United

States whereas we retain the U.S. citizenship. Oh, but we are going

to determine what are those things that the Federal Government

that represents that national U.S. citizenship can impose in Puerto

Rico. Where is the sovereignty on Puerto Rico?

What we want to do, basically, is give us a chance to vote. If

those Puerto Ricans who really believe in their U.S. citizenship, the

only way they can really guarantee that is by voting for statehood.

If that looks the most favored, let it be. Let it be, because there
50

is no right to tell a U.S. citizen that he cannot aspire to be equal

as any other U.S. citizen right now on the mainland.

Every plebiscite has been in Puerto Rico, the last one back in

1993.

The problem we have with this bill as written right now is the

Commonwealth, as we see it and believe in it, is not on the ballot.

The reason we presented this definition is not only because we believe in that definition. It is also because it was approved by the

full House back in 1990 by this Committee, and then it will make

it easier for you guys to work with us if there is a commitment to

put in a definition in which we can participate.

So what we are making is a claim of fairness. Believe me, the

people of Puerto Rico still believe in commonwealth. They just want

the opportunity to express themselves again.

Mr. MARTIN-GARCIA. Well, Mr. Underwood, undoubtedly the alternatives are different not only in terms of content but also their

nature. For example, to use the most glaring example, independence is viewed internationally and universally as a right. Nobody

would dispute that, if that were the wish of the people of Puerto

Rico, the United States would be obligated to grant independence.

In the case of statehood, for example, independently of its merits,

it is obviously viewed that statehood is a political decision that the

Congress will have to make if it gets a petition; and that in entertaining that petition it can use whatever criteria is politically feasible for the Congress. It may want statehood or may not want

statehood for good reasons or bad ones. It is not a right. It is a petition to be made.

For example, in that sense, it is important that the definitions

of the alternatives somehow make clear that they represent decisions of a different nature. For example, I think it would be really

dangerous to imply by inaction or silence that somehow statehood

is a right and that if people in Puerto Rico vote for it, 50 plus 1,

it is there for the having.

On the other hand, for example, in the case of independence, although from a strictly legal point of view it is a very straightforward definition, it means the wholesale transfer of any sovereignty the U.S. has over Puerto Rico it is passed over to the people of Puerto Rico. It is a very simple proposition.

Why is it more complex in our proposal? Because independence

requires a disengagement process, and that disengagement process

has to be fleshed out in some way so it doesn’t appear to people

as if Puerto Rico is sort of jumping off the eighth floor without a

parachute.

So if the ballot is going to be meaningful and the offer is going

to be made in good faith, it has to have something in addition to

the purely legal question so that it remains or becomes a politically

feasible and reasonable alternative that somehow shows good faith.

In the case of the Popularist definition, that involves all sorts of

constitutional and political complexities. The issue of sovereignty

may seem a purely academic one, but I think it is absolutely the

most fundamental question that this bill is facing; and at some

point the Popularists are going to have to make a tough decision,

which I fear they haven’t made yet, of what their priorities are.
51

If their priority is sovereignty for Puerto Rico, they are going to

have to be willing to enter into a relationship of free association

which, after all, the bill does offer. For them, if the question of citizenship is the priority one, well, then, perhaps they will have to

conform themselves to continue to being a territory another 100

years.

Mr. YOUNG. My time has expired.

The Resident Commissioner, Mr. Romero-Barcelo ́. Mr. ROMERO-BARCELO ́. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I think that line that Mr. Martin was developing and talking

about, the citizenship of the people of Puerto Rico, Mr. Acevedo,

what is more important for you and the party you represent—citizenship or sovereignty?

Mr. VILA. For the party that I represent, we believe in a relationship that recognizes the dignity of the people of Puerto Rico and

a relationship where we can have our U.S. citizenship and, at the

same time, our identity.

Mr. ROMERO-BARCELO ́. If Congress were to tell you, you cannot

have both things, you can only have one——

Mr. VILA. I would say that is a very narrow-minded view; and

there will be an assumption, maybe, just to put into this bill all the

elements to tilt the process in favor of statehood.

Mr. ROMERO-BARCELO ́. Your party got a letter signed by Chairman Young. It was signed by Chairman Gallegly of the subcommittee. It was also signed by Mr. Gilman, the Chairman then

of the Committee on International Affairs, and by Dan Burton, the

Chairman of the Subcommittee of the Western Hemisphere, which

indicated in that letter that you couldn’t have your sovereignty

with your citizenship.

If this Committee were to decide in the markup that you could

not have your citizenship with your sovereignty, now what would

you say? Would you just not have anything, or would you make a

choice? We are asking, if you were told you could not have both

things, what would you do?

If you don’t want to answer, that is all right. I cannot force you

to answer. But I think the people of Puerto Rico deserve an answer. They should know what it is. And the people of the Congress,

the people in Congress and in the United States also should have

an answer, because they also have to make a decision.

Mr. VILA. In the Corletto v. Persona case from the United States

back in 1974, the U.S. Supreme Court said Puerto Rico is to be

deemed sovereign over matters not ruled by the United States Constitution.

Mr. ROMERO-BARCELO ́. That is case law. That is what the court

says. I am asking, what do you say? What do you say if you were

given a choice and told you could not have your cake and eat it,

too?

Mr. VILA. No, I am telling you that a special relationship of autonomy based on the will of the people to enter into this relationship with U.S. citizenship was part of the initial concept when the

U.S. citizenship was granted to the people of Puerto Rico. It is possible to have it, and we want it.

Back in 1912, when President Taft——

Mr. ROMERO-BARCELO ́. If you don’t want to answer, that is OK.
52

Let me ask you another question. Here you say, in the new commonwealth, you are saying that Puerto Rico would be entitled to

receive benefits under Federal social programs equally with residents of several States, contingent on equitable contributions from

Puerto Rico as provided by law.

I want to ask you, honestly, sincerely, how do you think that the

people in the State of Alaska, the people in the State of California,

where Congressman George Miller is from, the people in the State

of Rhode Island, where Congressman Patrick Kennedy is from, the

people in Florida, the people in New York, the people in Pennsylvania, in Kansas, would feel about having to pay Federal income

taxes so that Puerto Rico could have SSI, so it could have earned

income tax credit, so it can have Medicaid and have full participation in Fed programs? But then you say, don’t put your hands in

our pockets; just give us the money.

Doesn’t that demean us as a people? Doesn’t that put us in a reflection with our hands out? All we want from U.S. citizenship is

the money? We don’t want anything else? Is that what you want

to say?

Mr. VILA. Mr. Commissioner, you read the definition, yes, and it

says contingent on equitable contributions from Puerto Rico. This

is a special deal that went through the Finance Committee back in

1990, and it came out of the Finance Committee in the Senate back

in 1990 with a way of how to give this to the people of Puerto Rico

and equitable contributions from the government of Puerto Rico to

the U.S. Treasury.

The last time I heard someone here in Puerto Rico asking the

people of Puerto Rico for a change of status based on how much

money we will get from the Federal Government was back in 1993

when the Pro-State Party was telling the people of Puerto Rico how

much money we will get from the U.S. Government.

Mr. ROMERO-BARCELO ́. So was the Popular Party.

Mr. VILA. If you want, we can show——

Mr. YOUNG. Gentlemen, gentlemen, the time has expired.

I am going to make a suggestion, because we have now had these

three people——

All right, in all due respect, I can suggest to everybody in this

audience and all sides of the aisle, you don’t really make much of

an impression on the deliberations on this problem. I understand

what you are doing, but keep in mind we are here trying to hear

from each side of the aisle and the middle and to try to make the

right decision. Because we are going to make decisions. It is that

simple.

I am going to suggest to each one of the gentlemen, I do admire

your testimony. I am very, very interested in what has been said.

But I want everybody to understand it is the Congress, the Congress—whether it is me or someone else—who will make the decisions, along with the Puerto Rican people. But we are going forward with this process.

Gentlemen, I thank you. You are excused.

Mr. MILLER. Mr. Chairman, if we could submit a couple of questions to you in writing. I have some concerns about the time line

in the legislation, about how we might condense those. I would like

to submit those to you for response.
53

Mr. YOUNG. For the gentleman, every witness that appears before us today, if there is a followup question, we expect a response

from them.

You are excused. Thank you.

As I said in the beginning of the hearing, the first three witnesses were extended a great courtesy and extension of time, including the audience. These gentleman and ladies will be, in fact,

limited to 5 minutes.

I am going to ask the Resident Commissioner now, Mr. RomeroBarcelo ́, to chair the second panel; and I will have one of the other

members chair the third panel and the fourth panel. This is a bipartisan effort to try to get some input from each one of them. I

will be in and out of the meetings.

Mr. ROMERO-BARCELO ́. [Presiding.] Thank you. I would appreciate your cooperation so that we can listen to the witnesses. We

would like to conclude with everybody on the list having time to

testify.

We will now call the second panel. We will have the former Governor, Rafael Hernandez Colon; Eduardo Bhatia; the Mayor of

Caguas, William Miranda-Marı ́n; Carlos Vizcarrondo Irizarry; Margarita Benitez; and Juan Antonio Agostini.

The first witness will be the former Governor, Rafael Hernandez

Colon.

STATEMENT OF RAFAEL HERNANDEZ COLON, FORMER

GOVERNOR OF PUERTO RICO, PONCE, PUERTO RICO

Mr. COLON. Honorable Chairman, members, you come—100

years after the military occupation of Puerto Rico—in order to offer

us full self-government. In order to achieve this objective, we do not

start from zero. In 1952, we created our Constitution wherein it

was stated and Congress approved as a compact that:

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.

We consider as determining factors in our life our citizenship of

the United States of America and our aspiration continually to enrich our democratic heritage in the individual and collective enjoyments of its rights and privileges.

These are the words of compact between the people of Puerto

Rico and the Congress, a compact the Congress proposed to rid the

United States of the shame of colonialism before the international

community, recognizing that governments derive their just powers

from the consent of the governed.

The commonwealth option framed by this bill would violate this

compact by placing Puerto Rico under the absolute powers of Congress as it was before 1952. The definition presented to the Committee by the Popular Party would straighten the course of history.

We can hardly believe that this bill sustains the proposition that

Congress can strip away American citizenship from the Puerto

Rican people. We can hardly believe that it ignores all judicial

precedent upholding the compact between the U.S. and Puerto

Rico. We can scarcely believe that it sides with the charges of colo-
54

nialism in Puerto Rico annually leveled at the U.N. against the

United States by Fidel Castro.

When, on July 4th, 1776, the 13 colonies proclaimed their independence from the British king, the men assembled in Philadelphia, stated unto the world that they held these truths to be selfevident:

That all men are created equal.

That they are endowed by their creator with certain inalienable

rights, amongst which are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

We Puerto Ricans subscribe to these beliefs. We also believe that

we have been created equal, no less and no more than you who

visit us. And we believe that we are also endowed by our creator

with the same inalienable rights to life and to exercise our liberty

in whatever way we deem appropriate in order to pursue our happiness.

Deciding the political institutions under which a people will live

is the supreme act of liberty. In this choice rests our opportunities

to mold a future for our integral development, economic, social, culture, political and spiritual.

But the bill’s preconceptions as to commonwealth leave little

room for democracy. It is framed in concrete from prejudiced legal

opinions presented as unbreakable limits to policy.

With regards to our political freedom, the opinions are equivalent

to the arguments invoked by Justice Taney to deny Dred Scott’s

personal freedom the protection of the Federal judicial power.

The time for colonial paternalism is long past. If the Puerto

Rican people wish to freely join the Union, so be it. But do not impose this choice upon us by stonewalling your judgment with onesided legal memoranda against a new commonwealth.

The only real possibilities of achieving full self-government lie in

statehood or in full autonomy as a new commonwealth.

The choice between sending Senators and Congressmen to Washington or broadening our autonomy to govern ourselves through

our elected representatives here in San Juan is for us to make.

You, of course, have the right to say no. If you do not want us as

a state, it is a political, not a legal decision. The same with the

broader autonomy we seek.

Gentleman, do not patronize us with a process that stifles our

liberty and your creativity.

Including all the desired options is up to your political will. Give

all the people a chance to participate in this plebescite, and let’s

get on with it.

Mr. ROMERO-BARCELO ́. Thank you.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Colon follows:]
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110

Mr. ROMERO-BARCELO ́. Senator Bhatia?

STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE EDUARDO BHATIA, DESIGNEE FOR THE MINORITY LEADER OF THE SENATE-POPULAR DEMOCRATIC PARTY, SENATE OF PUERTO RICO

Mr. BHATIA. Good morning. Before I start my remarks, I would

like to make two brief comments.

First, the Mayor of San Juan, who could not be here today with

us, asked me personally to come over to warmly welcome you to

Puerto Rico and especially to the city of San Juan. So welcome on

behalf of the Mayor of San Juan.

Second, I would have preferred to have Mr. Young hear the Governor’s statement and Mr. Young here today. We are dealing with

Mr. Young’s bill. I would have much rather preferred Mr. Young

to be here.

Let me start my remarks by stating in clear terms that my only

concern in this process is the well-being of the people of Puerto

Rico. I care more about Don Juan Alejandro and Dona Lucia

Chevres, who live in Barrio Guadiana in Naranjito; about Virginia

Santos and her four children from Cidra; about Mrs. Paulita Colon

from Bayamon; and about so many others like them than about attempting to conform the collective lives of Puerto Ricans to the selfish thoughts and insecurities of an ideological nature.

Theirs is a life of constant improvement and success under commonwealth status. I have little respect for empty legalisms and

terms which mean nothing to real people who must struggle daily

to make ends meet.

At this juncture, it is fundamental to ask the most basic question

which, for some unknown reason, this Committee has somehow

eluded over the last 2 years. That is, under which political status,

under which political relationship with the United States is Puerto

Rico better positioned to compete and succeed in the emerging

world of the 21st century?

The flexibility and dynamism of commonwealth status has given

Puerto Rico the tools to achieve dramatic economic and social

progress. Our association with the United States has given us the

ability and access to the largest market in the world. Our fiscal autonomy has allowed us to attract industry to the island through

low, effective tax rates.

The results have been truly staggering. Puerto Rico has set an

example of how a small, poor, agrarian and densely populated island with limited exploitable natural resources can emerge as a

bustling and industrious society. Once considered a stricken land,

the poorest of the poor countries in the hemisphere, Puerto Rico

today enjoys the highest standard of living in Latin America.

Our exports have boomed from $235 million in 1950 to $22.9 billion in 1996. In terms of imports, Puerto Rico purchases over $12

billion annually from the United States, ranking among the top 10

world customers. Perhaps most impressive of all, in a region

plagued by political instability, all of these changes have occurred

in Puerto Rico without social unrest and under a strong democratic

regime.

The productive economic vitality enjoyed by Puerto Rico under

commonwealth is impossible under statehood. Statehood requires
111

the imposition of Federal income taxes, individual and corporate,

which would destroy Puerto Rico’s continued economic prosperity.

Manufacturing presently accounts for 44.5 percent of Puerto

Rico’s GNP, and it is critically contingent upon the fiscal autonomy

that Puerto Rico would lose under statehood. Close to 300,000 direct and indirect jobs are attributable to Puerto Rico’s fiscal autonomy. This is one-third of Puerto Rico’s total labor force.

Every single study conducted on this issue has established that

the elimination of Puerto Rico’s fiscal autonomy would entail massive capital flight and job loss.

Statehood would destroy the most productive sectors of our economy, precipitating us into an economic catastrophe of unimaginable

proportions, shattering the social solidarity and threatening the

stability of our prosperous society. This spiraling decline would destroy our self-sufficiency, demanding ever increasing Federal outlays and creating a state of true and inescapable dependency.

Thus, to put the economic consequences of statehood into perspective, if Puerto Rico chose to lower tax rates to U.S. level as it

would under statehood, the government would have to lay off about

90,000 public employees, or two out of five government employees.

The question would immediately emerge, how many public schoolteachers would have to be laid off to pay for statehood? How many

police officers?

In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, we in Puerto Rico have come a long

way to liberate our people from the chains of poverty and misery.

We are now successfully competing with the great economic powers, with skilled workers and attractive incentives that generate

jobs. Let us join efforts and energies in building a better Puerto

Rico, a prosperous society and a land of true freedom, where our

children will be anxious to seize the opportunities that await for

them. Let us put people’s needs first.

Mr. BHATIA. Let us use this opportunity not to destroy the estado

libre asociado, but to strengthen it; not to divide our people, but to

unite them; not to stop progress, but to accelerate it.

The Estado Libre Asociado is eager and ready to face the challenges of the 21st century. We are on the move. Don’t derail us

with this bill.

Thank you.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Bhatia follows:]
112
113
114
115
116

Mr. ROMERO-BARCELO ́. The Chairman asked that you try to limit

yourself to 5 minutes. I have allowed both the proponents to try to

limit themselves. The lights: The yellow means it is approaching

the 5 minutes.

STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE CARLOS VIZCARRONDO

IRIZARRY, POPULAR DEMOCRATIC PARTY, PUERTO RICO

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, SAN JUAN, PUERTO RICO

Mr. IRIZARRY. Bueno. . . Bueno. . . Buenas tardes, sen ̃ or

Presidente, distinguidos miembros del Comite ́. . . [English voice]

Que tenga unas buenas tardes el sen ̃ or Presidente y distinguidos

miembros de este Comite ́. Habre ́ de dirigirme en el idioma

verna ́ culo de mi nacio ́n Puertorriquen ̃ a que es el Espan ̃ ol. [Applause] Comparezco ante ustedes en mi cara ́ cter de representante

electo del pueblo de Puerto Rico bajo la insignia del Partido Popular Democra ́tico y como Puertorriquen ̃ o orgulloso de su herencia

y de su cultura, de su. . . De su personalidad del pueblo Cariben ̃ o

y Latinoamericano que mira a su socio en esta comunidad de

valores que representa la asociacio ́n entre Puerto Rico y los

Estados Unidos al mismo nivel, aspirando a ensanchar y enriquecer

esta relacio ́n. La base de cualquier relacio ́n es respeto mutuo.

Comparezco aquı ́ a reivindicar el derecho de mi nacio ́n

Puertorriquen ̃ a a ser respetada como supremo a ́ rbitro de su destino

final. El proyecto que estamos considerando en el dı ́a de hoy se

aleja de lo que ha sido la realidad de la relacio ́n, de afecto y

respeto, que ha existido durante los pasados noventa y nueve an ̃ os

entre Puerto Rico y los Estados Unidos. El insulto y la degradacio ́n

no puede ser base para un dia ́logo de pueblo a pueblo. Para

asegurar la defensa de sus mutuos intereses por lo cual

concordaban plenamente, con la posicio ́n expresada por el

representante de la administracio ́n Clinton ante este. El pasado 19

de marzo, ha sen ̃ alado que el proyecto contiene interpretaciones y

representaciones del pasado constitucional que en nada ayudan al

desarrollo de la presente condicio ́n polı ́tica de Estado Libre

Asociado hacia una mayor autonomı ́a u otra forma de relacio ́n

entre nuestros pueblos. Puerto Rico esta ́ orgulloso del paso

afirmativo que dio en la afirmacio ́n del pleno gobierno propio.

Entre 1950 y 52 una relacio ́n de asociacio ́n digna, con los Estados

Unidos, mediante el Estado Libre Asociado. Relacio ́n que su

gobierno, el gobierno de Estados Unidos, presento ́ al mundo como

una relacio ́n que terminaba, no que reafirmaba, como sen ̃ ala este

proyecto, la condicio ́n colonial de Puerto Rico. Nuestro paı ́s necesita

y merece la verdad. La de ustedes y la nuestra. Si ustedes

entienden que Puerto Rico es una colonia, un me- un mero

territorio de los Estados Unidos, sepan sen ̃ ores Congresistas que

este pueblo no acepto ́ ser colonia en 1952 ni lo acepta ahora. Este

pueblo construyo ́ una relacio ́n digna, libre de mancha colonial, al

consentir la creacio ́n del Estado Libre Asociado. Si las premisas es

para ustedes han cambiado, para nosotros no.

Como bien sen ̃ alo ́ don Luis Mun ̃ oz Marı ́n, ante un intento similar

a este en el 1962, si Puerto Rico es una colonia de los Estados

Unidos, debe dejar de serlo inmediatamente por el buen nombre de

los Estados Unidos y el honor y la dignidad del pueblo de Puerto

Rico. [Applause] Para aclarar cualquier duda que pueda existir, por
117

fundada o infundada que sea esta, el Partido Popular Democra ́tico

ha presentado la definicio ́n de Nuevo Estado Libre Asociado ante

esta comisio ́n, enraizada en los principios que aspiramos

concretizar desde 1952. Autonomı ́a con soberanı ́a, consagrada en

una asociacio ́n que garantice a la comunidad de intereses entre

Estados Unidos y Puerto Rico en las a ́ reas de la moneda, la

defensa, la ciudadanı ́a y el mercado. Esa definicio ́n, producto del

dia ́logo y del consenso, del autonomismo Puertorriquen ̃ o, recoge los

puntos mı ́nimos aceptables para nuestra colectividad, basado en

documentos adoptados por nuestro partido como la Declaracio ́n de

la Juventud del Partido Popular Democra ́tico del 15 de marzo de

1997 y la resolucio ́n del Consejo del General del Partido Popular

Democra ́tico del 17 de noviembre de 1990. Pero no solo es el Estado

Libre Asociado que merece que se le diga la verdad.

Cientos de miles de buenos Puertorriquen ̃ os que han creı ́do de

buena fe en la eminencia de una estadidad que representa una

lluvia de millones de do ́lares en fondos Federales con garantı ́as

plenas de nuestra nacionalidad, cultura e idioma, tambie ́n merecen

que se diga la verdad. Queremos saber si eso es posible.

®Cua ́l es el costo que ustedes esta ́n dispuestos a pagar para

admitir a la unio ́n como estado? A una comunidad de 3.5 millones

de ciudadanos norteamericanos cuyo idioma es el Espan ̃ ol y que de

acuerdo al Censo de los Estados Unidos del 1990, el ochenta y tres

por ciento de sus habitantes ni habla, ni entiende, ni escribe el

idioma Ingle ́s. Donde ma ́s del sesenta por ciento de las familias

vivirı ́an en la da ́diva Federal.

®Esta ́n ustedes dispuestos a retirar de nuestro paı ́s las bases

militares que actualmente existen en Puerto Rico como exige la

definicio ́n de independencia?

Si este proyecto se aprueba tal y como esta ́, cientos de miles de

Puertorriquen ̃ os que atesoran su ciudadanı ́a americana tendrı ́an

que votar por un espejismo, por una fo ́rmula que no es posible,

como es la estadidad o cortar totalmente los lazos de asociacio ́n

entre Puerto Rico y los Estados Unidos, como serı ́a la

independencia.

Sen ̃ ores Congresistas, llego ́ la hora de hablar con la verdad. Ay,

®que ́ ustedes quieren? [Applause] Nos llego ́ la hora a ustedes y a

nosotros. La hora de la mutua determinacio ́n. Puerto Rico y los

autonomistas Puertorriquen ̃ os estamos preparados. Muchas

gracias. [Applause].

Mr. ROMERO-BARCELO ́. That is precisely what the Committee and

the Congress intend to do, to tell the truth, but apparently you

don’t want to listen.

Ms. Benitez.

STATEMENT OF PROFESSOR MARGARITA BENITEZ, AFELA,

SAN JUAN, PUERTO RICO

Ms. BENITEZ. Represento a AFELA, una agrupacio ́n

independiente de mujeres de filiacio ́n autonomista. Hemos

analizado este proyecto como historiadoras, abogadas, cientı ́ficas

sociales, educadoras y servidoras pu ́ blicas que somos.

Documentamos sus imprecisiones, omisiones y exclusiones que se

extienden desde la seccio ́n inicial de hallazgos hasta la seccio ́n final
118

que dispone de fondos que por ley corresponden al Gobierno de

Puerto Rico.

El trabajo de la AFELA esta ́ a la disposicio ́n de ustedes y del

pueblo de Puerto Rico. Mintervencio ́n es el primer resquicio que se

abre en estas vistas para representantes de la sociedad civil, si bien

se abre bajo condiciones francamente onerosas. Las mujeres de la

AFELA venimos a decir que como mujeres y puertorriquen ̃ as

conocemos de sobra la exclusio ́n. Por eso repudiamos que este

proyecto excluya a sectores vitales de nuestra sociedad y

distorsione la trayectoria histo ́rica, jurı ́dica, cultural y lingu ̈ ́ıstica

de la nacio ́n puertorriquen ̃a. Este proyecto pretende excluir la

fo ́rmula de status preferida por los puertorriquen ̃ os por ma ́s de

cuatro de ́cadas. La omitio ́ totalmente en su versio ́n original y sigue

estando ausente de su versio ́n actual. No hay un solo creyente en

el Estado Libre Asociado, no hay un solo votante de los que hemos

ganado todos los plebiscitos celebrados aquı ́ desde 1952 que

reconozca al ELA en los te ́rminos del Proyecto Young.

El Estado Libre Asociado es una fo ́rmula descolonizadora, ası ́

reconocida desde el momento de su formulacio ́n por los ma ́ximos

representantes de los poderes estadounidenses. Es la u ́nica fo ́rmula

descolonizadora alcanzada con e ́xito en la historia de Puerto Rico.

Es adema ́s, como revolucio ́n pacı ́fica, la ma ́s drama ́tica de todas las

luchas llevadas a cabo por nuestro pueblo. Ha hecho posible la

democratizacio ́n polı ́tica, el desarrollo econo ́mico y la afirmacio ́n

cultural de los puertorriquen ̃ os, ingredientes esenciales de todo

proceso aute ́ntico de descolonizacio ́n. Porque la descolonizacio ́n es

un proceso, no una condicio ́n. Quien niegue el proceso

descolonizador puesto en marcha por el Estado Libre Asociado en

Puerto Rico desconoce o falsea nuestra historia y nuestra realidad.

La determinacio ́n de los puertorriquen ̃ os [Applause] . . .

expresada reiteradamente en las urnas, ha sido continuar la

trayectoria innovadora iniciada en los an ̃ os cincuenta. Seguir

haciendo historia y dando ejemplo al mundo de las formas posibles

de colaboracio ́n y convivencia entre una nacio ́n grande y una

nacio ́n pequen ̃ a. Pero el Proyecto Young pasa por alto esta historia

que honra no so ́lo a Puerto Rico, sino a Estados Unidos. Por eso

es que su supuesta gestio ́n descolonizadora es en verdad un acto

colonial y retro ́grado: porque no reconoce la libre determinacio ́n de

los puertorriquen ̃ os manifiesta en sus tres plebiscitos ni tampoco

los logros alcanzados por nuestros dos paı ́ses desde 1952.

Excluido tambie ́n de este proyecto esta ́ el reconocimiento del

espan ̃ ol, nuestra lengua verna ́cula, como la lengua propia de los

puertorriquen ̃ os. Pretender que ingle ́s y espan ̃ ol se han hablado a

la par en Puerto Rico es desconocer o falsear nuestra historia y

realidad lingu ̈ ́ıstica. Reclamar . . . [Applause] que el ingle ́s es

talisma ́n de todos los poderes, como hace este proyecto, que lo

convierte en lengua del gobierno estatal, los tribunales y el sistema

educativo bajo la estadidad, serı ́a hacer de la gran mayorı ́a de los

puertorriquen ̃ os una minorı ́a en su propia tierra. Recuerde esta

comisio ́n congresional la resistencia del pueblo de Puerto Rico

durante la primera mitad de este siglo ante tal pretensio ́n.

Con motivo de las vistas congresionales celebradas aquı ́ en marzo

de 1990, un nutrido grupo de lı ́deres puertorriquen ̃ os publico ́ una

carta abierta titulada, ‘‘Spanish is Not Negotiable,’’ donde se afirma
119

que para el pueblo puertorriquen ̃ o el idioma espan ̃ ol no es

negociable, bajo ninguna circunstancia ni fo ́rmula de status. Entre

los firmantes de esa declaracio ́n esta ́ el actual Gobernador de Puerto Rico y la National Committee Woman del Partido Republicano

de Puerto Rico. [Applause].

Es necesario . . . reconocer que hace tiempo ya que la nacio ́n

puertorriquen ̃ a rebaso ́ sus fronteras islen ̃ as. Un millo ́n de

puertorriquen ̃ os emigro ́ a los Estados Unidos entre 1945 y 1965. En

veinte an ̃ os, una tercera parte de nuestra poblacio ́n. Una de las

migraciones ma ́s grandes en la historia de la humanidad. Este

movimiento migratorio entre Puerto Rico y Estados Unidos es

constante, circular y multitudinario. Actualmente hay 3.5 millones

de Puertorriquen ̃ os en la isla de Puerto Rico y 2.7 en los Estados

Unidos, identificados como tales por ellos mismos en——

Mr. ROMERO-BARCELO ́. Ms. Benı ́tez, do you have much more to

go?

Ms. BENI ́TEZ. No.

Todo el mundo sabe, que identificarse como puertorriquen ̃ o en

Estados Unidos es exponerse a maltrato y prejuicio. Hay que vivir

alla ́ para saber lo que es ser minorı ́a en Estados Unidos. AFELA

sostiene que no se puede excluir de un plebiscito puertorriquen ̃ o a

quienes afirman su puertorriquen ̃idad, no cuando les conviene, sino

cuando les cuesta. A quienes ya han vivido la estadidad en carne

propia, con todas sus ventajas y con sus desventajas y optan por

afirmarse como puertorriquen ̃ os. Los acuerdos y logros principales

de nuestro pueblo so ́lo han sido posibles cuando ha habido

consenso.

Mr. ROMERO-BARCELO ́. Mrs. Benitez, I’m sorry. Time for the rest.

Would you finish up?

Ms. BENITEZ. OK. [Applause—noise] AFELA les invita a que

tengan presente que el consenso no se impone, se alcanza. Hay que

convencer a los puertorriquen ̃ os de la validez y justicia de este

plebiscito. Esto au ́n no ha ocurrido pero puede ocurrir. Por eso

exhortamos a esta Comisio ́ a modificar sus actuales actitudes

autoritarias, a comprometerse a respetar y cumplir la libre

determinacio ́n de los puertorriquen ̃ os y a propiciar la bu ́ squeda de

acuerdos, tanto procesales como de principios, entre los verdaderos

protagonistas de esta historia, que somos nosotros, las

puertorriquen ̃ as y los puertorriquen ̃ os de las dos orillas de una

nacio ́n llamada Puerto Rico, estrechamente vinculada a ustedes,

ma ́s con su indisoluble y propia identidad. Muchas gracias. [Applause]

Mr. ROMERO-BARCELO ́. We do not have time for you to read your

full statement. I expect that you have submitted a full statement

for the record, have you not?

STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE WILLIAM MIRANDA-MARI ́N,

THE MAYOR OF CAGUAS, CAGUAS, PUERTO RICO

Mr. MIRANDA-MARI ́N. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and members of this Committee. I submitted my remarks in English. Now

I will be reading them in Spanish.

Soy William Miranda Marı ́n. Comparezco a esta vista con

relacio ́n al Proyecto H.R. 856 en calidad de Presidente de la
120

Comisio ́n de Estatus del Partido Popular Democra ́tico y como Alcalde de Caguas, la quinta ciudad de mi paı ́s. [Applause].

Comparezco adema ́s como puertorriquen ̃ o que ama y venera a su

patria y a su nacionalidad, y que a la vez—y sin que exista

conflicto alguno entre lo uno y lo otro—defiende y vive

profundamente orgulloso de su ciudadanı ́a americana. Como buen

puertorriquen ̃ o que soy, he dedicado la mayor parte de mi vida al

servicio pu ́ blico, alcanzando cargos importantes en el gobierno de

mi paı ́s y mi ciudad. Como buen ciudadano americano que soy

dedique ́ treinta y cuatro an ̃ os a las fuerzas armadas de Estados

Unidos, ostentando el cargo de suprema responsabilidad en la

Guardia Nacional, el de Ayudante General y retira ́ndome con el

rango de General de Divisio ́n. Como buen puertorriquen ̃ o y buen

ciudadano Americano que soy, quisiera poder decirles hoy que

confı ́o plenamente en que esta Comisio ́n habra ́ de subsanar la

enorme injusticia que se cometerı ́a con este proyecto, de autorı ́a del

Presidente de la Comisio ́n. De ese proyecto, que tal y como esta ́

redactado, constituye una bofetada en el rostro de todos los

puertorriquen ̃ os y que merece el repudio de cada uno de los hijos

de Borinquen que nos preciamos de tener amor propio y orgullo

patrio. Quisiera poder decirles, sen ̃ or Presidente y miembros de la

Comisio ́n, que confı ́o plenamente en ustedes, pero si les dijera esto

les estarı ́a mintiendo. Creo que la Comisio ́n probablemente

aprobara ́ el proyecto con alguna que otra enmienda cosme ́tica. Creo

que los puertorriquen ̃ os que tenemos amor propio y orgullo patrio,

nos veremos obligados a recurrir a otros foros en el Congreso y la

Rama Ejecutiva Federal, quiza ́s au ́n a los tribunales, en defensa de

nuestra dignidad y de nuestra patria. [Applause].

El Proyecto Young tal y como est redactado, desposa.

A Puerto Rico de su esencia autono ́mica, en flagrante desafı ́o a

la voluntad democra ́tica de los puertorriquen ̃ os que creamos el

Estado Libre Asociado entre 1950 y 1952 y lo refrendamos en los

plebiscitos de 1967 y 1993. Privarı ́a a los puertorriquen ̃ os del derecho de votar por la condicio ́n polı ́tica que han favorecido en tres

ocasiones. Ofrecerı ́a al pueblo todas las opciones de estatus

posibles, excepto la opcio ́n que favorecemos los puertorriquen ̃ os. El

Estado Libre Asociado no es ni territorio ni colonia, Sen ̃ or

Presidente y miembros de la Comisio ́n. El Estado Libre Asociado

es soberanı ́a, autonomı ́a, con unio ́n permanente y ciudadanı ́a americana. Ciudadanı ́a . . . [Applause] Ciudadanı ́a . . . [Voices in the

background] Ciudadanı ́a que nos hemos ganado con mucha sangre,

sudor y la ́grimas.

Ma ́s que iro ́nico, resulta doloroso el hecho de que sea

precisamente este an ̃ o, al cumplirse los cien an ̃ os de la Carta

Autono ́mica, cuando los extremistas ineo ́logicos obtener

puertorriquen ̃ os y su aliado en el Congreso, pretenden arrebatarnos

lo que Baldirioty y otros patriotas lograron hacer una nacio ́n mucho

menos democra ́tica de la que ustedes dicen representar.

®Por que ́ se empen ̃ an ustedes, Sen ̃ or Presidente y miembros de

la Comisio ́n, en tratar de destruir al Estado Libre Asociado? ®Es

que no comprenden, que polı ́tica y econo ́micamente el Estado Libre

Asociado es el estatus ma ́s beneficioso para Puerto Rico y los

Estados Unidos? ®Es que no conocen co ́mo Puerto Rico ha logrado

un crecimiento econo ́mico extraordinario en los u ́ltimos cuarenta y
121

cinco an ̃ os, gracias principalmente a la autonomı ́a fiscal que

desaparecerı ́a bajo la estadidad?

Si se privara a Puerto Rico de este instrumento vital de

crecimiento y adema ́s se le impusiera la carga de la tributacio ́n

Federal, se estarı ́a condenando al desempleo y a la miseria a

centenares de miles de puertorriquen ̃ os, obligando a muchos de

ellos a emigrar a Estados Unidos en busca de mejores

oportunidades econo ́micas. Tambie ́n muchos puertorriquen ̃ os que

hoy forman parte del sector productivo del paı ́s, y que representan

una tercera parte de la poblacio ́n, se mancharı ́an ante el peso de

una nueva carga contributiva sin que mejorase significativamente

la calidad de vida. Como resultado de esto verı ́amos convertido en

realidad el tı ́tulo de un libro escrito por un miembro de esta

Comisio ́n, que alegaba que la estadidad serı ́a para los pobres. Lo

que ocurrirı ́a es que bajo la estadidad la pobreza arroparı ́a a todos

los puertorriquen ̃ os Sufrirı ́amos un incremento en la dependencia

en las ayudas pu ́ blicas.

Mr. ROMERO-BARCELO ́. Mr. Miranda, do you have much more to

go?

Mr. MIRANDA-MARI ́N. One minute, 1 minute.

[Applause.]

Con la correspondiente. Erosion de la autoestima de los que

viven de su trabajo sin necesidad de depender de prebendas.

De darse este escenario tan te ́trico, tendrı ́amos que decirle, Sen ̃ or

Presidente y miembros de la Comisio ́n, a aquellos que alegan que

Puerto Rico gozarı ́a de ma ́s soberanı ́a baso la estadidad, que ellos

tienen la razo ́n, pero so ́lo en una cosa. ≠ Serı ́amos el estado

soberano del mantengo.!

El Partido Popular. . . Democra ́tico esta ́ presto a participar en

una consulta plebiscitaria justa, cuya ley habilitadora este ́

fundamentada en el consenso amplio. En una consulta en que el

Congreso se comprometa de antemano y de buena fe en implantar

la alternativa ganadora. En manos de usted esta ́, Sen ̃ or Presidente

y miembros de la Comisio ́n, la opcio ́n de brindarnos a todos los

puertorriquen ̃ os, la oportunidad de participar en un proceso serio

y con perspectivas reales de resolver los problemas del estatus.

Esto se puede lograr rechazando las premisas fundamentales de

esta medida con relacio ́n al Estado Libre Asociado y adoptando la

definicio ́n de este status que hemos sometido. En manos de

ustedes, y de otros en el Congreso y de la Bama Esecutiva Federal

esta ́ esta opcio ́n, como tambie ́n la de privarle de su franquicia electoral, de un plu ̃mazo, a ma ́s de un millo ́n de puertorriquen ̃ os.

Como buen puertorriquen ̃ o y buen ciudadano americano que soy,

ruego a Dios que nunca se llegue a esa encrucijada. Como buen

puertorriquen ̃ o y buen ciudadano americano que soy, los exhorto,

Sen ̃ or Presidente y miembros de la Comisio ́n a ser justos y

respetuosos con Puerto Rico. Los exhorto a abandonar esta

intentona por imponernos la estadidad. ≠ No nos hagan perder

nuestra fe en la democracia Americana! Muchas gracias.

Mr. ROMERO-BARCELO ́. Mr. Agostini.
122

STATEMENT OF JUAN ANTONIO AGOSTINI, PRESIDENT, PAX

CHRISTI-PUERTO RICO, SAN JUAN, PUERTO RICO

Mr. AGOSTINI. Buenos dı ́as. . . Mi nombre es Juan Antonio

Agostini. Vengo en representacio ́n del Movimiento Pax Cristi y su

seccio ́n de Puerto Rico, que es un movimiento Cato ́lico por la paz

a nivel internacional.

Distinguidos visitantes, bienvenidos a nuestro paı ́s. Que la paz

. . . [Applause] basada en la justicia, sea el resultado final de este

proceso de dia ́logo que hoy nos reu ́ne y nos enfrenta. La Iglesia San

Jose ́ data del an ̃ o 1537. Es la ma ́s antigua de Puerto Rico. Hoy, al

trabajar por la autodeterminacio ́n para nuestro paı ́s, mire ́mosla

como un sı ́mbolo del impacto que sobre la vida de nuestra gente ha

tenido la intervencio ́n de Estados Unidos en nuestra tierra. Hasta

1898, esta histo ́rica capilla habı ́a sido testigo de co ́mo se habı ́a

plasmado durante siglos una nacionalidad distinta, consciente y

orgullosa de sı ́ misma, la nacionalidad puertorriquen ̃a. Pero el 12

de mayo de aquel an ̃ o, esa misma iglesia fue tambie ́n testigo de

co ́mo once barcos de guerra del Escuadro ́n del Atla ́ntico Norte de

Estados Unidos bombardearon por ma ́s de tres horas nuestra ciudad de San Juan. Ma ́s de 1,300 can ̃ onazos erra ́ticos, ocasionaron

pocas muertes pero causaron dan ̃ o considerable a bastantes

edificaciones. Una de ellas, fue la Iglesia San Jose ́, alcanzada y

penetrada por balas de mortero, que abrieron un enorme boquete

en su fachada. Poco despue ́s, el 25 de julio, nos invadieron por

Gua ́nica. No fue un plebiscito, ni un refere ́ndum, ni una ley de

Congreso, ni un pacto bilateral, ni un malentendido. Bombardeo e

invasio ́n fueron el primer impacto de la intervencio ́n de Estados

Unidos en nuestra tierra. Hoy, al repensar este siglo, queda claro

que la razo ́n principal de Estados Unidos para su intervencio ́n y

permanencia aquı ́ ha sido el militarismo. Hasta cambios que se

anunciaron como pasos de desarrollo polı ́tico, independientemente

de cualquier beneficio que trajeran en el momento, se dieron en

funcio ́n de los intereses militares norteamericanos. Dos ejemplos:

En 1917, con la ciudadanı ́a Americana, tambie ́n nos llego ́ el

reclutamiento militar y el envı ́o de nuestros jo ́venes a la Primera

Guerra Mundial y por supuesto, a las dema ́s guerras. En 1952, se

proclama el Estado Libre Asociado como el fin del colonialismo que

hoy seguimos discutiendo aquı ́. Y amparado en eso, Estados Unidos

pide a las Naciones Unidos que saquen a Puerto Rico de la lista

de territorios coloniales y los eximan a ellos de rendir informes

sobre su administracio ́n del territorio. Si recordamos que para esos

mismos an ̃ os, Estados Unidos realizaba una gigantesca expansio ́n

militar en Puerto Rico, caemos en cuenta de que lo principal no era

descolonizar, que no se hizo, sino evitar, que sı ́ se evito ́, dar

informes a la ONU, que llegaran a manos de la Unio ́n Sovie ́tica y

de China, sus contrapartes en la Guerra Frı ́a. Pero no es so ́lo el

militarismo. Toda la vida puertorriquen ̃ a esta ́ impactada con la

presencia e influencia del poderı ́o norteamericano, con el Congreso

Congreso Congreso, Casa Blanca, Justicia, el Penta ́gono y sus

respectivas ramificaciones reteniendo sin nuestra participacio ́n ni

consentimiento, la suprema autoridad sobre el comercio, industria,

banca, asuntos laborales, transportacio ́n, comunicaciones, la forma

de relacionarnos con otros paı ́ses y otros aspectos de nuestra vida

de pueblo. Esto no es justo.
123

La historia tiene prisa. Es hora de que los Estados Unidos

asuman la responsabilidad histo ́rica que contrajeron cuando nos

invadieron, nos militarizaron, nos dividieron hasta el tue ́tano (como

vemos hoy aquı ́) y trastornaron nuestra visio ́n de nosotros mismos.

Pero la solucio ́n no esta ́ en imponernos un plebiscito ma ́s sin darle

al paı ́s las herramientas de soberanı ́a y de consenso para entender

mejor sus opciones y ejercer ma ́s libremente su derecho.

Cualquier futura consulta de status, debe estar precedida por un

proceso de dia ́logo abierto, entre los poderes oficiales de Estados

Unidos y los sectores de opinio ́n en Puerto Rico, incluyendo pero no

limita ́ndose a los partidos polı ́ticos. Y hay que sen ̃ alar claramente,

desde ya.

Mr. ROMERO-BARCELO ́. The testimonies that were given here,

this panel, are to be translated into English, all of them, and put

forth before the Nation, the United States, in all of the 50 States.

It would seem that, to me, the people residing in those United

States would ask, why do they really want U.S. citizenship, in

Puerto Rico? They underline, in between the lines, it seems it is a

rejection to the United States. And yet you also claim you want

U.S. citizenship.

How can you explain that to the people that elect the Congressmen and the Senators? How can you explain that, to anyone: How

do you expect the U.S. to accept Puerto Rico and give Puerto Rico

U.S. citizenship when the underlying statements of those under the

so-called New Commonwealth are rejecting the United States in

the way they speak?

The way you have spoken here, in this panel, it comes across like

a dislike for the United States, like you want to be separate, a different nation, a different nationality. Why then do you want the

citizenship of the United States? Explain it.

Sr. Agostini, ®ya—pasaron cinco minutos?

Mr. AGOSTINI. Yo no terminado. Y ha habido tiempo para la

griterı ́a. [Applause.] Yo le digo que habre ́ de terminar en breve.

Mr. ROMERO-BARCELO ́. Can you finish it up——

Mr. AGOSTINI. [continuing] y hay que sen ̃ alar claramente desde

ya, que en un asunto tan fundamental como determinar nuestro

destino de pueblo, sean solamente los que se juegan su vida, su hacienda y sus suen ̃ os con este terrun ̃ o y con ningu ́n otro quienes

participen y decidan lo que somos y lo que seremos. Somos todavı ́a

una familia dividida e indecisa sobre nuestro destino. Pero si en

algo estamos todos los puertorriquen ̃ os profundamente de acuerdo,

es en que somos un paı ́s, somos un pueblo. Y nos une la firme e

inderrotable voluntad de sobrevivir y de jama ́s entregar o diluir

nuestra propia identidad. Quiera Dios que este proceso nos sirva

para encontrarnos a nosotros mismos y para cultivar una nueva y

sana relacio ́n de amistad permanente con Estados Unidos, al igual

que con otros pueblos. Con la ayuda de Dios, lo lograremos. Muchas

gracias.

[Applause.]

Honorable compatriota—[Applause] Honorable compatriota [Applause] Don Carlos Romero, quiero pedirle algo en a ́nimo de que

nuestro pueblo que esta ́ viendo estas vistas—seguramente ma ́s de

un millo ́n de personas nos esta ́ viendo. De ese millo ́n de personas,

la inmensa mayorı ́a de ellos no ha entendido lo que usted ha dicho.
124

[Applause] Al congresista Young yo no le puedopedir aquı ́ que

hable espan ̃ ol pero a usted sı ́. Yo le pedirı ́a a usted que hable

espan ̃ ol que nuestro pueblo entienda. (Applause)

Mr. ROMERO-BARCELO ́. Con muchı ́simo gusto.

Mr. AGOSTINI. Sera ́ en beneficio de todos.

Mr. ROMERO-BARCELO ́. Con muchı ́simo gusto, con mucho gusto.

[Applause continues]. Yo quiero. . . Le pregunto. . . Le pregunto al

panel que co ́mo les podemos explicar si lo que han dicho en

Espan ̃ ol aquı ́ . . . se tradujera para toda la nacio ́n, para todos los

ciudadanos de los cincuenta estados alla ́ . . . si en la forma de la

entrepalabra se siente en las expresiones de este panel, un gran

rechazo, un rechazo a la nacio ́n de los Estados Unidos, porque

quieren una nacio ́n separada. [Response from the public] (Por que ́

entonces, co ́mo se les puede explicar ante ese rechazo que hay,

como que no les gusta lo que es lo Americano, por que ́ quieren la

ciudadanı ́a americana. (Co ́mo les vamos a poder decir a los

ciudadanos de alla ́, de los estados de la unio ́n [Response from the

public] La unio ́n [inaudible] . . . ®quie ́n. . . Quie ́n me da la palabra?

Los que le van a hablar . . . ®co ́mo se les va a decir a los ciudadanos

que eligen. . . Co ́mo se les va a decir a los ciudadanos que eligen a

los congresistas y a los senadores, que se va a darle seria

consideracio ́n a una relacio ́n con unos que esta ́n pidiendo la

ciudadanı ́a americana pero al mismo tiempo rechazan ser

americanos? Y que quieren igualdad en los beneficios, pero no

quieren pagar contribuciones sobre ingresos. Yo no estoy en [inaudible] [Response from the public] ®Co ́mo se le explica alla ́ a los

que votan por los congresistas de los?

Mr. AGOSTINI. Sen ̃ or Comisionado, si nos permite, estamos

interesados en contestar.

Mr. ROMERO-BARCELO ́. Vamos a escuchar, vamos a [inaudible]

[Response from the public continues].

Mr. VIZCARRONDO. Tiene que [inaudible] . . .

Mr. ROMERO-BARCELO ́. Vamos a escuchar . . .

Mr. VIZCARRONDO. Sı ́, primero muchas gracias sen ̃ or

Comisionado para. . . Porque haya considerado y respondido a una

peticio ́n del compan ̃ ero Agostini de que se dirigiera en espan ̃ ol

porque es importante . . . para el futuro del pueblo de Puerto Rico

que esta ́ mirando estas vistas, que nos entendamos. Yo creo que eso

es el propo ́sito. En esa direccio ́n, es bien importante para que

podamos entender nos, que los hermanos puertorriquen ̃ os de todos

los partidos nos permita entendernos. Yo le respondo con el mayor

de los respetos, que su preocupacio ́n parte de una premisa

prejuzgada, o sea, parte de la premisa de que nosotros los

puertorriquen ̃ os no estamos ostentando una relacio ́n de asociacio ́n

entre Puerto Rico y los Estados Unidos, digna desde 1952 y que no

somos ciudadanos norteamericanos. Es que sı ́ lo somos. O sea, no

estamos viniendo aquı ́ en esta man ̃ana, a plantear una cosa que es

nueva y que usted escucha por primera vez. Desde 1952, hemos

vivido eso bajo el Estado Libre Asociado y en 1953, los

representantes de la nacio ́n Norteamericana fueron a decirle al

mundo que esa relacio ́n que se habı ́a establecido en 1952, era una

relacio ́n digna. Faltaba el ejercicio de la soberanı ́a que esto solo

para decidirse por todo, y que debı ́a ser reconocida

internacionalmente, de manera que el hecho de que estemos
125

reafirmando nuestra condicio ́n de ser ciudada-ciudadanos

puertorriquen ̃ os, orgullosos de nuestra cultura, de nuestro idioma

verna ́ culo Espan ̃ ol. Eso en medida alguna, implica que nosotro- que

nosotros estamos rechazando la ciudadanı ́a Norteamericana que

nosotros hemos tenido desde 1917 por un acto unilateral del

Gobierno de Estados Unidos, pero que esto el pueblo de Puerto Rico

tuvo la oportunidad de rechazar y sin embargo, lo puso como una

parte fundamental de su constitucio ́n. Finales, cuando la derogo ́ en

1952. [Applause] Se me acabo ́ el. . . Se me acabo ́ el tiempo en esta

ronda, pero para el re ́cord de ́jeme aclarar que cuando fueron a las

Naciones Unidas, los Estados Unidos le mintio ́ a las Naciones

Unidas y al mundo entero, en confabulacio ́n con el Gobierno de

Puerto Rico. [Response from the public]. Sen ̃ or Comisionado. . .,

sen ̃ or Comisionado . . .

Mr. VIZCARRONDO. Sen ̃ or Comisionado.

Mr. BHATIA. [English] Mr. Chairman, Mr. Young.

Mr. ROMERO-BARCELO ́. Mr. Young, now, please.

Mr. YOUNG. In this profession, we are to be honorable. That is

two things that we have to keep in mind. And I run a much different Committee in Congress than you may run in your legislative

body. I made my decision that I would let each member chair a

panel. I was here to hear your testimony. Never impinge my motives.

One of the things I think you have to keep in mind that concerns

me a great deal is, if the Puerto Ricans are deciding which status

they would take, be it an independent Nation or be it Commonwealth, or be it a State, I think it has to be defined what each one

can and cannot do, the good and the bad.

Now, I am from what was a native territory, and we became the

49th State. We do pass our economic laws. We do offer tax-free investment. We do not have an income tax. We do this because we

are a State and we have that authority.

What I am trying to stress here: Do not convey a message of

what one side can or cannot do.

What concerns me the most and the reason I got interested in

this 5 years ago is, we see coming down the pike this year, this

month in Congress, eliminating your—because you have been extended through the will of Congress certain tax ability, no taxes,

tax incentives, contracting, that is being taken away from.

Question, if the Congress has the ability to take that away from

you and you don’t have the ability under Commonwealth to impose

incentives, which you have to go through the Congress to do so,

how are you going to benefit the people of Puerto Rico?

The people in the audience may not realize, I am trying to find

out answers, listening to this program. I just want to find out

how——

Mr. BHATIA. If I may, Congressman.

First, Mr. Chairman, you have raised three different points, and

I would like to address each one of them.

Mr. YOUNG. Within my timeframe.

Mr. BHATIA. Yes, very briefly.

First, we have been discussing in Puerto Rico something called

the Young bill, which you yourself wrote, or someone on your Committee, but you are the author of the bill. And it just strikes us that
126

whenever someone from the Commonwealth side is speaking, in

Washington or here, you are not here to preside. And what we are

saying is, we are not here to address—with all due respect to the

other members, we would like to have a frank and honest discussion with you. You are the author of the bill.

Mr. YOUNG. And we are having that discussion. And by the way,

when you are testifying, we cannot discuss it. It makes no difference who is sitting in the chair. I have made this promise, and

I am working with my people, and I am going to continue to do

that.

Mr. ROMERO-BARCELO ́. Vamos a tener—vamos a demostrar—una

demostracio ́n de como se comporta el pueblo de Puerto Rico.

Vamos—estos es unas vistas congresionales—quiza ́s hay

congresistas que han venido aquı ́ a——

Mr. YOUNG. My time is running out. Let him finish with the

question.

Mr. BHATIA. My point is, you don’t pay income tax in Alaska for

a very good reason, because of your natural resource.

Mr. YOUNG. We did not have a natural resource at that time.

Mr. BHATIA. You have natural gas, something we don’t have in

Puerto Rico.

Mr. YOUNG. But if the Congress is taking away your tax benefits

today, and which they are going to do in the Ways and Means

Committee, how can you provide the economic base which you have

had in the past? You are losing that.

Mr. BHATIA. Again, with all due respect, I don’t think you understand the tax structure of Puerto Rico. Congress cannot take away

the tax incentives of Puerto Rico. The local tax incentives cannot

be taken away, the local tax incentives in Puerto Rico.

What Congress can do, and did with its support of the administration in Puerto Rico, was take away an incentive called 936,

which was not a Puerto Rican incentive, it was a U.S. incentive

which deals with the money repatriated back to the U.S.

We in Puerto Rico, as a result of our autonomy, we rule in terms

of our taxes in Puerto Rico. We give tax credits to all corporations

in Puerto Rico that we wish. It has nothing to do with the U.S.

Congress. In fact, I invite you or any Member of Congress who

wants to change the law in terms of local—local—authority over

tax matters to go ahead and do it. The next day, we will file a suit

in court.

Mr. YOUNG. And what Puerto Rico and Alaska have in common

is a lot of lawyers.

Mr. BHATIA. That is right.

Mr. ROMERO-BARCELO ́. Mr. Miller.

Mr. MILLER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I am not sure this forum is turning out to be the best way for

us to transmit information back and forth, and so I, too, would like

to submit questions in writing.

But I would also say that, again, I have a very strong belief that

the three principal parties, if you will, and the people who support

those parties have a very strong right to define that relationship

which they support with respect to the United States. The question

will then be whether or not the Congress will go along with that

or not go along with that in terms of approving the plebiscite and
127

then later the responses to that plebiscite. But that is in the natural of the give and take.

I think it is very important that as we start this process, that

the Congress not be like the butcher who has his thumb on the

scale, here, to get the results that we want.

I think what it ought to be is that this is a long, historical, political debate within Puerto Rico, and it ought to manifest itself on

the ballot if the plebiscite is to be real. And then, there is an old

saying, be careful what you wish for, because you may get it. And

then the Congress will decide, and the Congress may, in fact, not

go along.

I think we all know that this is a situation where we feel more

optimistic than ever that the Congress would agree to sanctioning

a plebiscite and, in its name, offering that opportunity to Puerto

Rico. But it is not a done deal in terms of the final results.

We can argue forever about these definitions, but eventually, we,

as members of the Committee, and later the House and the Senate,

will make the final determinations because it will be about whether we are able to secure the votes to move the plebiscite forward

or not.

But at the outset, I believe the definition that you, the various

parties, agree to, you put them in the bill and you see where that

takes you.

But that does not—that is not a suggestion that the Congress

will not work its will, whether they stay in the bill or not, because

I think clearly the Congress will have some concerns that have

been expressed here today with some of the provisions in the various definitions. But again, at least the process started out with the

people who are, you know, the parties of interest getting to define

the basis on which they want to proceed. I think that is the most

important thing that can be done here.

I have some questions I am concerned about. Again, I have spoken to some of you before. I am very concerned about this process

being stretched out for such a long period of time that the Congress—and I am more worried about the Congress than I am about

the people of Puerto Rico, but the Congress loses its commitment.

We could go through a series of elections, new reapportionment in

the Congress that could change the dynamics, and I am worried,

if the period of that is too long, nothing will come of this.

But again, I would like to articulate that in writing and ask for

your various responses about that.

I am also concerned about the participation. Mr. Serrano has

raised concerns about the participation of people residing in the

United States and—but I will put those forth in a written statement.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the time.

Mr. COLON. Congressman, we are fully supportive of your positions, all of them, that you have stated here.

Mr. ROMERO-BARCELO ́. Mr. Kennedy.

Mr. KENNEDY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

My feeling is that what is happening now in the current Commonwealth status is unfair, the status quo is unfair to the people

of Puerto Rico, because the President can call them up to fight in

our wars and yet they can’t choose to have—they cannot choose who
128

they want as their commander in chief. They have—we in the Congress and on this Committee decide whether you are going to have

a referendum or not to decide your own future, and not you. And

I don’t think that is fair. And that is the nature of the territorial

clause that Puerto Rico currently is governed under, and that is

the reason why this Committee is set up the way it is.

What seems to be taking place here is the misunderstanding of

what happened in the past.

Mr. ROMERO-BARCELO ́. Excuse me. Voy a pedirle que por favor

se—aquellos tres jo ́venes que esta ́n alla ́, que por favor mantendejen de estar chistando entre ustedes y—vamos a escuchar, que

todo el mundo tambie ́n quiere escuchar lo que tiene que decir el

Congresista Kennedy y escuchar lo que van a decir los paneles.

[Applause.]

Mr. KENNEDY. So the question is, how do we get out from underneath? You might be U.S. citizens in some respects, but you are severely limited in the full definition of what a United States citizen

is, and that is what needs to be changed. That is why I believe that

you ought to have the full rights and privileges of United States

citizenship.

But in the history of this relationship between Puerto Rico and

the United States, it has gotten confused, because what happened

in 1917 was, you were given full United States citizenship, but in

1922 the Supreme Court defined that as limited only to the fundamental protections. OK, but it not applying to commerce and trade,

and that is why you have that kind of unique status. But it was

never changed by the Congress, so you were limited according to

that Supreme Court decision.

And in 1953, which is what we keep hearing reference to, that

was never—whatever was decided, the Congress never changed the

position of Puerto Rico under the territorial clause, and I know

that is where the rub is.

The rub is in 1953, because it was understood by the people of

Puerto Rico that the colonialism had ended, that the situation was

that it was gone. But it wasn’t until 1960 that the definition of

‘‘anticolonialism’’ was put forth by the United Nations. And guess

what, the estado libre asociado was not defined under the United

Nations as ending colonialism. They had three definitions.

I really, honestly want—I really feel—I really, really feel for the

dilemma that you are in. The debate that is taking place right now,

I really feel for it. The United Nations has given—this is the

United Nations, this isn’t the United States, this is the United Nations—has defined the end of colonialism in three ways, and those

three ways that are defined by the United Nations are contained

in this bill.

Now, that is why I am not—you know, Chairman Young didn’t

make this up; no one made this up. This is what the United Nations said is the way in which you end colonialism. Now, if that is

the way United Nations defined it, then you need to take your case

to the United Nations to say, wait a second, there is something else

called estado libre asociado. But until the United Nations recognizes estado libre asociado, it is not an end to colonialism.

Now, if you could tell me what the difference is, please, please,

give me some feedback, because I really want to do what is right
129

for Puerto Rico. This is what the United Nations said is the way

to end colonialism.

Mr. ROMERO-BARCELO ́. Los aplausos—lo que hacen es eliminar,

reducir el tiempo y no nos permite a los Congresistas, escuchar lo

que digan los panelistas o darles el tiempo au ́n suficiente a los

panelistas para que puedan tambie ́n hablar mμs extensamente

sobre el asunto que se le ha preguntado. Vamos a pedir su

cooperacio ́n para que se pueda aprovechar ese—el tiempo.

Mr. COLON. Congressman, the relationship between Puerto Rico

and the United States was submitted to the U.N. in 1953. It was

approved by the U.N. at that time under Resolution 748. There was

a list of factors that the U.N. applied to the Puerto Rican case at

that time.

Basically, the changes since 1960 have not been that many, and

from 1960 on, we have had a motion by Cuba, an annual motion

by Cuba, to declare the relationship between Puerto Rico and the

United States a colonial relationship, and to this date Resolution

748 stands.

That is, in spite of the fact that the decolonization Committee

has heard the case of Puerto Rico throughout the years, it has

never gotten the General Assembly to reverse Resolution 748 recognizing that the relationship we have with the United States is a

noncolonial relationship. So that is the law at the present moment.

However, I would like to say in that resolution there is a very

important paragraph, which is the last paragraph, which said that

the U.N. expected that this relationship could evolve and changes

could be made in the future. And the supporters of Commonwealth

believe that the compact, although it is valid, needs changing and

needs adapting to the current times.

So this is why we propose a new Commonwealth, in order to

solve the problems that you see. But we try to solve them within

the context of autonomy, which is gaining power for Puerto Rico,

empowering Puerto Rico to deal with its problems itself, through

its own democratic processes here, while it maintains the link

through citizenship with the United States.

In that sense, I would like to say that we do not shrink from our

responsibilities as to citizenship. When we speak about Puerto

Ricans going to war, we don’t speak of statehooders as going to

war, we speak about all Puerto Ricans who are American citizens.

And so what we are trying to do is work out a relationship that

will be adjusted to the current times and which will allow us to

maintain our citizenship and at the same time to govern ourselves

under a broader autonomy here in Puerto Rico in ways consistent

with our culture and our particular nationality. That is it.

Mr. ROMERO-BARCELO ́. Mr. Underwood.

Mr. KENNEDY. I just want to say, for that to be worked out, it

has to be a bilateral, liberal relationship, understand. But under

the current relationship, it is a unilateral relationship, because the

mechanism in the United States Constitution through which we

deal with unincorporated territories is the Territorial Clause, and

that wasn’t changed in 1953 after the United Nations didn’t take

on the language that you said.

If you go back and look at the Congressional Record, as much as

there may have been an understanding that the United States bar-
130

gained and said, OK, we will have an equal relationship here, no

one could misunderstand what was really happening in the Congress at that time, because in the Congress at that time everyone

understood Puerto Rico as a territory. And now, I don’t agree with

that notion, but that is the way it was legally decided at the time.

Mr. ROMERO-BARCELO ́. We have to go to the next panel member.

I will give you time. Mr. Underwood can give you time.

Mr. UNDERWOOD. Let me contextualize my question; and we will

give you an opportunity to respond to the general issue, which is—

I assume the general issue is, does the territorial clause apply to

Puerto Rico?

And my question, which, obviously, has implications for me—but,

as I understand it, we normally talk about colonies and then we

talk about the process of decolonization, and in the United Nations

prescription that process of decolonization calls for either full integration, which is statehood, and free association and outright independence.

Now the discussion has always focused, when I hear statements

from representatives of the political party that you represent, Governor, that Puerto Rico is in a noncolonial status. We think of it

as bipolar opposites. We are either a slave or we are free. We are

either a colony or we are in a state of freedom. But it seems like

we are in a midpoint here, something that we call noncolonial.

Is it your understanding—and just be as clear as you can. Is it

your understanding that the territorial clause applies to Puerto

Rico? And, as a followup to that, the president of your party in the

earlier panel listed out a series of things as part of the definition

for the PDP’s contribution to the ballot, and he listed them as aspirations. Is it your impression or is it your understanding that the

application of the territorial clause is not elastic enough to accommodate the aspirations of the political plan that is implicit in that

definition?

Mr. COLON. I think the Committee is allowing itself to get into

a legalistic, semantic trap under this whole discussion regarding

the territorial clause.

I believe that the matter of governing Puerto Rico goes beyond

the territorial clause, and it relates to the inherent powers of the

United States to govern a territory which it acquired through military occupation, through the invasion of Puerto Rico in 1989.

It is a power, which if it were not in that clause, it would attain

to the Federal Government anyway; and it has been recognized as

an inherent power of government by the Supreme Court of the

United States. It is a power that the United States would have to

exercise in order to comply with international treaties, such as the

treaty of the United Nations, where the United States committed

itself to govern Puerto Rico in a way as to bring it to full self-government.

What I am basically saying is that the relationship between the

United States and Puerto Rico stems from a power that is much

broader than the restrictive meaning of the territorial power and

the absolute powers of Congress to deal with territories under that

particular clause. And under these broader powers a satisfactory

democratic arrangement can be worked out for the benefit of both

Puerto Rico and the United States.
131

Mr. UNDERWOOD. Now, in terms of the specific plan listed as a

definition of commonwealth, or as a position, aspirations—actually,

the term used was aspirations—then you are saying that you agree

with the assumption that is given here inside the legislation that

the territorial clause is not elastic enough to accommodate that

plan.

Mr. COLON. I am saying that the Congress has the power to accommodate that plan; and if we want to go to the territorial clause

and apply it in a restrictive way, you might come to the conclusion

that it is not elastic enough. But what I am saying is get out from

under the territorial clause.

Mr. UNDERWOOD. I understand that point.

One last point. I just wanted to confirm your answers to Mr. Miller’s earlier question. You agree with the notion that you are free

to describe commonwealth in the ballot and understand that Congress could work its will in terms of that definition.

In other words, in the long haul, in the political processes of Congress, that definition and the aspirations that are part of that definition may not come to pass.

Mr. COLON. Basically, we are saying that we have put forward

a definition which meets all of our aspirations. Now we realize that

we are engaged in a political process and that at some point the

Congress might not agree with us fully on everything that is in

that definition. Now what we say is, if that comes about, it will be

because of a political decision of the Congress, not because of legal

constraints to the Congress, that impede the Congress from coming

to this agreement that we want.

Mr. UNDERWOOD. Thank you.

Mr. ROMERO-BARCELO ́. Thank you very much.

Now we have the next panel.

Mr. UNDERWOOD. [Presiding.] I would like to call the next panel

up, please.

The Honorable Manuel Rodriguez-Orellana, the Honorable

Damaris Mangual Velez, Professor Edwin Irizarry-Mora, Mr.

Emilio A. Soler Mari, Mr. Eduardo Morales-Coll, and Mr. Manuel

Fermin Arraiza.

Due to the limitations on time and because we want to make

sure that everybody gets their opportunity not only to express

themselves but a full opportunity for members of the Committee to

address important questions, we will try to adhere to the 5-minute

rule as much as possible.

Mr. UNDERWOOD. I will begin with the Honorable Manuel

Rodriguez-Orellana.

STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE MANUEL RODRIGUEZORELLANA, DESIGNEE FOR THE MINORITY LEADER OF THE

SENATE-PUERTO RICAN INDEPENDENCE PARTY, SENATE OF

PUERTO RICO, SAN JUAN, PUERTO RICO

Mr. RODRIGUEZ-ORELLANA. Sen ̃ or Presidente y sen ̃ ores miembros

de esta Comisio ́n, ustedes tienen una versio ́n al Ingle ́s del texto de

mi ponencia eh. . . Para el beneficio de mis compatriotas, lo voy a

leer en Espan ̃ ol.

Soy Manuel Rodrı ́guez Orellana y comparezco ante ustedes en

representacio ́n del Senador Rube ́n Berrı ́os Martı ́nez, quien sen ̃ alo ́
132

el mes pasado, unas a ́ reas en que el proyecto que esta ́ bajo vuestra

consideracio ́n deberı ́a modificarse para hacerlo ma ́s justo y ma ́s

balanceado.

Mi objetivo en esta intervencio ́n sera ́ elaborar la posicio ́n del

Partido Independentista Puertorriquen ̃ o traı ́da por el Senador

Berrı ́os en torno a la reduccio ́n del plazo de tiempo para la

implantacio ́n de las diversas opciones que se consideran.

El proyecto como esta ́, dispone que los Puertorriquen ̃ os

esperemos diez o quince an ̃ os para implantar la independencia o la

estadidad, despue ́s de un voto mayoritario. En aras de una

supuesta simetrı ́a, cuya funcio ́n es meramente decorativa, se

pretende tratar a la independencia y a la estadidad como si fueran

iguales, cuando no lo son. Propongo por tanto que los

puertorriquen ̃ os, no tengamos que esperar ma ́s que lo demasiado

que ya hemos esperado para la disfrutar de la independencia, para

la que de conformidad con el derecho internacional tenemos un derecho inalienable. Tan pronto nuestro pueblo reclame su derecho a

la independencia, no debe coloca ́ rsele obsta ́ culo alguno al libre

ejercicio de su libertad nacional y tras la consulta que este proyecto

propone para el pro ́ximo an ̃ o, se debe implantar a trave ́s de una

asamblea constituyente, la proclamacio ́n de nuestra soberanı ́a

antes de las pro ́ximas elecciones generales del an ̃ o 2000. La

transicio ́n econo ́mica, desde luego, debe ocurrir entonces bajo la

independencia. Puerto Rico ya ha padecido noventa y nueve an ̃ os

de colonialismo estadounidense.

Por fin, un organismo oficial del Congreso de Estados Unidos,

ustedes en esta Comisio ́n, admitieron hace un an ̃ o lo que el Partido

Independentista Puertorriquen ̃ o ha venido diciendo por los u ́ltimos

cuarenta y cinco, que nuestra condicio ́n es colonial y que Estados

Unidos no ha cumplido con su obligacio ́n de descolonizar ni bajo el

derecho internacional ni bajo el derecho dome ́stico constitucional de

los Estados Unidos.

Pero todavı ́a hay otros, hay otros sobre todo aquı ́ en Puerto Rico,

que pretenden justificar nuestro status territorial bajo la

Constitucio ́n de Estados Unidos alegando consentimiento, ≠ Como si

la esclavitud por consentimiento dejara de ser esclavitud! La

condicio ́n colonial de Puerto Rico no deja de ser coloniaje y la

obligacio ́n de descolonizar subsiste au ́n con el consentimiento.

Pero yo quiero apartarme un momento del texto para hacer un

comentario aquı ́. Y es que no veo—y no tiene ningu ́n sentido, y

desvirtu ́ a por completo el objetivo de esta legislacio ́n—que la

misma insista en incluir un Estado Libre Asociado colonial y territorial como el que tenemos, como opcio ́n en el propuesto plebiscito,

aunque sea por un tiempo limitado, aunque sea con plebiscitos

perio ́dicos. La afirmacio ́n del coloniaje lo que hace es que mantiene

el coloniaje. El problema no puede ser la solucio ́n.

Por otro lado, el caso de la estadidad es diferente al de la

independencia. La independencia de Puerto Rico es como sen ̃ ale ́

anteriormente, un derecho inalienable. Pero la estadidad no. Por

eso ustedes en el Congreso pueden imponer las condiciones que

ustedes estimen pertinentes en el caso de la estadidad, a base de

las expectativas que ustedes tengan. Ustedes deben decir co ́mo debe

ser Puerto Rico como estado, en que ́ idioma o en que ́ idiomas,

cua ́nto deben aportar, y co ́mo va a contribuir esto a la paz social
133

de los Estados Unidos. Por lo tanto, aunque parezcan duros o

antipa ́ticos para algunos los te ́rminos y condiciones de transicio ́n o

implantacio ́n de la estadidad que ustedes impongan, estos deben

reflejar claramente sus expectativas.

Hace siete an ̃ os, el Senador Moynihan explico ́ clara y

dia ́fanamente las suyas, en el contexto de los proyectos que se

presentaban entonces. Dijo, y cito en ingle ́s: ‘‘In the end, the great

issues involved here are civic, not economic. Do the people of Puerto Rico wish to become Americans? For that is what statehood ineluctably implies. That is what statehood brings.’’

Evidentemente, la aceptacio ́n o rechazo de una posible peticio ́n

de estadidad no tendrı ́a ni que esperar ser presentada. Pero para

que no se fomenten falsas ilusiones ni se juegue con las

aspiraciones de la inmensa mayorı ́a de los puertorriquen ̃ os, que

todos quieren seguir siendo puertorriquen ̃ os, la contestacio ́n si

algu ́n dı ́a se plantea la pregunta, debe ser ra ́pida y debe ser lo

menos dolorosa posible.

Por eso, cualquier rechazo congresional, en cualquier etapa, a

cualquier propuesta de transicio ́n o de implantacio ́n de la

estadidad, debe considerarse inmediatamente como una

denegatoria, porque si despue ́s de un siglo todavı ́a ustedes o

nosotros tenemos alguna duda de si una nacio ́n latinoamericana,

cariben ̃ a, que habla espan ̃ ol y quiere retener su identidad e

integridad cultural cabe dentro de la unio ́n americana como estado

o no, no debemos seguir perdiendo el tiempo. No debemos seguir

alargando la incertidumbre. Vamos a pasar ahora a cosas mejores,

a un futuro mejor y no ma ́s colonia.

Estoy, desde luego, en la mejor disposicio ́n de trabajar con

ustedes de inmediato para buscar el lenguaje legislativo apropiado

que refleje los objetivos que he mencionado en esta ponencia.

Muchas gracias.

Mr. UNDERWOOD. Thank you, Mr. Rodriguez.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Rodriguez-Orellana follows:]
134
135
136
137
138

Mr. UNDERWOOD. Madam Damaris.

STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE DAMARIS MANGUAL VELEZ,

DESIGNEE FOR THE HOUSE MINORITY LEADER-PUERTO

RICAN INDEPENDENCE PARTY, PUERTO RICO HOUSE OF

REPRESENTATIVES, SAN JUAN, PUERTO RICO

Ms. MANGUAL VELEZ. Buenas tardes sen ̃ ores miembros de esta

Comisio ́n. Comparece ante ustedes Damaris/Mangual Ve ́lez,

Comisionada Electoral del Partido Independentista Puertorriquen ̃ o.

En la tarde de hoy discutire ́ el tema de quie ́nes deben votar en el

plebiscito y los mecanismos electorales que son necesarios para

instrumentar la ley que se apruebe. Solo los Puertorriquen ̃ os

tenemos el derecho a decidir el destino polı ́tico de nuestro paı ́s. Es

evidente que solo los nacionales pueden votar para ejercer ese derecho a la autodeterminacio ́n.

El pueblo que participe en el plebiscito tiene que ser un pueblo

diferente al pueblo que participa en las elecciones cada cuatro an ̃ os

porque es una eleccio ́n diferente. Es parte de la autodeterminacio ́n

de un pueblo. Y si participan los que no son de ese pueblo, entonces

no es autodeterminacio ́n.

Entre los nacionales de Puerto Rico se cuentan los nacidos en

Puerto Rico y aquellos cuyos padres hayan nacido en Puerto Rico,

aunque residan fuera de Puerto Rico, pero manifiesten su deseo de

regresar.

En la ley del plebiscito que se apruebe, la nacionalidad debe ser

el requisito esencial para votar. El Congreso puede establecer estos

para ́metros a tenor con la responsabilidad que le impone la

cla ́usula territorial para reglamentar y disponer del territorio.

En cuanto a los puertorriquen ̃ os que residen en el exterior,

algunos alegan que desde el punto de vista administrativo, es

imposible formalizar dicho voto. Sin embargo, los electores

fa ́ cilmente pueden llenar una solicitud de participacio ́n en las

oficinas de correos y devolverlas a la Comisio ́n Estatal de

Elecciones, donde serı ́a cualificada con la correspondiente prueba

de nacimiento del elector solicitante. Luego, la propia Comisio ́n le

enviarı ́a directamente al elector la papeleta de votacio ́n.

En el caso de los nacionales residentes en otros paı ́ses, las

embajadas y los consulados de los Estados Unidos servirı ́an para

el tra ́mite de rigor.

Es importante que ustedes entiendan que este mecanismo que

propongo no es nuevo. La Comisio ́n Estatal de Elecciones de Puerto

Rico tiene experiencia en pequen ̃a escala con este tipo de votacio ́n

que denominamos voto ausente. Adema ́s, la celebracio ́n de este

evento electoral es el mejor momento para implantar el sistema

mecanizado de votacio ́n y escrutinio en nuestra isla. La Comisio ́n

Estatal de Elecciones tiene la capacidad y experiencia necesaria

para administrar este proceso.

Finalmente, este proceso plebiscitario requiere que las fo ́rmulas

de status este ́n en igualdad de condiciones en cuanto al

financiamiento para la promocio ́n del voto y la educacio ́n del elector. Es una buena oportunidad para ensayar las reformas de

campan ̃ a, de las cuales ustedes hablan [Another U/I voice] En su

paı ́s. Debe asignarse una cantidad suficiente de fondos para cada

fo ́rmula y una vez sus proponentes se acojan al esquema de
139

financiamiento provisto, no podra ́n aceptar aportaciones privadas,

lo que incluye la prohibicio ́n de los comite ́s de accio ́n polı ́tica.

Estoy a su disposicio ́n para trabajar con su equipo de te ́cnicos

electorales y cualquier legislacio ́n que se tenga a bien aprobar.

Muchas gracias.

Mr. UNDERWOOD. Thank you.

[The prepared statement of Ms. Mangual Velez follows:]
140
141
142
143
144

Mr. UNDERWOOD. And now Professor Edwin Irizarry-Mora.

STATEMENT OF PROFESSOR EDWIN IRIZARRY-MORA, ECONOMIC ADVISOR, PUERTO RICAN INDEPENDENCE PARTY,

PUERTO NUEVO, PUERTO RICO

Mr. EDWIN IRIZARRY-MORA. Buenas tardes. Buenas tardes sen ̃ or

Presidente y miembros de la Comisio ́n de Recursos. Se dirige ante

ustedes Edwin Irizarry-Mora, Asesor Econo ́mico del Partido

Independentista puertorriquen ̃ o y Profesor de Economı ́a de la

Universidad de Puerto Rico.

Durante los pasados cuarenta y cinco an ̃ os, desde que se fundo ́

el Estado Libre Asociado, Puerto Rico ha ido acentuando su

dependencia econo ́mica con respecto a los Estados Unidos. La

dependencia se manifiesta en el sostenimiento de una estructura de

produccio ́n industrial amparada en las leyes contributivas

Norteamericanas, sus relaciones de comercio exterior casi

exclusivas con los Estados Unidos.

Las consecuencias socioecono ́micas de la dependencia son au ́n

mas profundas. Segu ́n datos oficiales, sobre el cincuenta por ciento

de las familias de Puerto Rico dependen de manera directa de

algu ́n tipo de programa de beneficencia subsidiado por el Gobierno

Federal. A este hecho contundente, se an ̃ ade un problema cada vez

ma ́s crı ́tico de desempleo, que al considerar la baja tasa de

participacio ́n laboral, se proyecta a niveles reales entre treinta y

treinta y cinco por ciento de la fuerza obrera. Frente a esta

realidad, se ha desarrollado en Puerto Rico un gigantesco sector de

economı ́a subtera ́nea, buena parte del mismo basado en el trasiego

de drogas y en el crimen organizado.

Para completar el cuadro anterior, no debemos perder de

perspectiva que Puerto Rico tiene un ingreso per capita equivalente

a una tercera parte del ingreso de los Estados Unidos y a menos

de la mitad del ingreso per capita del estado ma ́s pobre de la unio ́n

Norteamericana.

Ciertamente el modelo econo ́mico del Estado Libre Asociado

amparado en la dependencia da sen ̃ ales de un agotamiento irreversible. La eliminacio ́n de la Seccio ́n 936 representa sin duda, el

punto culminante en la historia del desarrollo dependiente de Puerto Rico. Como resultado de este escenario, invertir en Puerto Rico

no representa ventajas econo ́micas lo suficientemente grandes como

para impulsar un aumento en la acumulacio ́n de capital y por ende,

en la produccio ́n.

La situacio ́n de crisis econo ́mica del Estado Libre Asociado es el

marco de referencia obligado para proyectar lo que significarı ́a la

transicio ́n hacia la estadidad. Dicho en te ́rminos muy concretos, la

estadidad para Puerto Rico representarı ́a la multiplicacio ́n de la

dependencia.

El Congreso y el Tesoro reconocen, que lo que se embolsa entre

el Gobierno Federal a Puerto Rico, bajo las condiciones

socioecono ́micas de [uninteligible] Aumentarı ́an sustancialmente

tan pronto [uninteligible] La estadidad. Evidentemente, el aumento

de gastos Federales en Puerto Rico contrastarı ́a irreconcialairreconciliablemente con el objetivo trazado por el Congreso, de

nivelar el presupuesto Federal para los primeros an ̃ os de la

pro ́xima de ́cada.
145

De otra parte, la capacidad de aportacio ́n de los sectores que en

Puerto Rico podrı ́an contribuir con el pago de impuestos Federales,

iro ́nicamente frenarı ́a cualquier posibilidad de iniciar un proceso de

crecimiento local en un estado puertorriquen ̃ o entre comillas, ya

que la ventaja competitiva del estado serı ́a nula con respecto a

otras jurisdicciones en el hemisferio. En otras palabras, la

estadidad, en vez de promover el crecimiento econo ́mico y de

contribuir a solucionar los problemas fiscales de los Estados

Unidos, provocarı ́a un aumento en el de ́ficit presupuestal y Federal

y abrirı ́a el camino para perpetuar la condicio ́n de dependencia. Por

esa razo ́n, sostengo que la estadidad no representa una opcio ́n viable para los Estados Unidos en el caso de Puerto Rico.

De otro lado, los acontecimientos de las pasadas dos de ́cadas

demuestran que la independencia ha sido el camino que han

tomado los paı ́ses con economı ́as similares a la de Puerto Rico. Las

ventajas de la independencia en nuestro caso, en nuestro caso son

obvias. Amplia experiencia en la produccio ́n manufacturera, la

existencia de una infraestructura muy superior a la de la mayorı ́a

de los paı ́ses vecinos, dominio y conocimiento tecnolo ́gico

representado por la fuerza obrera y una clase profesional de primer

orden y un sistema educativo con caracterı ́sticas similares a los de

paı ́ses industriales entre otras variables estrate ́gicas.

La independencia permitirı ́a establecer un sistema contributivo

de gastos pu ́ blicos que responda a las realidades de nuestro pueblo.

Un sistema monetario amparado, un sistema monetario adaptado

a las condiciones de Puerto Rico y tratados comerciales de fomento

en el intercambio con todos los paı ́ses y que nos permitan jugar un

papel protago ́nico en la economı ́a global.

Con relacio ́n a este u ́ltimo aspecto, bajo el Estado Libre Asociado

o la estadidad, Puerto Rico no puede establecer relaciones

comerciales libremente con los paı ́ses del Caribe y con la

comunidad Latinoamericana inmediata, al igual que por supuesto,

con los Estados Unidos, Canada ́ y la Comunidad Europea. La

independencia representa la u ́nica opcio ́n de status que abriroı ́-,

abrirı ́a las puertas para un intercambio comercial libre de todo tipo

de ataduras.

Ma ́s au ́n, la forma ma ́s efectiva de atraer capital externo es a

trave ́s de tratados contributivos y de acuerdos comerciales que solo

son posibles bajo la independencia. El aumento de la produccio ́n se

lograra ́ adema ́s a trave ́s del fomento de nuestro capital en diversas

a ́ reas de nuestra economı ́a. Estos elementos, como dara ́n una

mayor autosuficiencia y se convertira ́n en efecto, en la vı ́a para

romper con la dependencia para el beneficio mutuo de Puerto Rico

y de los Estados Unidos.

Muchas gracias.

Mr. UNDERWOOD. Thank you very much.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Irizarry-Mora follows:]
146
147
148
149
150
151
152

Mr. UNDERWOOD. Mr. Emilio A. Soler Mari, President, Puerto

Rican Democratic Action Foundation.

STATEMENT OF EMILIO A. SOLER MARI, PRESIDENT, PUERTO

RICAN DEMOCRATIC ACTION FOUNDATION, SAN JUAN,

PUERTO RICO

Mr. MARI. Muchas gracias y muy buenas tardes a los

distinguidos miembros de este panel.

Accio ́n Democra ́tica puertorriquen ̃ a es una organizacio ́n de la

sociedad civil de Puerto Rico, no partidista, y su fundacio ́n en parte

ha sido motivada en torno a esta iniciativa del Gobierno

Norteamericano, que recogiendo el clamor internacional por la

descolonizacio ́n, intenta resolver dicho problema de las relaciones

entre nuestras dos naciones.

Reconocemos, tal como fue anunciado cuando se radico ́ este

proyecto, que este proyecto es uno sujeto a cambios y enmiendas,

en el proceso legislativo de la Ca ́mara, y a tales fines hoy

comparecemos ante ustedes con los siguientes sen ̃ alamientos y

propuestas de enmienda.

En la expresio ́n de principios, el proyecto debe reconocer a Puerto

Rico como algo ma ́s que una isla situada en la entrada del mar

Caribe, habitada por cuatro millones de. . . Cuatro millones de

ciudadanos Norteamericanos, sino como una nacio ́n Hispa ́nica debe

reconocerse, Cariben ̃ a, de cinco siglos de existencia, con su propia

historia, cultura e idioma.

Entendemos que por ser este un proceso de descolonizacio ́n, las

alternativas que se ofrecen deben cumplir con los requisitos

mı ́nimos de descolonizacio ́n de acuerdo a derecho internacional. La

alternativa de estado libre asociado-commonwealth, que esta ́

incluida en ese proyecto, ahora mismo no cumple con ese requisito,

por lo cual entendemos debe ser excluida.

La estadidad como alternativa tal vez podrı ́a resolver el problema

jurı ́dico actual, pero entendemos que no el problema polı ́tico. Las

naciones no se disuelven con una votacio ́n y el sistema Federal esta ́

constituido para permitir la coexisten-no esta ́ constituido para

permitir la coexistencia de una nacio ́n dentro de otra nacio ́n.

Estados Unidos es la nacio ́n y no admite otras naciones dentro de

la misma.

Solicitamos que este proyecto se enmiende, estableciendo una

lo ́gica presentacio ́n de las alternativas, una indepen-una

independiente de la otra en la papeleta de votacio ́n. Se debe

enmendar el proyecto para que contenga una definicio ́n clara de

cada una de las alternativas propuestas. En el caso de la libre

asociacio ́n, proponemos que el proyecto establezca la definicio ́n que

acompan ̃ amos y que ha sido circulada por nuestra organizacio ́n a

todos los miembros del Congreso de Estados Unidos y a la Casa

Blanca y que se ha acompan ̃ado en el idioma Ingle ́s como Anexo

1 de esta ponencia.

La Casa Blanca ma ́s—y ma ́s de treinta congresistas ya han

reconocido recibir este proyecto y le esta ́n dando consideracio ́n a el

mismo y ası ́ nos los han confirmado. En te ́rminos breves, dicha

definicio ́n de libre asociacio ́n debe incluir, el reconocimiento que

Puerto Rico es soberano y auto ́nomo y entrara ́ en un Tratado de

Libre Asociacio ́n con el pueblo de Estados Unidos.
153

Los ciudadanos de los Estados. . . De los Es- de los Estados

Unidos nacidos en Puerto Rico continuara ́n siendo ciudadanos de

los Estados Unidos de Norteame ́rica luego de la fecha en que entre

en vigor el acuerdo de libre asociacio ́n con el pueblo de Estados

Unidos.

El pueblo de Puerto Rico tendra ́ la capacidad para llevar a cabo

sus asuntos internacionales. El pueblo de Puerto Rico tendra ́ plena

autoridad para entrar en convenios y tratados internacionales. El

Gobierno de los Estados Unidos apoyara ́ las solicitudes de parte del

pueblo de Puerto Rico para su membrecı ́a en organizaciones

internacionales.

El gobierno de los Estados Unidos y el gobierno de Puerto Rico

podra ́n establecer y mantener representaciones y/o misiones en la

capital de cada cual.

El gobierno de los Estados Unidos proveera ́ anualmente en

calidad de asignacio ́n, un bloque por la misma cantidad de fondos

que actualmente comprende sus aportaciones a Puerto Rico. En

adicio ́n a aquellos fondos distribuidos como compensaciones, entitlements, a residentes individuales en la fecha en que entre en

vigor el acuerdo.

El gobierno de Puerto Rico eh de Estados Unidos mantendra ́ la

autoridad para y responsabilidad para velar por los asuntos de

seguridad internacional y defensa pertinentes a Puerto Rico, sujeto

a los te ́rminos y convenios por separado. Puerto Rico no estara ́

incluido en el territorio aduanero de los Estados Unidos. La

moneda de los Estados Unidos continuara ́ siendo la oficial y

circulante legal en Puerto Rico y todas las leyes de los Estados

Unidos relativas a dicha moneda se hacen parte de e ́sta.

El proyecto debe establecer, que en caso de que el resultado de

la votacio ́n arroje una mayorı ́a simple, a favor de la independencia

o la libre asociacio ́n, se aceptara ́ esta como alternativa ganadora.

Sin embargo, para la anexio ́n sera ́ necesaria una mayorı ́a absoluta.

Con respecto a los criterios para la elegilidad de los ciudadanos

que votara ́n en el plebiscito, debe tomarse en cuenta la importancia

de este proceso, el cual conllevarı ́a la decisio ́n final del destino de

nuestro pueblo. Amparado en los precedentes de las Islas Palau, las

Islas Marshall y la Micronesia, sugerimos la participacio ́n de todos

los nacidos en Puerto Rico y sus hijos irrespectivamente de su

residencia actual.

Cumplidos noventa y ocho de relacio ́n territorial corresponde a

Estados Unidos el promover un proceso genuinamente colonizador,

que permita deshacernos de los mitos asociados con la alternativa

de status que convenientemente han creado los partidos polı ́ticos en

Puerto Rico. Un paso afirmativo y esperanzador en dicho proceso

debe ser el ofrecimiento al pueblo de Puerto Rico de una opcio ́n de

libre asociacio ́n. Ası ́ lo solicitamos a nombre de nuestro pueblo.

Gracias.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Mari follows:]
154
155
156
157
158
159
160

Mr. UNDERWOOD. Senator Eduardo Morales-Coll.

STATEMENT OF EDUARDO MORALES-COLL, PRESIDENT,

ATENEO PUERTORRIQUENO, SAN JUAN, PUERTO RICO

Mr. MORALES-COLL. Muy buenas tardes a los miembros del

Comite ́, y al pueblo puertorriquen ̃ o. Hice una ponencia por escrito,

la cual ustedes tienen. Voy a limitarme a expresar algunas

palabras solamente respecto a uno de los temas tratados.

El Ateneo puertorriquen ̃ o, la institucio ́n que presido, es una

institucio ́n pluralista. Tiene miembros de todos los partidos

polı ́ticos y por esa razo ́n no expresamos ninguna opinio ́n respecto

a ninguna fo ́rmula de status polı ́tico. Solamente nos limitamos a

tratar aquellos asuntos que sean de naturaleza cultural.

Ahora voy a hablar de una limitacio ́n que me preocupa

grandemente y voy a hacer la observacio ́n de que el Proyecto 856,

que pretende resolver la situacio ́n polı ́tica puertorriquen ̃ a, esta ́

escrito en el idioma Ingle ́s. Segu ́n el Buro ́ del Censo de los Estados

Unidos, para utilizar una referencia que nadie puede disputar, casi

el ochenta por ciento de los puertorriquen ̃ os no conocen el idioma

en que esta ́ proyecto esta ́ escrito.

El Ateneo se tomo ́ el trabajo de traducir ese proyecto al Espan ̃ ol

y distribuirlo. Hizo lo mejor que pudo. Hizo lo que este Comite ́ no

hizo para que todos los puertorriquen ̃ os pudieran entenderlo.

Segundo, el Proyecto 856, que pretende resolver la situacio ́n

polı ́tica de los puertorriquen ̃ os, no ha circulado entre los

puertorriquen ̃ os para que estos tengan la oportunidad de

expresarse en estas vistas. El Ateneo se tomo ́ el trabajo de

circularlo gratis a todas las personas que pudo. Hizo lo mejor que

pudo, lo que no hizo este Comite ́, para que todos los

puertorriquen ̃ os podamos tener copia de ese proyecto y que

podamos entenderlo.

Tercero, el Ateneo invito ́ a todo nuestro paı ́s, en una invitacio ́n

pu ́ blica, para que todos los puertorriquen ̃ os desde los ma ́s humildes

a los ma ́s favorecidos, vinieran al Ateneo para expresarse sobre

este proyecto, comprometie ́ndonos en el Ateneo a traducirlo y

hace ́rselo llegar a ustedes, para que ustedes hicieran uso de el

como mejor pudieran.

Comparecieron al Ateneo ma ́s de cincuenta personas de todos los

niveles, pobres y ricos, a hacerse oı ́r y expresarse sobre el Proyecto

856 que tenı ́an en sus manos, porque el Ateneo se los habı ́a

provisto. La gran parte de ellos no podı ́an comparecer a estas vistas, porque no dominan el Ingle ́s, como no lo domina ma ́s del

ochenta por ciento de nuestra poblacio ́n, o porque no tenı ́an los $50

do ́lares que es el costo de las cien copias que es necesario radicar

en esta comisio ́n.

Abrimos este proyecto a la discusio ́n pu ́blica de todos los

puertorriquen ̃ os de todas las ideologı ́as. Realizado todo este

esfuerzo por el Ateneo para beneficio de nuestro paı ́s, para que todo

nuestro pueblo entienda el proyecto que esta ́n considerando,

nosotros nos comprometimos a traer esa expresio ́n a ustedes. Al yo

venir aquı ́, a la Comisio ́n a traer copia, creo que ustedes la deben

tener ya, de la transcripcio ́n que habı ́amos hecho de todas esas

ponencias al idioma Ingle ́s, se nos informo ́ que incluir esas

participaciones en el re ́cord era muy caro. ®Cua ́nto esta ́n ustedes
161

dispuestos a gastar para reconocer la expresio ́n de los

puertorriquen ̃ os que no pudieron comparecer a estas vistas? [Applause].

Todo este proceso en el idioma Ingle ́s es injusto para quien no

ha recibido copia de esa ley en su idioma, o habie ́ndola recibido, no

la entiende por ser sumamente te ́cnica. Esta decisio ́n de excluir la

participacio ́n de aquellos que no pueden comparecer a estas vistas,

es extremadamente injusta. Ustedes tienen copias de ellas. Yo se

las someto con la su ́plica de que le den a estas personas que

comparecieron al Ateneo, porque no pueden comparecer aquı ́ hoy,

la misma oportunidad que se ha dado en estas vistas, en el dı ́a de

hoy, para que todas las personas que algu ́n dı ́a lean el re ́cord que

habra ́ de levantarse de estas vistas, tambie ́n encuentren que a

ellas comparecieron policı ́as, carpinteros y personas de todos los

niveles econo ́micos con y sin educacio ́n, para expresarse sobre algo

que ellos saben que es de sumo intere ́s porque es el destino de su

nacio ́n.

Muchas gracias.

[Applause.]

Mr. UNDERWOOD. Thank you.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Morales-Coll follows:]
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175

Mr. UNDERWOOD. Next on my list is Mr. Manuel Fermin Arraiza,

Puerto Rico Bar Association.

STATEMENT OF MANUEL FERMIN ARRAIZA, PRESIDENT,

PUERTO RICO BAR ASSOCIATION, SAN JUAN, PUERTO RICO

Mr. ARRAIZA. No se preocupe por eso. Mi nombre es Manuel

Fermı ́n Arraiza y soy el Presidente del Colegio de Abogados de

Puerto Rico. El Colegio de Abogados de Puerto Rico se fundo ́ el 27

de junio de 1840. Es la ma ́s antigua asociacio ́n civil de Puerto Rico

y la ma ́s antigua asociacio ́n profesional de vida continua en Puerto

Rico. El Colegio de Abogados de Puerto Rico es una institucio ́n plural, amplia, donde todo el espectro polı ́tico partidista y no

partidista tiene voz y voto. Nuestras expresiones de hoy tienen una

trayectoria histo ́rica que se remonta a 1944 y son la expresio ́n

oficial del Colegio de Abogados de Puerto Rico, dato que ustedes

pueden comprobar por el ape ́ndice que se unio ́ a nuestra breve

ponencia y que fueron tomados por consenso dentro de la Comisio ́n

de Desarrollo Constitucional del Colegio de Abogados de Puerto

Rico, donde todas las tendencias polı ́ticas estuvieron representadas.

La mejor prueba de que Puerto Rico es una colonia de los

Estados Unidos de Ame ́rica es que tengamos que estar hoy aquı ́, bajo las condiciones que se explican en la carta de invitacio ́n. Es

prepotente, paternalista y de condescendencia repudiable. Conceder

cinco minutos a una institucio ́n civil, que desde 1944 se ha

manifestado pu ́blicamente en te ́rminos institucionales no menos de

veintiseis veces, es una falta de respeto. Pero reconocemos que el

respeto no es la caracterı ́stica dominante de la metro ́polis con la

colonia.

El Colegio de Abogados de Puerto Rico no tiene preferencias

sobre una solucio ́n particular al status nacional. El Colegio de

Abogados de Puerto Rico no quiere la colonia, y aboga por un

estado jurı ́dico polı ́tico digno para nuestra comunidad, libremente

escogida por los puertorriquen ̃ os y que cumpla con los requisitos

mı ́nimos sustantivos y procesales que son satisfactorios en derecho

internacional y polı ́tica contempora ́nea.

Debo repetir hoy el angustiado e indignado clamor de nuestro

Presidente, Licenciado Carlos Noriega en el 1993 ante las Naciones

Unidas. ‘‘Sen ̃ ores, quinientos an ̃ os de coloniaje, es mucho coloniaje.

®Hasta cua ́ndo?’’

En esencia, el planteamiento procesal que propone el Colegio de

Abogados de Puerto Rico es que un o ́rgano deliberativo, libremente

electo por los puertorriquen ̃ os, y con representacio ́n del universo

ideolo ́gico polı ́tico formule una propuesta especı ́fica para ser

negociada con los Estados Unidos, en plano de igualdad soberana.

Es, y debe ser ası ́ ejercido, el derecho del pueblo de Puerto Rico a

escoger sus delegados, decidir la fo ́rmula y los lapsos de tiempo

para la negociacio ́n, sin imposiciones externas al pueblo de Puerto

Rico, todo ello conjugado armo ́nicamente con la Resolucio ́n 1514 de

la Asamblea General de la Organizacio ́n de las Naciones Unidas.

Difı ́cilmente podra ́ conseguirse en el hemisferio Americano, una

institucio ́n que haya defendido con ma ́s gallardı ́a que el Colegio de

Abogados de Puerto Rico, el sistema democra ́tico de gobierno, el

gobierno republicano, el estado de derecho, los derechos humanos

y constitucionales, la justicia y la paz.
176

Precisamente de todo esto, es que trata la descolonizacio ́n, que

agravia al que la sufre y baldona al que la impone y sostiene. El

colonialismo, como la esclavitud y como el apartheid, no tienen

justificacio ́n en el dı ́a de hoy.

No puede encubrirse ma ́s la situacio ́n de Puer- del pueblo de

Puerto Rico con medias verdades y fo ́rmulas ilusorias y vanas. No

traten de engan ̃ ar al mundo libre. No pretendan sostener el

sofisma que plantearon en la ONU. Es obligacio ́n del Congreso de

Estados Unidos, propiciar el cambio definitivo de Puerto Rico,

desde la ignominia de la conculcacio ́n, a la dignidad de la libertad

buscada y asumida fervorosamente. Ser colonia del gobierno ma ́s

poderoso del mundo no es honor. Es una deshonra para ustedes y

motivo de pudor para nosotros.

Puerto Rico no es una cosa. Es un pueblo formado y con

identidad propia. Puerto Rico no es objeto de comercio entre las

naciones. Puerto Rico tiene su personalidad, y como lo que es, debe

negociar su futuro con sus iguales. El espectro vergonzoso del

Tratado de Parı ́s y los casos insulares todavı ́a indignan a las

conciencias libres. Las Naciones Unidas sen ̃ alaron la de ́cada de

1990 al 2000 como la de ́cada de la descolonizacio ́n. Puerto Rico, mi

patria, es una nacio ́n que no ha ejercitado a plenitud su derecho

inalienable a la autodeterminacio ́n. Ustedes, el Congreso de los

Estados Unidos de Ame ́rica, tiene la obligacio ́n moral y polı ́tica de

propiciar ese ejercicio. No les pedimos un favor, les exigimos un derecho. No queremos por caridad, lo que merecemos por justicia.

Gracias.

[Applause.]

Mr. UNDERWOOD. I would like to state an observation that the

limitations of Congress do not mean that people do not take the

ideas and sentiments quite seriously. I think the fact the Committee is here and the fact that the leadership in particular of this

Committee has been seriously involved in this issue is important.

The time and scheduling could not include the opportunity for everybody to appear.

Mr. YOUNG. I have a question, because I do think you offered

some suggestions.

I really would suggest there has to be a change. This is the way

I got involved in this. The status quo will not exist, it cannot exist

and should not exist.

As the gentleman at the end—although I rarely agree with lawyers, I do think there is a moral obligation on behalf of the United

States. So I want to congratulate each one of you.

I have a question about the Serrano amendment. Are you aware

of this amendment, the voting by Puerto Ricans that are outside

of Puerto Rico itself? I believe his amendment goes to the point it

isn’t limited to children born in Puerto Rico. I think it goes beyond

that.

Would anyone like to comment on that?

Ms. MANGUAL VELEZ. Sı ́, con mucho gusto.

El Partido Independentista entiende que los nacionales de Puerto

Rico son los u ́nicos, los que tienen derecho a ejercer su derecho a

la libre autodeterminacio ́n. Y son nacionales los que nacieron en

Puerto Rico y los hijos cuyos padres hayan nacido en Puerto Rico,

aunque residan fuera de Puerto Rico.
177

Mr. YOUNG. What you are saying is the parent is born in Puerto

Rico, moves to the United States. Their children—but the children’s

children would not vote?

Ms. MANGUAL VELEZ. Eh pues, podrı ́an votar, podrı ́amos buscar

la manera de aquellas personas que fueran hijos de padres que han

nacido en Puerto Rico y que tienen el deseo de regresar, tienen

lazos afectivos en Puerto Rico, un intere ́s econo ́mico, polı ́tico, social,

puedan ejercer el derecho al voto. Todo depende del intere ́s que

tengan en regresar, de establecer unos lazos afectivos con Puerto

Rico.

Mr. YOUNG. On the economics of it, Professor, I am somewhat in

sympathy with what you have to say, your proximity to the Latin

American countries. As a Commonwealth, you are prohibited to

trade directly with Latin American countries, and probably as a

State you would also be unable to trade directly with them. Is that

correct?

Mr. IRIZARRY-MORA. Yes, sir. For the benefit of the people who

are listening and watching through television, I will answer in

Spanish.

Sı ́, bajo la estadidad, se impondrı ́an las reglas eh. . . De los

estados, en te ́rminos del. . . Del . . . Existe un comercio interestatal,

del cual Puerto Rico ha participado durante todo este siglo, por ser

parte de. . . Estar dentro del comercio, del mercado comu ́n de los

Estados Unidos. . . Eh. . . Pero es la independencia la opcio ́n que le

provee a Puerto Rico la oportunidad de establecer nexos

comerciales a trave ́s de tratados con paı ́ses Cariben ̃ os, con paı ́ses

Latinoamericanos sin ningu ́n tipo de impedimento, es decir, es la

soberanı ́a del pueblo de Puerto Rico la que le permitirı ́a establecer

ese tipo de contacto comercial con los paı ́ses Cariben ̃ os,

Latinoamericanos y con la Comunidad Europea y con el Sureste

Asia ́tico y por supuesto, con Estados Unidos, con Canada ́, con todo

el mundo. Y yo creo que—dentro de nuestra perspectiva econo ́mica,

tendrı ́amos el poder suficiente para atraer esa inversio ́n que en

este momento no llega, como muy bien usted ha sen ̃ alado, porque

se nos impone una camisa de fuerza, que impide la llegada de

inversio ́n desde el resto del mundo, fuera de la inversio ́n que llega

directamente de los Estados Unidos.

Mr. YOUNG. My time is up, gentleman.

The Chairman has touched upon it, those who could not testify.

But the process as set forth in this bill is a long, slow process.

Don’t lose sight of that.

Puerto Ricans will have a chance to vote each time in the threestep process on whether they want to go forward, very much like

Alaska did; and then eventually it will get to the Congress to be

ratified. This is not an up-and-down vote.

And as far as everybody not getting a copy of the bill, we probably should have printed it in Spanish. We can’t write a law in

other than English to be actually legal, your lawyer will tell you

that, in the U.S. Congress. We will do our best to try to keep

enough information going through to the people of Puerto Rico and

the media and make every effort we can to make sure that occurs.

I want to stress one thing, not to pat myself on the back, but this

is a break where many of these Members of Congress could have
178

gone home. I ask you to think about it. Where would you be if we

had not started this process?

If you are happy about the status quo and want to stay where

you are, if you want no progress, you will be perfectly unhappy

with what I am doing. But I am trying to bring a solution, because

I think it is long past the time to have a colony or a territory under

the United States’ jurisdiction.

That is where it is, my personal belief; and this is why, as Chairman, I have gone forth with this process. Although it may not seem

fair at times, it is the only way we have to work within the framework of our congressional body itself.

So keep in mind, each one of these people volunteered their time

to come down here. I honor them for being with me. I have allowed

them to chair the meetings for each different panel to try to get a

better participation.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. UNDERWOOD. Thank you.

Mr. MILLER. No questions.

Mr. UNDERWOOD. Mr. Kennedy?

Mr. KENNEDY. No questions.

Mr. YOUNG. Just one final question on the issue of the vote. The

way that it has been described, it always gets a little unwieldy to

parents. I can understand that. Children, I don’t know. It seems a

little convoluted.

Do you agree with the notion put forth in the legislation that

Congress has the right to withdraw citizenship from people in the

territories?

Ms. MANGUAL VELEZ Nosotros entendemos que el Congreso tiene

la autoridad, el poder, bajo la cla ́usula territorial para establecer

los mecanismos adecuados para terminar con el problema colonial

de Puerto Rico.

Bajo la cla ́usula territorial, puede el Congreso aprobar cualquier

legislacio ́n que provea los mecanismos adecuados y que le

garanticen a los nacionales de Puerto Rico, excluyendo a los

extranjeros que residan aquı ́, para que solamente los

Puertorriquen ̃ os tenga el derecho a ejercer el derecho al voto. Entre

los nacionales tenemos a los hijos de los Puertorriquen ̃ os que

residen en territorio en Estados Unidos, a los Puertorriquen ̃ os que

no residan aquı ́ pero que sean hijos de padres Puertorriquen ̃ os.

Mr. UNDERWOOD. My question is, do you accept the fact that the

U.S. Congress can take away citizenship from Puerto Ricans?

And it would seem to me that if you do accept that, if you do accept that there is congressional authority to do that, then the people who should be allowed to vote would be the people who would

lose their citizenship, who would lose the citizenship as a consequence of participation in the plebiscite.

That would, in my estimation, would not include Puerto Ricans

on the mainland, because their citizenship would not be affected.

But if you were a Puerto Rican who lived here and who had become

a citizen through congressional action, then that seems to me the

clearest link to determining who should actually participate in this

election.

Mr. RODRIGUEZ-ORELLANA. Y si me permite. . . [Applause] No

tengo la menor duda, sen ̃ or Presidente, de que el Congreso de los
179

Estados Unidos, quien impuso la ciudadanı ́a estadounidense en

contra de la voluntad, en contra de la voluntad de los

puertorriquen ̃ os en 1917, tiene el perfecto poder en el 1997 de

eliminar la ciudadanı ́a estadounidense sobre el territorio de la

colonia de Puerto Rico. Eso es ası ́ bajo el Estado Libre Asociado.

Bajo la independencia, no tenemos ningu ́n empen ̃ o en tener la

ciudadanı ́a de Estados Unidos. Queremos la ciudadanı ́a

puertorriquen ̃ a en la Repu ́ blica de Puerto Rico.

Ahora bien. . . Ahora bien. . . En la. . . El planteamiento suyo es,

que como pueden ustedes quitar la ciudadanı ́a estadounidense,

podrı ́an entonces ustedes quitarle la franquicia tambie ́n a los

puertorriquen ̃ os para votar, en un proceso de autodeterminacio ́n, y

me parece que eso es tergiversar el orden lo ́gico de las cosas. La

realidad aquı ́ es, que la nacionalidad puertorriquen ̃ a precedio ́ a la

ciudadanı ́a. Por lo tanto es la nacionalidad puertorriquen ̃a, los

nacionales de Puerto Rico, los que deben participar en una

determinacio ́n, independientemente de do ́nde vivan.

Y voy un paso ma ́s lejos. Si ustedes deciden en el poder

omnı ́modo que tienen, quitarle la ciudadanı ́a estadounidense a los

puertorriquen ̃ os ahora, no se la quitan solamente a los que esta ́n

residiendo aquı ́; se la quitan tambie ́n a los que esta ́n residiendo

alla ́, que hayan nacido aca ́. De manera que eso les crea a ustedes

un problema mucho peor que el que ustedes quieren resolver.

Mr. UNDERWOOD. As I understand the discussion, Puerto Rican

nationality exists independently of congressional law. That must be

the basic assumption on the process of self-determination. We are

never going to resolve that through congressional law.

What I think we resolve through congressional action is what

Congress can give and take away is what should be the consequence of anything that is authorized by Congress. That was the

only basic point.

My own time is running out. Yes, sir?

Mr. MARI. Entendemoseque. . . Eh. . . Personalmente yo, no tengo

problema en eh. . . Si pierdo o no la ciudadanı ́a Americana sino,

pero sin embargo respondiendo a mucha gente en Puerto Rico, que

en realidad para ellos, es verdaderamente un problema, nosotros no

estamos de acuerdo con su eh. . . Posicio ́n en el sentido de que

exista una eh. . . Un poder del Congreso bajo la cla ́usula territorial

de revocar la ciudadanı ́a de la manera que usted lo plantea.

Y esto, en realidad podrı ́amos. . . Yo soy abogado, entrar en un

tratado legal porque es muchos casos que tocan el asunto, y que

ciertamente, no lo pone en los te ́rminos tan sencillos como usted lo

esta ́ planteando. Para mı ́, es un derecho personal que tienen las. . .

Que persona y si lo ha adquirido, existen unas maneras de

defenderlo.

Por ejemplo, cuando en Puerto Rico se impone, como dijo el

Presidente del Colegio de Abogados, la ciudadanı ́a Americana en el

1917, fue a vis de unas invasiones posibles que existieran para

Puerto Rico y siendo ciudadanos Americanos pues existı ́a ya

Estados Unidos con un. . . Es un derecho para defender a esos

ciudadanos. Posteriormente en el 1942 hubo una ley de este propio

Congreso, que establecio ́ no solamente por legislacio ́n, que los

puertorriquen ̃ os tenı ́an derecho a la ciudadanı ́a, sino que esa

legislacio ́n muy especı ́ficamente dice, que para todos los efectos de
180

ley, los puertorriquen ̃ os se reputara ́n nacidos en Estados Unidos. O

sea, ya cambia de una ciudadanı ́a obtenida por medio de

legislacio ́n, a una obteni- una que se torna constitucional.

Como le digo, eso es un debate bastante profundo. . . Me esta ́

tambie ́n [Another voice] Que como hemos dicho antes, hay un

asunto polı ́tico que. . . Es ma ́s importante que este jurı ́dico.

Mr. RODRIGUEZ-ORELLANA. Y solamente permı ́tame aclarar una

cosa de mi contestacio ́n anterior. Me refiero al poder que tiene el

Congreso para quitarla prospectivamente. Retroactivamente, ya eso

es otro problema constitucional. Mi contestacio ́n anterior se referı ́a

a quitarla prospectivamente.

Mr. UNDERWOOD. Well, perhaps fortunately for all of us, most of

the members in the current Committee are not lawyers, at this moment.

OK, thank you very much.

Mr. KENNEDY. OK. I would like to have the fourth panel come

up: Kenneth McClintock-Hernandez, Angel Cintron-Garcia, Zoraida

Fonalledas, Etienne Totti del Valle, Ivar Pietri, and Hector

Reichard. Thank you.

I would like to have the Honorable Kenneth McClintock-Hernandez begin for this panel.

STATEMENT OF KENNETH McCLINTOCK-HERNANDEZ, DESIGNEE FOR THE PRESIDENT OF THE SENATE, SENATE OF

PUERTO RICO, SAN JUAN, PUERTO RICO

Mr. MCCLINTOCK-HERNANDEZ. Thank you.

I will address you in English, the language several Harvard,

Yale, and Oxford antistatehood witnesses here today have collectively chosen to forget for political grandstanding purposes.

I first appeared before this Committee as a teenager to oppose

a bill endorsed by the Popular Democratic Party that would have

changed Puerto Rico’s political status without a vote from the people of Puerto Rico. Twenty-one years later, after being elected twice

to the Senate and having recently been elected by fellow state legislators and Governors as vice chairman of the Council of State

Governments, I appear once again to support the Young bill, which

for the very first time would provide a congressionally mandated

opportunity to determine Puerto Rico’s political status.

During those 21 years, I have spent perhaps half of my time and

energy fighting for equality. The political indecision that past congressional and local inaction has represented exacts a terrible toll

on our people. It divides our families, our communities, and our

body politic, and it imposes a huge economic burden.

During 5 years in the Senate, I have been able to sample the economic costs that the status quo imposes on our people, many of

which can’t be adequately quantified, but that certainly cost us billions of dollars every year and hundreds of thousands of jobs. In

many ways, we remain separate and unequal. Plessy v. Ferguson

still lives in Puerto Rico.

In the air transportation industry, for example, most airlines

treat us as ‘‘international’’—separate and unequal. Considering

that most fellow Americans prefer domestic travel—‘‘See America

First’’—over international travel, every time American Airlines
181

switches you to their ‘‘international’’ desk when you attempt to book

a flight to Puerto Rico, damage is done to our tourism industry.

It gets worse: In spite of having your boarding pass and having

gone through the FAA-required security check, Delta Airlines

forces you to stand in line again to obtain an ‘‘International Boarding Control Number.’’ You certainly get the impression you are on

your way to a ‘‘banana republic.’’ In the entertainment industry,

Puerto Rico is also treated as a foreign market—separate and unequal. The rights to American TV programming are sold here

under international syndication, forcing cable TV systems to block

out many broadcasts from the mainland, including the Olympics

and other sporting events, pageants, and other programming, thus

depriving American citizens of timely, quality programming. While,

thanks to legislative pressure, movies no longer open months after

opening on the mainland, many still take weeks to arrive on the

island because, once again, we are separate and unequal. In commerce, many multinational companies treat Puerto Rico as part of

their international, rather than domestic, operations—once again,

separate and unequal. May I show you the most recent example.

I am sure you haven’t missed McDonald’s anniversary 55-cent national promotion, applicable from Bangor to San Diego, from Key

West to Anchorage. But it doesn’t apply in what, evidently, McDonald’s considers the ‘‘banana republic of Puerto Rico,’’ depriving our

consumers of the savings available to the rest of their fellow Americans stateside.

McDonald’s is not alone. A few years ago, as we attempted to resolve a constituent’s problem, we had to deal with Chrysler International—in London, England, of all places—rather than Chrysler

Corporation in Detroit. In the interest of time, I will not go on and

on with the many examples of economic discrimination that political indecision and the status quo foster. Our political status debate

transcends hamburgers, plane tickets, and TV programs, but the

untold examples demonstrate that the spirit of Plessy v. Ferguson— separate and unequal—pervades every aspect of our lives and imposes exacting tolls on society as a whole, depriving us of the equal

protection that American flag is supposed to provide. The enactment of H.R. 856 provides the only real chance for an end to the

economic segregation of Puerto Rico and the hope that some day

we may be treated as equals, should that be the choice of the

American citizens residing in Puerto Rico, in concert with Congress.

Thank you very much.

[The prepared statement of Mr. McClintock-Hernandez follows:]
182
183
184
185
186
187
188

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. Angel Cintron-Garcia.

STATEMENT OF HON. ANGEL M. CINTRON-GARCIA, DESIGNEE

FOR THE SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE, PUERTO RICO HOUSE OF

REPRESENTATIVES, SAN JUAN, PUERTO RICO

Mr. CINTRON-GARCIA. Thank you, sir.

Chairman Young, Mr. Miller, Mr. Romero-Barcelo ́, and members

of the Committee on Resources of the U.S. House of Representatives, my name is Angel Cintron-Garcia. It is my privilege to continue serving the people of Puerto Rico in our House of Representatives for a third term as an at-large representative for the prostatehood New Progressive Party. I am currently chairman of the

Committee on Federal and Financial Affairs. Today I have the

honor of testifying on behalf of the House Speaker.

In 1995, I testified before a joint hearing of the Subcommittee on

Native and Insular Affairs regarding the results of the plebiscite of

political status held in 1993 here in Puerto Rico. Back then, many

local pundits spoke about the lack of resolve on your part to finally

address and bring to an end the issue of Puerto Rico’s self-determination. Nonetheless, you proved them wrong again when you—

and we are gratified—by your renewed commitment to address this

issue early on in this, the 105th Congress.

As time maybe more on our side this time around, I think it is

extremely important to address all concerns that various Members

of Congress might have regarding the various aspects of the bill,

particularly the definitions contained within. That way, we will

make sure that this process is a successful one. Therefore, in my

case, I want to dwell on the concern brought forth by some Members of Congress regarding the issue of language in the case of

statehood.

Concerns brought forth by some Members with regard to this

issue have been twisted and misconstrued by the opponents of

statehood. They argue that the true motive behind those concerns

is a deep bedded racism toward Hispanics and other minorities

within the United States, irrespective of whether they are U.S. citizens or not. Instead, these narrow-minded individuals here in

Puerto Rico try to portray our Nation as being culturally monolithic, rather than taking into consideration the multicultural character of American society and its long and venerable history that

is widely recognized as one of the United States’ greatest strengths.

Nonetheless, I want to reassure those Members of Congress that

we share most, if not all, of their concerns, especially our common

quest for national cohesiveness between Puerto Rico and the 50

States. That is why I feel that this issue goes even further than

just sharing a common language. It involves a respect for a series

of values, as put forth by our Founding Fathers in the Constitution. Also, it entails a respect and commitment for such valued institutions such as the U.S. Armed Forces and others.

Still, in the last 4 years as chairman of the Select Committee on

Banking Affairs, I had the honor of sponsoring important legislation that provides for further threads of national reform that I

spearheaded. As part of banking reform that I spearheaded, we

adopted the 1994 Riegle-Neal Act here in our island, allowing for

further interaction between local and national banking institutions.
189

I also sponsored legislation amending our international banking

law, thus providing a very important tool for the availability of

funds for mainland and local companies interested in financing

their export of products and services in regional trade.

In addition, I sponsored another important measure that allowed

for the adoption of the UCC, Uniform Commercial Code, here in

Puerto Rico, replacing our old mercantile act. This provided for

easier commercial relations between the Government, companies in

the mainland U.S., and Puerto Rico.

This term, as chairman of the Committee with jurisdiction over

banking, I intend to update all the additional banking laws, including the creation of a currency exchange center here in Puerto Rico.

Last year, as chairman of the Select Committee on Telecommunications, I sponsored six measures which brought about an overhaul

of the telecommunications market in Puerto Rico in accordance

with all the recent FCC rulings. This year, as chairman of the

Committee with jurisdiction over this area, we intend to update

these laws in accordance with the FCC rulings and relevant court

decisions.

These measures provide a much needed and very useful common

ground with most Federal and State laws, facilitating indefinite

and commercial connection between mainland businesses and local

enterprise, obviously, going even further in striving for the common

goal of national cohesiveness than just implementing a language

provision in this bill. They obviously exploit our island’s competitive advantage due to its location and its bilingual work force in

order to maximize our potential as a bridge between the Americas,

as a gateway for the United States and the rest of the hemisphere.

We can be an asset. We know that we can stand on our feet. We

have all confidences in our people. We only need the opportunity

to express our desire to be equal persons with the other 50 States.

As our Governor says, ‘‘Lo mejor que esta ́ por venir.’’

In conclusion, we deserve to have a bill signed by the President

of the United States later this year so that not another year goes

by without us having the opportunity to finally achieve equality

within the United States. One hundred years is more than enough

time for the United States to act over an issue that affects the approximately 4 million U.S. citizens in Puerto Rico. Please, make

House Resolution 856 a reality.

God bless Puerto Rico and our children. God bless America.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Cintro ́n-Garcı ́a follows:]
190
191
192
193
194

Mr. KENNEDY. Ms. Fonalledas.

STATEMENT OF ZORAIDA F. FONALLEDAS, REPUBLICAN

NATIONAL COMMITTEEWOMAN, SAN JUAN, PUERTO RICO

Ms. FONALLEDAS. Chairman Young, Mr. Kennedy, Mr. Miller,

Senor Barcelo ́, and distinguished Members of Congress, my name

is Zoraida Fonalledas. On behalf of the Republican Party of Puerto

Rico, bien venidos a nuestra isla, I welcome you to our beautiful

island and applaud the Committee’s effort to provide a process that

will finally give our 3.7 million United States citizens the right to

freely determine their political status and to resolve the centuryold relationship with the United States.

I am proud that our party platform and Presidents Nixon, Ford,

Reagan, and Bush have supported Puerto Rico statehood. H.R. 856

will be the fulfillment of our party’s commitment to this goal.

Today I would like to make two points about H.R. 856: That the

status quo must end. Puerto Rico’s current status, started as an

unincorporated territory subject to the Constitution territorial

clause, must be ended by establishing full self-governing through

either statehood or independence. For nearly 80 years we have

been United States citizens, but we have no voting powers for the

President, who, as our Commander-in-Chief, has sent over 200,000

of our youth into battle, defending the Constitution which the court

has determined is not fully applicable to us. Congress continues to

make laws that affect our daily lives with no political accountability to any of the island’s residents. This is intolerable.

After 400 years of Spanish rule and a century of American administration, we in Puerto Rico have earned our right to be first

class citizens. The bill provides a process by which that goal may

be achieved.

Second, America must admit Puerto Rico to the Union. The

United States can ill afford not to admit Puerto Rico to the Union,

as I hope it is in 1998.

I am not talking about monetary costs, since statehood has never

been a business decision. As my grandfather said, President Rafael

Martinez Nadad, statehood is not a question of dollars and cents,

but of a desire for liberty. ‘‘La estadidad no es una cuestio ́n de

pesos y centavos, es cuestio ́n de dignidad, de honor, de justicia y

de el mı ́nimo anhelo de libertad.’’

Denial of Puerto Rico’s statehood will undermine America’s credibility as the world leader in promoting liberty abroad and our relation with the more than 3 million Hispanics in the Western Hemisphere. And at home, political success in America among the 27

million Hispanics, whose number will go up by the year 2010, will

go to those who seek to be inclusive of America’s largest minority.

What chances would exist for candidates in key States such as

California, Texas, Arizona, and Florida, where the Hispanic vote is

critical to victory, if Congress fails to recognize Puerto Rico’s right

to statehood? The answer is self-evident. Puerto Rico must be allowed in statehood its language and culture.

Ronald Reagan put it best when he said, ‘‘In statehood, the language and culture of the island, rich in history and tradition, would

be respected, for in the United States the cultures of the world live
195

together with pride.’’ The self-determination process must be honest.

Finally, Mr. Chairman, as you and Chairmen Burton, Gallegly,

and Gilman wrote in 1996 in response to the results of the plebiscite, there is a need in Congress to define the real options for

change and the true legal and political nature of the status quo,

so that the people can know what the actual choices will be in the

future. This you have accomplished in this bill. All the status options as defined in the bill are capable of constitutional implementation.

The statehood definition is a good example. Puerto Rico will

know that statehood will mean first class United States citizenship,

a vote for President and Members of Congress, guaranteed United

States citizenship for, full funding of Federal programs, and the

continuation of both English and Spanish as the official languages

of Puerto Rico.

Thus, initiative to rewrite this definition must be resisted, particularly efforts in Congress to really define statehood—redefine

the statehood definition by establishing English as the official language or requiring English in Puerto Rico as the official language

must be viewed as an attempt to compromise the self-determination process by forcing voters to choose, regardless of constitutionality, between retaining Spanish and voting for statehood.

The Constitution aside, we should recognize in this shrinking

world that building linguistic bridges will enrich this Nation. In

this respect, the bill wisely seeks to promote understanding and

use of English in Puerto Rico, a skill not only necessary to participate fully in American society, but equally important as a tool for

commercial success.

In conclusion, I encourage the Committee to have this bill passed

by the full House as it now stands. Puerto Rico stands as an anomaly to the rest of the free world: The most populous colony,

disenfranchized, administered by the foremost champion of democracy and self-determination.

Puerto Rico has endured half a millenium of its colonial rule.

Puerto Rico must enter the new millenium in full control of its destiny, as either a State or as an independent nation. Passage of the

United States-Puerto Rico Political Status Act will serve America

and Puerto Rico well at home and abroad.

May God bless us all. And just a few words in Spanish.

Permı ́tanme decirles estos. . . A estos miles de republicanos y

demo ́cratas estadistas, que este ́n conscientes de estos puntos. Puerto Rico tiene que defender y asegurar su ciudadanı ́a Americana,

obtener el voto presidencial, obtener el derecho a dos senadores y

siete representantes en el Congreso de los Estados Unidos y

obtener iguales derechos en fondos Federales que otros estados de

la nacio ́n Americana. Puerto Rico tiene que defender su cultura y

sus tradiciones y sus dos idiomas, Espan ̃ ol e Ingle ́s. Queremos ser

el pro ́ximo estado de la unio ́n. Ahora, no de aquı ́ a quinientos an ̃ os.

[Applause.]

El ideal de la estadidad de Barboza y Martinez Nadal vive en

nuestros corazones y vivira ́ hasta que consigamos ser el pro ́ximo

estado de la unio ́n Americana.
196

Que Dios nos bendiga a todos y a toda esta juventud que sera ́

el futuro de nuestro Puerto Rico.

[Applause.]

[The prepared statement of Ms. Fonalledas follows:]
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209

Mr. KENNEDY. I would like to have Etienne Totti del Valle.

STATEMENT OF ETIENNE TOTTI DEL VALLE, ESQUIRE, SAN

JUAN, PUERTO RICO

Mr. TOTTI DEL VALLE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I know you must be tired, and I appreciate your patience. If you

are tired after several hours of this, imagine how the people of

Puerto Rico feel after centuries of the same old debate.

I earnestly hope what I have to say will do honor to the generations as proud as I am of our heritage and loyalty to the principles

embodied in the Declaration of Independence, who have passed

from this life with the unanswered hope of leaving a legacy of true

democracy and equality for the future generations of our beloved

boriquen.

Let us consider some objective facts. In 1917, the Jones Act

granted U.S. citizenship to Puerto Ricans. The logical and natural

expectation that this would lead to incorporation of the island into

the United States and therefore to statehood was soon derailed by

the U.S. decision in the Supreme Court of People v. Balzac, which

branded Puerto Rico as an unincorporated territory.

This is my passport. It is no different from the passport of millions of fellow citizens that reside in the 50 States. Our citizenship

is unqualified. In this regard, I respectfully urge the Committee to

reconsider the drafting of Finding 2 in Section 2 of H.R. 856, specifically where it states that Congress extended—and I quote—special statutory U.S. citizenship to persons born in Puerto Rico.

The Jones act made no reference to special citizenship. Three

generations of Puerto Ricans in my family have proudly served in

the Armed Forces of our Nation. Just as our passports are no different, our uniforms are no different. We have no labels allusive to

special statutory citizenship.

We are indeed special in many ways, but from the standpoint of

citizenship, we Puerto Ricans are as strong as the strongest link

that bonds the proud people of the United States of America.

Labeling our citizenship as special can foster misunderstanding.

Those of us born in Puerto Rico after the 2nd of March, 1917, were

born citizens of our great and glorious Nation. Puerto Rican Americans have died in the stars and stripes uniform since before you

were born.

Nearly 4 million citizens live in Puerto Rico. The number of

Puerto Ricans living in the mainland has been estimated at 2.5

million. The population of the United States at last count did not

reach 300 million.

It is a fact that more than 1 out of every 50 U.S. citizens alive

today is Puerto Rican. More than 1 out of every 80 Americans lives

in Puerto Rico. It is time, once and for all, to debunk the myth that

Puerto Ricans are, objectively speaking, anything other than U.S.

citizens.

Subjective identity is another matter. No single subjective identity, whether based on ethnicity, culture, religion, or origin, is incompatible with U.S. citizenship.

As a former chief justice of the Puerto Rico Supreme Court,

Emilio del Toro in 1911 wrote: The United States of America was

founded upon such stable principles as would permit the conglom-
210

eration under its flag of all the people of the earth, regardless of

their language, their beliefs, their customs, if they coincide on the

fundamental idea of respect for human rights and on the guarantee

of man’s progress toward goodness.

The freedom that our Nation stands for in the eyes of the entire

world guarantees my right to be different from you and your right

to be different from each of your colleagues, provided we all come

together on a small but very basic set of principles and ideals. The

major and most transcendental of these principles is equality. So

sacred is the tenet of equality that our Founding Fathers began the

Declaration of Independence: We hold these truths to be self-evident that all men are created equal.

The present political status of Puerto Rico provides inequality

with our fellow U.S. citizens. Residents of Puerto Rico are unequal

because our political system, based almost exclusively on status

preference, has the practical effect of preventing the free and intelligent exercise of our right to vote. We vote, hostages of the emotion that permeates status politics. This prevents us from selecting

among candidates based on rational analysis.

Status politics is a plague that pits one Puerto Rican against another, rendering us pawns in a never ending game that most politicians play. Mainland Americans are free to exercise their right to

vote in a political election without regard or concern for status.

Therein lies the first measure of our inequality, one that we owe,

in part, to the timid aloofness of one Congress after another.

If only we had the Young bill back in 1917 or 1950, we would

have been rid of the playing of the status politics which fosters divisiveness. But we have remained unequal throughout the century.

As a constituency of Americans, we are underrepresented. Our

congressional representation, though not lacking in quality, is sorely lacking in quantity. The residents of Puerto Rico are recognizing

that we lack the power that is essential to representative democracy.

For all proclamations made during five decades about Puerto

Rico as a showcase of democracy, the honest to goodness truth is

that the United States cannot preach democracy to the world when

it has nearly 4 million citizens disenfranchised right here in the

Western Hemisphere for all the world to see.

Why is there an exercise of public power over our borders, our

forests, airports, communications, environment, water, and postal

service, defense, food and drugs, minimum wages, banking laws,

immigration and taxes, by a legislature in which we lack total representation, but by government isolation to legislation, we do not

participate.

Put yourself in our position, if you will. There is so much that

you take for granted that is lacking in our political system. The

power will only reside with people when people have a right to vote

for leaders that shape our Nation and guide its course through history.

As Americans, we want our rightful political power. We cannot

hold the leaders of our Nation accountable; therein, another measure of our inequality.

Consider: The decision of the U.S. Supreme Court in Harris v.

Rosario, which is the highest court of our Nation, decided an Amer-
211

ican citizen living in Puerto Rico could be treated differently from

citizens residing in States. There was a rational basis for such a

disparate treatment.

The Young bill offers more than a glimmer of hope for Puerto

Rico. It offers the first opportunity in over 500 years for Puerto

Rico to obtain full sovereignty. It offers the promise obtain to

achieve full self government. It offers the promise of redemption

from status politics, allowing the realignment of orders on the basis

of philosophy instead of tribal colors. This piece of legislation progressively seeks to break with the past for this and future generations of Americans living here. The stability that a final status determination will provide shall help the climate for investment in

Puerto Rico.

Finally, and most importantly, the Young bill bears the promise

of political empowerment for people who will cherish it and exercise it as full participants in all our national concerns. I say this

mindful of the fact that the people of Puerto Rico will have a clear

and fair opportunity to express a reference for separate nationhood.

Whatever the choice, if Congress follows up by enacting appropriate legislation, Puerto Ricans will united with dignity and political rights in a true democracy. The aspirations and dreams of

those who espouse the ideal of a separate republic should have our

utmost respect.

We have a great responsibility at this historical juncture. It is

imperative that Congress, first, and then the people of Puerto Rico,

act with transparent clarity and resolute firmness. I believe from

the very depths of my soul that the people of Puerto Rico could

never enjoy a greater independence than that available to them, together as one with the other States of the Union.

I respectfully urge you and your fellow Representatives to hold

steadfastly to your equitable, moral, and constitutional duties to

Puerto Ricans. In order for this long overdue initiative to be successful, any legislation enacted must provide clear choices to Puerto

Rico’s voters. I believe the Young bill, as drafted, meets that standard. Next, the choices provided must be realistic lest this titanic effort become another exercise in futility.

And finally, as an American, I urge you to view and to support

this bill as a means for dignification of American citizenship. In

order to form a more perfect Union, our citizenship cannot be

viewed nor treated as a commodity to be bartered with. American

citizenship is not a passport of convenience to be brandished solely

for the sake of the doors that it may unlock and the opportunities

that it may offer. Our citizenship entails obligations and loyalties

that Puerto Ricans have shown time and again.

Our citizenship entails obligations and loyalties that Puerto

Ricans have shown time and again they are willing to assume even

at the highest personal cost. The dignification of American citizenship, in our view, requires an unquestioned allegiance to one nation

that thrives on freedom and diversity, from Rhode Island to California, from Alaska to Puerto Rico, but loyalty to one republic; allegiance that is true to the concept of e pluribus unum.

As Americans, we would do well to ask ourselves what rational

basis can exist to request a legacy of citizenship to future generations while seeking to remain forever unequal. The world will watch
212

closely. Democracy beckons and a government of the people, by the

people, and for the people must ultimately result from this initiative. Give the people of Puerto Rico the chance to make a clear

choice, to come to grips with their destiny, to allow this daughter

of the sea to become one with the land of the free.

Thank you.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Totti del Valle follows:]
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
221

Mr. KENNEDY. [Presiding] Mr. Pietri.

STATEMENT OF IVAR PIETRI, SAN JUAN, PUERTO RICO

Mr. PIETRI. Good afternoon, Chairman Young, Ranking Member

Miller, Mr. Kennedy, Mr. Underwood and Mr. Romero-Barcelo ́.

My name is Ivar Pietri. I appear before you as a private citizen

that has, for 25 years, been a close analyst of the economy of Puerto Rico. For 15 years, I have served as an investment banker based

in San Juan with a major international firm; and I helped raise

over $20 billion in bond issues for borrowers in Puerto Rico. I am

here to share with the Committee my insights into the economy of

Puerto Rico as it relates to the political status issue. I am submitting for the record a more detailed presentation with economic

charts.

I want to preface my comments by stating for the record that I

am proud to be a U.S. citizen and that I believe that the United

States of America, our country, is the greatest in the history of

mankind. I want to ensure that U.S. citizenship for myself and for

my four children. I want full rights as a citizen, and I am most

willing to assume all the responsibilities, and I believe firmly that

the only way to attain that goal is for Puerto Rico to be admitted

as the 51st State.

Mr. Chairman, Puerto Rico is not and has never been an economic miracle. The economy of Puerto Rico has completely stagnated for 25 years. For decades, the local administrations, led by

commonwealth advocates, purposely and irresponsibly pursued a

one-dimensional development strategy, neglecting other initiatives

and policies in order to foster dependency on Section 936 to sustain

their political goals.

As we know, there are many conflicting views about the economic

impact of statehood. Section and U.S. taxes have been the center

of the economic arguments against statehood. There have been several studies that supposedly analyze the economic viability of statehood for Puerto Rico. However, they all share the same critical

flaw: They are a static analysis that superimpose the U.S. tax system on our economy, remove Section 936, and then assume that

nothing else changes. Well, that is not statehood; that is commonwealth with U.S. taxes and without 936. And, obviously, that would

be negative.

These studies completely ignore the most important benefits of

statehood: full integration to a U.S. economy, political power, credibility, permanence and the broad comprehension around the world

of what it is. The benefits of statehood are definitely tangible, and

they are concrete, and they will have an extremely positive impact.

Historically, territories have had a lower economic level than the

States. Upon admission into the Union, full integration to a U.S.

economy, they experience accelerated growth that allow them to

converge with the national economy. Mr. Chairman, statehood is a

precondition to Puerto Rico’s economic growth not vice versa.

The opponents of statehood have used the notion that

predevelopment must come before Puerto Rico is ready for statehood to distort the historical fact that statehood leads to economic

growth, and we have 50 examples of that. It is easy to use faulty
222

analysis to pretend you can prove statehood would ruin our economy and would be more costly to the U.S. than the other options.

To believe some faulty logic defies logic and turns a blind eye to

certain key facts. Why have the other 50 States been so successful,

especially Alaska and Hawaii, the most recent States? And why

can Puerto Rico not enjoy such success as part of the greatest and

most prosperous nation on earth? After all, let us not forget that

at the turn of the century the U.S. had five great offshore territories. Alaska and Hawaii became States, and they have prospered.

Cuba and the Philippines chose independence, and we all know

how much they have prospered.

Puerto Rico is still a territory, and it has marched along this entire century showing potential that will never be fulfilled until we

become a State. To believe we cannot achieve more progress as a

full partner in the Nation is to have a very cynical view of what

it means to be a part of this great Nation, and it also takes a very

dim view of our capabilities as Puerto Ricans to compete in the

global economy and to contribute to our Nation.

This is the same view that held that the people of Puerto Rico

are welfare basket cases and will all migrate to the mainland to

go on welfare if the Congress made changes to Section 936. Have

we not all heard that before? The enemies of statehood put our own

people down to confuse us, to confuse the Congress and to confuse

the Nation about the potential of Puerto Rico as a State. And I will

say unequivocally to this Committee that if the people of Puerto

Rico were welfare hounds, we would have moved to the mainland

a long time ago. Those of us that moved in the past did so in search

of opportunity, not welfare.

Mr. Chairman, the people of Puerto Rico are industrious, hard

working and devoted to family. Those that rely on welfare do so

only because the present political status has not provided them

with the opportunities they aspire to. Puerto Rico has many competitive advantages and only as a State can the potential of these

advantages be maximized. As a State, we can truly become the economic crossroads of the Americas.

Before I close, I would like to urge the Committee not to listen

to the siren calls of those who insist on a level playing field between alternative forms of status. The playing field can never be

level. Each status alternative is inherently different.

What the advocates of the level playing field want is to confuse

the people of Puerto Rico into believing that the benefits of statehood are available under other forms of status. Mr. Chairman, as

we all know, that is not the case. There is no substitute for statehood.

The opponents of statehood have used the level playing field concept to confuse our people. To have the benefits of statehood without the responsibilities would not only be unfair to all the other

citizens of the Nation but, in some aspects, may well be unconstitutional.

No matter how many of those benefits Congress would concede

them, however, no one could ever provide them with the most important ones of all: full integration into the U.S. economy, stability,

permanence, dignity and the political power of statehood.
223

I urge the Committee not to accept definition changes to status

alternatives that could lead to recreating the fiasco of the 1993

plebiscite. I strongly urge Congress to pass H.R. 856.

Thank you very much.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Pietri follows:]
224
225
226
227
228
229
230
231
232
233
234
235
236
237

Mr. KENNEDY. Hector Reichard.

STATEMENT OF HECTOR REICHARD, ESQUIRE, PRESIDENT,

PUERTO RICO CHAMBER OF COMMERCE, WASHINGTON, DC

Mr. REICHARD. Thank you.

Mr. Chair, members of the Committee, greetings to each and

every one of you; and I really thank you for caring for Puerto Rico.

You could be elsewhere, but you are here doing your good work.

My name is Hector Reichard. I am the President of the Puerto

Rico Chamber of Commerce. Our organization is truly a cross-section of our economy for it groups together 1,600 individual members and, additionally, 60 organizations, which are like an umbrella

organization, which brings together the bankers’ association, the

hospital associations, wholesalers, broadcasters, et cetera.

The presentation I have here for you today, which is a summary

you have already in your files, reflects the positions assumed by

our assembly of delegates since 1985 through 1996, also ratified by

our executive Committee just recently. The Chamber has no selection as to status. We present to you here an economic analysis of

what we think is important.

The worst thing that can face us is uncertainty. Certainly we

wish to end that.

Our position revolves around two main concerns: first, that the

plebiscite process should be fair and well-informed for the people

to make an enlightened decision; second, if the Puerto Rican people

choose to change the present status, an orderly and well-defined

transition has to be clearly stated.

The plebiscite process should be dealt with on its own merits. It

should not be mixed with the normal electoral process. I think you

had a flavor of what it can be here today.

Before Puerto Ricans are asked to mark their status preference

on the plebiscite ballot, it is necessary to clearly spell out the cultural, political and socioeconomic consequence of each alternative.

The information transmitted to the people should be based upon

accurate and unbiased data.

We are deeply concerned about the consistency of the data that

Federal agencies have produced in the past with respect to the cost

and benefits of each status alternative. Therefore, we value the resources of our institution to help in obtaining additional information about the socioeconomic consequences of each status alternative to supplement what has already been produced in order to

allow the people to make a really informed decision.

The legislation that your Committee develops should delineate

each step and action in the process for participating institutions

and, more importantly, the responsibility and role of each participant at each step. Our institution believes that the private sector

must have a role and, consequently, a responsibility in this important undertaking. We think our parties should welcome the private

sector’s contribution in this process. You should further encourage

participation of Puerto Rican institutions to complement the contributions from the political parties.

For the people to make an informed decision, the following

issues, we believe, must be clearly addressed before the plebiscite:
238

First, the transition period contemplated for each political status

should be very clearly spelled out.

Second, the situation of the present U.S. citizenship of the Puerto

Rican people under each status alternative should be addressed.

Third, the Federal tax treatment of U.S. corporations doing business in Puerto Rico under each status formula, including the period

of time for which the corresponding tax treatment is guaranteed.

Fourth, the Federal tax treatment to residents and local businesses in Puerto Rico under each status, as well as during the different stages of the transition period.

Fifth, Puerto Rico’s access to the United States commercial and

financial markets under each status formula, including its position

with respect to present and future trade agreements that the

United States engages in with foreign countries.

Sixth, conditions and restrictions to Puerto Rico’s access to foreign commercial and financial markets under each formula, as well

as a market penetration of foreign goods into our market.

Seventh, adjustments to be made, if any, to Puerto Rico’s longterm public debt under each status, as well as constraints, if any,

to the issuance of additional public debt during each transition period.

Eighth, amount and term of U.S. transfer of payments to Puerto

Rico under each status alternative. Particular attention should be

paid to what is going to happen to contributions Puerto Rico makes

to earmarked funds, such as social security, Medicare, unemployment and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, among others.

Ninth, the conditions for travel and migration into Puerto Rico

by the United States under each status alternative. This is a most

crucial thing, since almost all families have close relatives in the

United States.

It should become apparent that, for whatever reason, if these

basic concerns could not be met, then a condition as to the timing

of the plebiscite should be made.

The Chamber of Commerce realizes that some of the key factors

that have contributed to our common development are subject to

change as circumstances vary over time. We are also aware that

the drastic change over a short period of time could prove to be

changes that occur at a rate faster than the ability of our economy

to adjust. Whatever alternative is democratically chosen by the

people of Puerto Rico would probably result in economic adjustments and could entail sacrifices on our part.

Private enterprise is ready to shoulder its responsibility. However, even in times of budgetary constraint, Congress should be

sensitive to our needs and economic realities. For example, I think

Congress should focus on revised section 30(a), which former Governor Romero-Barcelo ́ and Governor Rossello are looking into right

now, as a means to strengthen the Puerto Rican economy.

Socioeconomic development can only be achieved through a longterm process. With God’s help, with your help and a great deal of

work on our part, we are confident that we can achieve our mutual

goal of human progress for the people of Puerto Rico, who, lest we

forget, are proud citizens of the United States.

Thank you.
239

Mr. KENNEDY. Thank you.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. Romero-Barcelo ́. Mr. ROMERO-BARCELO ́. Mr. Pietri, before I ask my questions, I

want to congratulate all six of you for your testimony. It has all

been excellent testimony, and I think we have cleared a lot of

issues that have been raised here today.

I want to ask Mr. Pietri, in your analysis of what statehood

would mean to the economy in Puerto Rico, have you looked into

what has happened to the per capita income of Puerto Rico during

the past couple of decades and comparing it to the per capita income of the States of the Union? Have you looked at that in your

studies?

Mr. PIETRI. Yes, Congressman.

We heard earlier this morning testimony comparing Puerto Rico’s

per capita income as the highest in Latin America, and that has

been the kind of comparison that is generally done when Puerto

Rico is touted as an economic miracle. They hail it as the highest

south of the Rio Grande.

As an American, I hold that the comparison should be to that of

the 50 States, not to Latin America. We are part of the United

States. We are U.S. citizens. We should compare ourselves to the

rest of the Nation. And when you do that, our per capita income

presently is less than one-third that of the national average, less

than half of the lowest state.

Mr. ROMERO-BARCELO ́. And that is Mississippi?

Mr. PIETRI. Mississippi. Not only that, but that gap has not been

reduced since the early 1970’s.

For a period of time, Puerto Rico did close the gap, during the

1950’s and 1960’s, relatively slowly. But since the early 1970’s it

stopped closing, and it has not closed since. And, actually, in the

1990’s, it has begun opening back up.

Mr. ROMERO-BARCELO ́. Do you remember what the per capita income of Puerto Rico is compared to that of the State with the lowest per capita income—Mississippi? Do you remember the percentage?

Mr. PIETRI. It is about 47 or 48 percent. I do not recall precisely

at this particular moment, but it is in the 40’s—high 40’s.

Mr. ROMERO-BARCELO ́. For the record also, in 1970 it used to be

52 percent that of Mississippi.

Mr. PIETRI. That is right.

Mr. ROMERO-BARCELO ́. And now we are one-third of that of the

Nation.

Mr. PIETRI. That is right.

Mr. ROMERO-BARCELO ́. And in 1995–1996 it was down to 44 percent of that of Mississippi and less than one-third of that of the Nation. So instead of closing, that gap it has widened. Whereas the

difference used to be only $1,300 in 1970 between the per capita

income of Puerto Rico and that of Mississippi, it is now over

$9,000; and the $9,000 is more than half of the whole per capita

income of Mississippi.

Mr. PIETRI. Another key point regarding economic growth is that,

basically, for several decades Puerto Rico has been growing at a

pace that is similar to that of the rest of the Nation. Sometimes

in the period of expansion we outgrow the Nation by a few tenths
240

of a percentage point. In recessions, several of them have been

stronger here. We have felt the effect more. Particularly when high

interest rates combine with high petroleum prices, the recession is

deeper always here in Puerto Rico.

But the problem is that, when we have a third of the national

average in per capita income, we just cannot afford to grow at the

same pace as the Nation. We have to outpace it. We have to try

to achieve a growth rate that is at least twice, possibly three times

that of the Nation in order to close the gap.

If we want to close the gap in less than 30 years, we have to

grow at almost three times the pace of the rest of the Nation.

Mr. ROMERO-BARCELO ́. This morning there was also testimony as

to what statehood would mean, and they tried to indicate that we

would have a loss of jobs. The Federal agencies in Puerto Rico have

the same number, approximate proportion of number of employees

as they have in the States of the Union; do you know that?

Mr. PIETRI. Absolutely not. The Federal expenditure per capita

for procurement contracts, for whatever, all the other different categories, are a fraction in Puerto Rico of what they are in States per

capita—any State.

Mr. ROMERO-BARCELO ́. And the Federal payroll in Puerto Rico,

on a per capita basis, is that as high as it is on the mainland?

Mr. PIETRI. Absolutely not. It is a very small percentage as compared to the rest of the States.

Mr. ROMERO-BARCELO ́. We have very few employees here in

health care.

Mr. PIETRI. Hardly any.

Mr. ROMERO-BARCELO ́. And even in the post office we are undermanned, is that not correct?

Mr. PIETRI. Yes, sir.

Mr. ROMERO-BARCELO ́. And in a lot of the other agencies we have

much less employees on a per capita basis than States with a similar population. So there will be a lot more Federal jobs in Puerto

Rico as far as that is concerned.

Mr. PIETRI. Yes. But Federal jobs really would be a minor portion

of the jobs created. I think the massive amount of jobs that will be

created will come from that certainty, because Puerto Rico has

many competitive advantages.

Just a brief list of the competitive advantages: strategic geographic location, a democratic tradition. We are part of the U.S.

flag, a dollar-based economy, an infrastructure that, while it may

need improvement, is sound. We have world-class communications

and transportation. We have a bilingual and bicultural business

environment. We have, most important of all, a large, loyal,

trainable and highly productive labor force.

Those are tremendous competitive advantages. But to make the

most of them we need the certainty, we need the political power of

statehood and its full integration into the national economy.

Mr. ROMERO-BARCELO ́. Why do you need the certainty?

Mr. PIETRI. Because whenever anybody makes an investment,

that is the first item to be valued even before the return.

Mr. KENNEDY. Thank you. The only certainty here is that I will

no longer be able to serve as chairman unless I limit your time.

Mr. Underwood.
241

Mr. UNDERWOOD. No questions.

Mr. KENNEDY. For my sake, I want to say how much I appreciated all of your testimony and the clarity of the testimony, especially with respect to the fact that currently, under the commonwealth status, Puerto Ricans are disenfranchised from their rights

to elect seven more members—six or seven Members of Congress.

And at least with all the decisions that are being made in the Congress, you could carry some real political weight; and the people

would understand that in the future, I hope after Puerto Rico

chooses statehood, which I expect they will, that the next hearings

like this they will be done by a chairperson who has voting rights

on the Committee and who will have seniority because they will

have been able to have the same seniority rights as I currently

have as a member of my State representing Rhode Island and all

the other of my colleagues have in the U.S. Congress.

I have to now turn the gavel back over to Chairman Young, and

I thank you all. Buenos dias.

Mr. YOUNG. [Presiding.] I want to thank the panel; and I have

some questions that I will submit to you for the record. Because I

do not think it is fair to continue when, as I said, we would adjourn

at a certain time.

A lot was said today in all this period of time with different witnesses; but on any side of the aisle, those that have presented some

ideas and some suggestions and can really help us make our decisions, I deeply appreciate that.

I am deeply interested in this, because I do believe that if we do

not act in Congress, Puerto Rico has some serious, serious problems 20 years down the road, and the Congress would have to do

things that I do not think would be appropriate. This is the time

to act, to give you the right to take whatever direction you want

to take. To me, that is the crux of all this hearing process.

I happen to believe that you can go forth and your economy can

grow. As you mention, Ivar, the advantages you have are awesome.

I know in Alaska, when we went from a territory to a State, we

did grow. Regardless of the oil, we did grow. We went further and

passed some laws to retain our fishing rights, for instance; and

that occurred, and we have become very successful. So it can be

done.

Before I excuse you, I want to tell you that these hearings do not

take place accidentally. There is an awful lot of work that goes into

a hearing.

We have, of course, Manase Mansur. He has been with us for a

long time. Steve Hansen. Chris Kennedy has been through this and

helped set up the legwork, along with Cherie Sexton, Jeff Petrich

and Marie Howard. These are the people that make this operation

work.

And, of course, the Capitol Police and those with us, escorting us

to make sure this works, the Puerto Rican police force itself and

those that have made it possible.

And to the audience, though it appears sometimes I get a little

apprehensive and a little bit less than understanding, I do it because it is a thing I cherish. When I run my Committee I try to

give the witnesses as much time as possible to make their testi-
242

mony and to have the Congressmen to ask questions to gain knowledge.

So I would again thank the people of Puerto Rico and San Juan

for their courtesy and kindness. We will go to Mayaguez on Monday and continue this hearing process. And before I finish up, Mr.

Miller has to say something, too.

Mr. MILLER. Mr. Chairman, I just want to join you and your remarks in thanking the staff and all those people who helped make

this hearing today possible and Carlos for the invitation and to all

the panelists and the panelists before us right now for their contribution.

The goal of coming here was to make sure that we would be able

to establish a fair and open process to put a conclusion to this longrunning debate; and I think that this hearing today has been very,

very helpful in that process; and I want to thank you also for bringing the Committee here.

Mr. YOUNG. Thank you. Again, I want to thank everybody; and

this hearing is adjourned.

[Whereupon, at 3 p.m., the Committee was adjourned; and the

following was submitted for the record:]

DUE TO THE COSTS OF PRINTING, ADDITIONAL TESTIMONY RECEIVED FOR THE RECORD

WILL BE KEPT IN COMMITTEE FILES.

Hon. Pedro Rossello ́, Governor of Puerto Rico

Hon. Sila M. Calderon, Mayor of the city of San Juan

Hon. Ramo ́n Luis Rivera, Mayor of the city of Bayamon

Associated Republic

Hector O’Neill, President, Federation of Municipalities of Puerto Rico

Enrique Va ́zquez-Quintana, M.D., Party for Free Associated Nation

Arturo J. Guzman, Chairman, I.D.E.A. of Puerto Rico

Dr. Luis Nieves Falco ́n, Coordinator, and Jan Susler, Attorney at Law

Fermı ́n L. Arraiza Navas and Fermı ́n B. Arraiza Miranda

Eduardo Gonza ́lez

Juan G. Muriel Figueras

Jose ́ Garriga Pico ́

Efrain Hernandez-Arana

[Additional material submitted for the record follows.]
243
244
245
246
247
248
249
250
251
252
253
254
255
256
257
258
259
260
261
262
263
264
265
266
267
268
269
270
271
272
273
274
275
276
277
278
279
280
281
282
283
284
285
286
287
288
289
290
291
292
293
294
295
296
297
298
299
300
301
302
303
304
305
306
307
308
309
310
311
312
313
314
315
316
317
318
319
320
321
322