U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

43–229 u WASHINGTON : 1997

UNITED STATES-PUERTO RICO POLITICAL STATUS

ACT

FIELD HEARING

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED FIFTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

ON

H.R. 856—United States-Puerto Rico’s Political Status Act

MAYAGUEZ, PUERTO RICO, APRIL 21, 1997

Serial No. 105–27

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 21, 1997 ................................................................................... 1

Statement of Members:

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

California ....................................................................................................... 6

Romero-Barcelo ́, Hon. Carlos, a Resident Commissioner in Congress from

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

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 10

Underwood, Hon. Robert A., a Delegate in Congress from the Territory

of Guam ......................................................................................................... 6

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

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

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 3

Closing remarks of .................................................................................... 284

Statement of Witnesses:

Alzamora, Hon. Antonio J. Fas, Minority Leader of the Senate-Popular

Democratic Party, Senate of Puerto Rico, San Juan, Puerto Rico ............ 93

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 96

Aponte, Hon. Nestor S., Representative, Puerto Rico House of Representatives, San Juan, Puerto Rico ...................................................................... 34

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 36

Borges, Hector Quijano, Association of Statehood Attorneys, San Juan,

Puerto Rico .................................................................................................... 223

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 226

Calderon, Hon. Sila M., Mayor, San Juan, Puerto Rico ................................ 271

Colberg-Toro, Hon. Severo E., Representative, Puerto Rico House of Representatives, San Juan, Puerto Rico ........................................................... 109

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 115

Fernos-Lopez, Gonzalo, San Juan, Puerto Rico ............................................. 238

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 241

Ferrer, Dr. Miriam J. Ramirez de, MD, President, Puerto Ricans in

Civic Action, Mayaguez, Puerto Rico ........................................................... 14

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

Font, Hon. Jorge de Castro, Representative, Puerto Rico House of Representatives, San Juan, Puerto Rico ........................................................... 101

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 103

Gallisa, Carlos, Hato Rey, Puerto Rico ........................................................... 153

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 156

Gerena, Hon. Julio Cesar Lopez, Mayor of Huacao, Humacao, Puerto

Rico ................................................................................................................. 233

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 235

Gonzalez, Hon. Ferdinand Lugo, Representative, Puerto Rico House of

Representatives, San Juan, Puerto Rico ..................................................... 183

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 185

Guzman, Mr. Arturo J., Chairman, I.D.E.A. of Puerto Rico, Inc., San

Juan, Puerto Rico .......................................................................................... 54

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 255

Hernandez-Arana, Efrain, Lehigh Acres, Florida, prepared statement of .. 280

Inocencio, Hon. Victor Garcia San, House Minority Leader, Puerto Rican

Independence Party, Puerto Rico House of Representatives, San Juan,

Puerto Rico .................................................................................................... 167

Jarabo, Hon. Rony, Former Speaker of the Puerto Rico House of Representatives, Popular Democratic Party, San Juan, Puerto Rico ............. 111

Lebro ́n, Lolita, President, National Party of Puerto Rico, San Juan, Puerto Rico ............................................................................................................ 143
Page

IV

Statement of Witnesses—Continued

Lebro ́n, Lolita, President, National Party of Puerto Rico, San Juan, Puerto Rico—Continued

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 147

Lopez-Rivera, Hon. Carlos A., President, Mayors Association of Puerto

Rico, Dorado, Puerto Rico ............................................................................. 190

Ma ́ rquez, Joaquı ́n A., Esq., Springfield, Commonwealth of Virginia ........... 210

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

McConnie, Julian O., Jr., Attorney at Law, Rio Piedras, Puerto Rico ......... 198

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 201

Morales, Edgardo, Professor of Organizational Psychology, University of

Puerto Rico, Caguas, Puerto Rico ................................................................ 159

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

Negron-Rivera, Erick G., Tax Policy Advisor, Puerto Rico Independence

Party, Puerto Nuevo, Puerto Rico ............................................................... 177

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 179

Ortiz-Guzman, Angel J., Guaynabo, Puerto Rico ........................................... 253

Perez, Julio A. Muriente, President, Puerto Rico New Movement Independent Party, San Juan, Puerto Rico ........................................................ 123

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 126

Ramos, Luis Vega, President, PROELA, San Juan, Puerto Rico ................. 220

Ramos, Oreste, .................................................................................................. 39

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 42

Rivera, Ramo ́n Luis, Mayor, Bayamon, prepared statement of .................... 278

Robles, Ms. Belen B., National President, League of United Latin American Citizens, El Paso, Texas ....................................................................... 64

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 67

Rodriguez, Hon. Jose Guillermo, Mayor of Mayaguez, Mayaguez, Puerto

Rico ................................................................................................................. 77

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 79

Rossello ́, Governor Pedro, Puerto Rico, prepared statement of .................... 269

Ubinas, Roberto Cardona, President, Union Patriotic National, Aguadilla,

Puerto Rico .................................................................................................... 132

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 135

Velasco, Ramon L., Association of Pro-Commonwealth Attorneys, Bayamon, Puerto Rico ........................................................................................... 221

Velgara, Frank, Co-Coordinator, Pro-Liberated, New York, New York ....... 142
(1)

UNITED STATES-PUERTO RICO POLITICAL

STATUS ACT

MONDAY, APRIL 21, 1997

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES,

Mayaguez, PR.

The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10 a.m. at University

of Puerto Rico at Mayaguez, Mayaguez, Puerto Rico, Hon. Don

Young (Chairman of the Committee) presiding.

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

Mr. YOUNG. The Committee will come to order.

It is a pleasure to be here holding this third hearing of the 105th

Congress on the United States-Puerto Rico’s Political Status Act,

H.R. 856, in the well-known city of Mayaguez, Puerto Rico. All the

testimony we will hear today in Mayaguez will be important and

considered equal with the statements received by the Committee in

the early hearings of San Juan in Washington, D.C.

The Puerto Rican legislature enacted a valid request on January

23rd, 1997, House Concurrent Resolution 2, asking the Congress to

authorize a vote on Puerto Rico’s political status before the end of

next year. This bill will answer that request by permitting the

nearly 4 million U.S. citizens in Puerto Rico to exercise the right

of self-determination by choosing a federally authorized vote, to be

held no later than the end of 1998, to continue the commonwealth

structure of local self-government, separate sovereignty or statehood.

Not only would such a congressional sanctioned political status

referendum next year be an unprecedented event in Puerto Rico,

but it would likely occur before the centennial of the signing of the

Treaty of Paris, which ended the Spanish-American War, and the

subsequent transfer of sovereignty over Puerto Rico to the United

States. It will be in the best interest of the United States to provide an adequately timed transition to the political status form of

full self-government preferred by the full majority of the people of

Puerto Rico.

The United States-Puerto Rico Political Status Act has three

stages, I want to stress that, three stages, to permit the change to

full self-government in a manageable and practical way:

First, the initial decision vote in 1998, followed by a transition

period and final implementation. This multi-stage approach per-
2

mits a smooth transition to address economic, fiscal, legal and political concerns.

Although the bill’s approach may seem to add additional years to

the decolonization process, it represents a relatively small number

of years compared to the five centuries under Spanish and then

American rule. Puerto Rico certainly has waited a long time for the

United States to provide the people of Puerto Rico the most cherished right in our democracy. In every respect the people of Puerto

Rico are every bit as ready as the people of other States were to

exercise that right when their time has come. It is now.

It is in the national interest, and in the best interest of preserving and strengthening our democracy, for the United States to

move promptly to adopt the United States-Puerto Rico Political

Status Act. The people of Puerto Rico will then be able to exercise

their right of self-determination and decide in 1998 whether they

want to continue the commonwealth structure for local constitutional self-government, separate sovereignty or statehood.

Puerto Rico’s political status referendum will be an incredibly

historic event of epic proportions befitting the sacrifice, loyalty, and

patience of the inhabitants of Puerto Rico, who have waited 100

years for Congress to finally provide for full civil and political

rights as charged in the 1898 Treaty of Paris.

The witnesses’ views and suggestions today will help the Committee and the Congress to meet that obligation and take the appropriate necessary action to enable the people of Puerto Rico to resolve their political status.

The gentleman from California.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Young follows:]
3
4
5
6

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

REPRESENTATIVE FROM CALIFORNIA

Mr. MILLER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I am delighted to be

here this morning for a continuation of our hearings in Puerto Rico.

I will say what I have publicly said before. I think these are terribly important hearings, because I do believe, in fact, there is a

very good chance this legislation authorizing the plebiscite will

pass in this Congress. And if it does, we will be telling the people

of Puerto Rico that we are now prepared to honor their decision.

If that is in fact the direction that we seek to go in the Congress

of the United States, then it is very important that we fully understand the implications of that decision; that the American people

fully understand the implications of that decision and that the

Puerto Rican people fully understand that. That can only be done

by our gathering the best evidence we can so that we can discuss

it with our colleagues in the United States, in the Congress, so that

they can make an informed judgment.

I look forward very much to the witnesses we will be receiving

testimony from this morning and this afternoon. Thank you very

much. And I want to thank our colleague, Carlos Romero-Barcelo ́, for the invitation to come to Puerto Rico to receive the testimony

of his constituents.

Mr. YOUNG. The Gentleman from Guam.

STATEMENT OF THE HON. ROBERT A. UNDERWOOD, A U.S.

DELEGATE FROM THE TERRITORY OF GUAM

Mr. UNDERWOOD. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I too want to echo

my words of support for the process that you have led. It is quite

clear that the process you have led has now at least gathered the

interest and the support of all parties in terms of coming to a final

conclusion.

The hearing process allows all the people of Puerto Rico and various points of view to be articulated and also gives certainly the

members of the Committee to address issues that need to be addressed, including the definitions and the time line.

Again, I want to commend you for your leadership on this issue

and also to again relay my gratitude to the Resident Commissioner

for his graciousness and hospitality during our stay here.

Mr. YOUNG. I thank the gentleman from Guam.

It is now my pleasure to introduce the Resident Commissioner,

a good friend, who has worked on this project for the many years

I have been chairman and the ranking member, Carlos RomeroBarcelo ́

STATEMENT OF THE HON. CARLOS ROMERO-BARCELO ́ , RESIDENT COMMISSIONER FROM THE COMMONWEALTH OF

PUERTO RICO

Mr. ROMERO-BARCELO ́. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I want to

begin my remarks by welcoming all the Committee members to the

beautiful Mayaguez campus of the University of Puerto Rico. As an

added factor that is perhaps not known by everyone, the Mayaguez

campus is well-known throughout the NASA institution in the

United States for probably the most engineer graduates from a single university. The largest number here has graduated from the
7

Mayaguez Institute of Technology, as we call it jokingly sometimes.

But it is an outstanding institution and has served Puerto Rico

well and is serving also the Nation well.

Mr. Chairman, on Wednesday, February 26, 1997, a historic

process began, and on that date more than 70 Members of Congress introduced H.R. 856, the United States-Puerto Rico Political

Status Act. Many things have happened since that day, and on

March 19, the Resources Committee held hearings in Washington

and a group of 12 Senators introduced a similar version of this bill

in the Senate on the same day. Last Saturday, April 19, we held

a hearing in San Juan, and congressional support for the bill has

increased, as we now have 84 cosponsors.

President Clinton has made the establishment of a process that

will enable the people of Puerto Rico to decide their future relationship with the United States his highest priority regarding the Island; this from a March 19th statement by Jeffrey Farrow.

Throughout this time, the Committee has given everyone who

has expressed an interest in this issue the opportunity to participate and state his or her point of view either by submitting a written statement or by testifying in person. During these 2 days of

hearings here in Puerto Rico alone, the members of the Committee

will have had the opportunity to hear from over 50 witnesses representing the whole political spectrum of the Island, and this process has been characterized for its openness, inclusiveness and fairness, and for that, both you, Mr. Chairman, and Mr. Miller, have

to be commended.

This hearing is another important step in this process, a process

I hope will finally end Puerto Rico’s long journey toward disenfranchisement and full self-government.

It was almost 100 years ago, in 1898, Spain ceded Puerto Rico

to the United States at the end of the Spanish-American War. In

1917, Puerto Ricans became U.S. citizens, a citizenship that we

have cherished and valued ever since, and a citizenship that we

have defended with our lives and our blood.

Then in 1952, the Island adopted a local constitution and became

a so-called Commonwealth of the United States, a purely cosmetic

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

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

Prominent members of the Popular Party have recognized this

fact. Even former Governor and Commonwealth architect Luis

Munoz Marin, testified at a Congressional hearing on March 4,

1950, that the proposed changes to the Island’s status did not

change the fundamental conditions of Puerto Rico as nonincorporation and only permitted Puerto Rico to develop its own self-government.

Jose Trias Monge, a former chief judge of the Supreme Court and

member of Puerto Rico’s Constitutional Assembly, acknowledged in

his book Historia Constitucional de Puerto Rico that even after

1952, Puerto Rico continues suffering a colonial status. ‘‘Puerto

Ricans have the distinction of having the longest period of colonialism in the whole world. What a sad distinction,’’ indicated Mr.

Trias Monge in his book.
8

I have devoted most of my adult life in this struggle and to leading my people in the long and treacherous journey toward enfranchisement and equality. As former Mayor of San Juan, Puerto

Rico’s capital city, and Governor, and now Member of Congress, I

have heard my people’s voices and have shared their dreams and

their aspirations. As you may have experienced in these past few

days, these voices, questions and aspirations resonate loudly in the

Island, although to most Americans living in the continental

United States, they may seem as distant echoes.

Many of our students on this campus have asked if our present

institution will at some time deny them or their younger brothers

and sisters or their children equal treatment in Federal education

programs that they desperately need to succeed in today’s competitive world. Young couples ask me why they have to move to the

States in order to search for opportunities that are not available to

them in Puerto Rico. Puerto Rican veterans, who have served the

United States gallantly in all the Nation’s wars and conflicts in

this century, ask me why they cannot vote for the President that,

as Commander in Chief, may tomorrow also send their sons and

daughters to fight and die in times of war. The elderly ask why

their health benefits and other support programs are less than if

they resided in New York, Illinois, Alaska, Rhode Island, California, Florida or any other State of the Union. I have heard the

voice of a grandmother wondering why her son, who died in Vietnam, gave his life for a country who denied her and her grandchildren a right to participate on equal terms.

The answer to this question is clear. We are not equals because

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

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

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

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

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

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

influence and determine our future.

I believe that the latest developments in Congress and within the

Clinton administration clearly show that after 100 years, the Puerto Rico colonial dilemma has finally become a national issue and

one that the two active branches of government recognize has to be

resolved before we enter the next millennium. The disenfranchisement of the 3.8 million U.S. citizens residing in Puerto Rico has to

stop and it has to stop now.

Before I close, I want to take this opportunity to address an issue

that has been raised by various groups during the Committee’s deliberations, and that is the issue of the nonresident voting in the

proposed 1998 plebiscite. Some have advocated that all people born

in Puerto Rico and, in some cases, their immediate descendants be

allowed the right to vote in the plebiscite regardless of their place

of residency by waiving the residency requirement of Puerto Rico’s

electoral law or by seeking approval from the U.S. Congress. While

we recognize that some of the advocates for the nonresident voting

may have a sincere interest in this issue, the fact is some are also
9

raising this issue with the only purpose of trying to derail this

process.

To allow nonresidents to vote in this plebiscite is neither viable

nor fair. Although we recognize and understand many Puerto

Ricans who migrated to the mainland did so in search of better opportunities that they could not find here in Puerto Rico because of

the Island’s colonial status, it is clear the discussion of Puerto

Rico’s political destiny should remain in the hands of the ones who

live on the Island and who will receive the benefits or the adverse

effects of the people’s decision. Those are the ones who will have

to face the consequences of any new relationship between Puerto

Rico and the United States. It seems highly unfair that those who

have been able to enfranchise themselves by moving to one of the

50 States be allowed to vote to continue the disenfranchisement of

those who remain living on the Island.

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

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

thank you for your leadership and vision in filing this bill and for

holding this hearing, and I look forward to the testimony of the

panelists.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Romero-Barcelo ́ follows:]
10
11
12
13
14

Mr. YOUNG. I thank the gentleman.

The audience may have noticed that the curtain was rising and

falling behind me. I am not sure what that meant. I hope it is not

an omen.

We call our first panel. Dr. Miriam J. Ramirez de Ferrer, Nestor

S. Aponte, Arturo J. Guzman, and Belen B. Robles.

They are all before us, and I will try to keep the testimony at

5 minutes, if possible. Keep that in mind as we go forth during this

hearing.

I do welcome you to these hearings and we are here to learn and

listen.

STATEMENT OF DR. MIRIAM J. RAMIREZ DE FERRER, MD,

PRESIDENT, PUERTO RICANS IN CIVIC ACTION, MAYAGUEZ,

PUERTO RICO

Ms. MIRIAM J. RAMIREZ DE FERRER. Chairman Young and members of this Committee, I am proud to welcome you to the city of

Mayaguez. My name is Miriam Ramirez de Ferrer, and I am accompanied by the vice president of my organization, Attorney Luis

Costas, who will be available for any constitutional or legal questions that might come up. Please include my written statement for

the record as part of my time.

Mr. YOUNG. Without objection.

Ms. MIRIAM J. RAMIREZ DE FERRER. During all these years, we

have visited Washington many times to tell you about the tangled

web of local party status politics and to explain how failure to solve

the status issue has crippled the social and economic development

of Puerto Rico. It has been frustrating, because those who want to

preserve their political power and profit by preserving the status

quo have had tremendous ability to influence Congress.

Today I am filled with that sense of peace that comes in the

struggle for liberty, when the truth is finally revealed. I know the

behavior of some of the audience at the hearing in San Juan was

not as dignified as it should have been, but the Committee did the

right thing by allowing the pro-commonwealth faction to show their

true colors.

That political faction in Puerto Rico went beyond cheering for

their champions and showed disrespect for witnesses in the process. However, it was not spontaneous, it was a well-orchestrated

event meant to disrupt the hearings and reduce the time allotted

for questions and other witnesses.

As a matter of fact, the San Juan Star said in yesterday’s edition, ‘‘When the panel of pro-commonwealth witnesses completed

its turn before the panel, dozens of the PDP faithful left. And that

brought almost to an end the noise and disruption.′′

That is why self-determination should not be a transaction exclusively between Congress and the Puerto Rico political parties. People have consistently voted for a status change in all referendums

and against the status quo. The status quo does not have the support of the majority of the people of Puerto Rico. That is why it is

imperative that a process for self-determination be established. At

the end, it will be an individual choice between the United States

citizens in Puerto Rico who will exercise the right to self-determination in the privacy of a voting booth.
15

At the San Juan hearing you heard the bizarre theories of sovereignty and tortured logic of the autonomous doctrine. It is a passive aggressive dogma that in a military tone demands recognition

of a separate national sovereignty, but claims victimization at the

mere suggestion that separate nationality might mean separate

citizenship.

It is a schizophrenic political identity which enables the aristocracy of the colonial era to perpetrate its political power by pretending that such aristocracy is the champion of Puerto Rico dignity. The discussion of status under the Young bill has unfolded

the truth about the proposals of commonwealth exponents.

Don’t take it from me. You heard it yourself.

Their theory is that since all people have inherent sovereignty,

and this is recognized by the United Nations’ resolutions and the

United States Constitution, then Puerto Rico has a form of separate sovereignty. They take that half truth and pretend that the

local sovereignty and internal autonomy that Puerto Rico has

under the territorial clause of the Constitution approved in 1952 is

the same as national sovereignty for Puerto Rico. This makes a

mockery of the United States national sovereignty under the Treaty of Paris and the territorial clause.

Again, they have revealed their false theory to Congress, asserting that local autonomy granted by Congress is a form of national

sovereignty that puts Puerto Rico on the plane of bilateral, sovereign-to-sovereign, nation-to-nation level of mutuality with the

United States. But when they say ‘‘mutual consent,’’ they mean

that the political relationship of Puerto Rico and the United States

is permanent because Congress agreed to a local constitution in

1952.

According to them, through this, Congress gave up its sovereign

power and consented to make nonincorporation a permanent union

and binding status for Puerto Rico with permanent United States

citizenship. Their theory ignores constitutional supremacy. No matter what Public Law 600 is purported to do, the constitutional supremacy clause prevails.

They also told you that Congress has the power to improve, enhance, and develop Puerto Rico, but no authority to require Puerto

Rico to contribute to the Union. That arrogant demand is what

some now are calling ‘‘reverse colonialism.’’ According to these political leaders, the United States has national sovereignty only to

the extent delegated by the Nation of Puerto Rico.

But listen to this, even though the 10th Amendment does not

apply to Puerto Rico, if Congress exercise its constitutional authority under the territorial clause, you heard them Saturday, they

make the childish threat to take you to court. You also heard the

politics of shouting down all who question their opportunistic ideology imposed on us by the strident, shrill and uncivil pro-commonwealth representatives.

I will leave you with just one thought. My message is simple. Although the United States Federal Government contributed to the

problem by going along with the myth and allowing the colonial situation to be perpetuated, the United States did not do this to Puerto Rico.
16

The leadership of the pro-commonwealth party was the driving

force in creating this problem because they do not have the courage

to face a real choice between citizenship under United States national sovereignty and separate national sovereignty with separate

citizenship.

The real challenge for the people in self-determination is to take

the responsibility for solving our own problems. Commonwealthers

have tried for 40 years to propose a status which does not exist.

Now we need to face the real choices. What we need is for Congress

to set aside the myth and point out the realities. Please define the

options available and we can do the rest ourselves.

The people of Puerto Rico have great faith that this particular

effort will put an end to our divisive status discussion and uncertainty about our future. Thank you very much.

[The prepared statement of Ms. Ramirez de Ferrer follows:]
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34

Mr. YOUNG. Thank you, Doctor. And for those at the witness

table, she was allowed 6 minutes, so I will give you 6 minutes as

well.

The Honorable Nestor S. Aponte.

STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE NESTOR S. APONTE, REPRESENTATIVE, PUERTO RICO HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

SAN JUAN, PUERTO RICO

Mr. APONTE. Mr. Chairman, members of the Committee on Resources, my name is Nestor S. Aponte. I am the Director of the Institute of Political Vocation and Communication of the New Progressive Party and a member of the House of Representatives of

Puerto Rico, in my fourth year consecutive term. During the term

that ended last December, I occupied the position of House Majority Leader. I am an Army veteran and a lawyer in private practice.

My main concern in attending this hearing is to emphasize the

importance of having Congress define clear and precise formulas

for any process in which we the people of Puerto Rico have to make

our decision on status. It is of utmost importance to have an unmistakable definition for the relationship, political condition or status, presently called commonwealth, or any of the possible variants

finally included in the plebiscite H.R. 856 proposes for the solution

of our status dilemma.

Since the enactment of the Constitution for the Commonwealth

of Puerto Rico in 1952, the advocates of commonwealth have capitalized on the silence of Congress in regard to the term ‘‘estado

libre asociado’’ used as a translation for the word commonwealth.

They have hidden and forgotten Resolution 22 of the Puerto Rican

Constitutional Assembly, approved to determine in Spanish and in

English the name of the body politic created by the Constitution,

and they have defined the term or phrase ‘‘estado libre asociado’’

in as many ways necessary to fit into the particular circumstance

of any time.

They have been able to make our people believe that under a

commonwealth we can acquire all the benefits of statehood without

the responsibilities and all the possible benefits of independence.

They call it ‘‘the best of two worlds.’’

If this elastic type of political status is possible, Congress should

state so. But if this elastic type of status is not possible, Congress

should also state so. The process you have already begun to solve

our status problem must only include viable alternatives if it is intended to be a sincere effort to put an end to our colonial relationship.

Independently of what you may hear from detractors of statehood, in regard to nationality, language differences, Olympic representation and beauty contests, the unquestionable facts are that

a very great majority of our people are ready and willing to make

the necessary adjustments that will make permanent the points we

have developed during our centenarian relationship. We are ready

for statehood.

There should be no doubt, with the approval of Public Law 600

in 1950, and the enactment of the Constitution for the Commonwealth in 1952, our political relationship with the United States remained as a territory.
35

The Congressional Record is clear. It was a break from the practice where Congress exercised local self-government according to

organic legislation. The only purpose of that legislation was to authorize the establishment of local self-government, but the fundamental relationship of Puerto Rico to the Federal Government

would not be altered.

Section 4 of Public Law 600 reads as follows: ‘‘Except as provided

in section 5 of this Act, the Act entitled ’An Act to provide a civil

government for Puerto Rico, and for other purposes, approved

March 2, 1917, as amended, is hereby continued in force and effect

and may hereafter be cited as the ‘‘Puerto Rican Federal Relations

Act’’.

The sections of said Act, known as the Jones Act, repealed in section 5 of Public Law 600, are the ones that deal with the organization of the local government, because from there on the organization of the local government was to be determined by the articles

of the new constitution. All other sections are in force in the same

way as when enacted in 1917.

In 1953, at the conclusion of the process to enact our constitution, the U.S. Government sent a memorandum to the United Nations concerning the cessation of transmission of information under

article 73(e) of the Charter with regard to the Commonwealth of

Puerto Rico.

Even though the arguments used to describe the scope of the

local government are similar to the dispositions of Resolution 22 of

the Constitutional Assembly, the advocates of Commonwealth have

used said memorandum for the purpose of trying to prove that with

the approval of the local constitution we engaged in a new relationship with a new political status.

In summary, if the language used to describe the formulas is not

precise and clear, this process may turn into a political campaign

as confusing as the ones that we have developed in our locally legislated political status plebiscites.

Thank you.

Mr. YOUNG. Thank you, and thank you for staying within the

time. Very well done.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Aponte follows:]
36
37
38
39

Mr. YOUNG. Oreste Ramos.

STATEMENT OF ORESTE RAMOS

Mr. RAMOS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman, Mr. Miller, Mr. Romero-Barcelo ́ and members of

this Committee, my name is Oreste Ramos. I have the privilege of

having served the people of San Juan as a Senator for 20 years

until 1996, the last four as Chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary. Nonetheless, I want to make clear that today I come as a

private citizen interested in this issue.

I would like to begin by congratulating the sponsors of this bill

by addressing this complex issue in the most appropriate manner

and, of course, in accordance with what was expressed by U.N. Resolution 1541 of the 15th General Assembly.

Some people may ask themselves, why do we need full self-government? Is it one of those technicalities, legal theology, the lawyers love to discussion but which have no impact on real people?

In the case of Puerto Rico, as in the case of every other jurisdiction

in the world, full self-government means that our people have a say

in all decisions that affect their daily lives.

As the aforementioned U.N. resolution indicates, there are only

three possible ways as to how you can do that, namely, statehood,

independence and free association. All of them are sovereign options.

Do we currently exercise sovereignty in Puerto Rico? A careful

perusal of the Congressional Record of Senate Bill 3336 of the 81st

Congress would suffice to answer this question in the negative.

Every single congressional committee which reported on that bill

and its House equivalent reproduced Secretary of the Interior

Oscar J. Chapman’s statement to the effect that the approval of

what later became Public Law 600 would not change Puerto Rico’s

political status or U.S. sovereignty as acquired over Puerto Rico

under the Treaty of Paris.

Thus, absolutely no measure of sovereignty has ever been transferred by Congress to the people of Puerto Rico. This is evidenced

by the undeniable fact that the intricate web of Federal regulations, congressional legislation and decisions by the Federal judiciary apply to Puerto Rico, without Puerto Ricans having any say in

the selection of the officers who spin the web.

As it was correctly understood by the Court of Appeals of the

11th Circuit decision of U.S. v. Sanchez in 1993, Congress did not

accord the people of Puerto Rico any measure of sovereignty, not

even that recognized by the Constitution to the Navajo reservations.

This is perfectly in line with the U.S. Supreme Court decision in

1980 regarding Harris v. Rosario. In short, Puerto Rico is, in 1997,

as much of an unincorporated territory under the plenary powers

of Congress arising under the territorial clause as it was in 1898

and, thus, devoid of any measure of sovereignty.

Now, in finding 15, page 8, lines 4 to 12, of the bill under consideration today, its 84 sponsors clearly recognize that full self-government for Puerto Rico is obtainable only through the establishment

of a political status under which Puerto Rico would cease to be sovereign to the territorial clause as an unincorporated territory.
40

Throughout these hearings, we have also heard the distinguished

members of this Committee state that this process would be one

leading to the attainment of sovereignty by Puerto Ricans, either

of a separate nature or as members of the U.S. polity.

Thus, in order to comply with the avoid desire of the sponsors

of the bill and with U.N. Resolution 1541, you must exclude territorial or colonial formulas from the bill.

We have repeatedly heard proponents of the so-called New Commonwealth formula raise charges of unfairness and allusions to a,

quote-unquote, unlevel playing field. These charges will not cease

to be raised, but I beseech you to be understanding of the quandary

the PDP faces. Keep in mind it was not designed to solve Puerto

Rico’s status problem. It has to fight very hard to get within its fold

different factions, ranging from those who would like closer ties

with the U.S. to those who advocate for free association with the

maximum degree of sovereignty under such an agreement.

To one of those factions, this bill is Kryptonite, Mr. Chairman.

That is why their definition has so many attributes of free association, while maintaining some of the aspects of our current territorial relationship. It was contrived and concocted as a product for

local consumption in Puerto Rico. They know that a lengthy and

protracted discussion on how to fit such a formula in this bill could

spell doom for the prospects of this measure ever becoming law.

Is there a way to accommodate the advocates of the New Commonwealth as much as feasible without running astray of the Constitution? The possible solution in my view to the adoption of the

New Commonwealth definition in this bill was perhaps implied

yesterday by former Governor Hernandez-Colon. In an exchange

with Mr. Underwood, he mentioned that if the territorial clause

could not be construed in an elastic enough manner so as to allow

for Puerto Rico’s exercise of sovereignty, as called for in the proposed definition, then Congress could act without the constraint of

the clause, but still within the Constitution.

Now, there is no way of doing that unless you use the treatymaking power; and that would, of course, entail the transfer of sovereignty which could take place simultaneously with the enactment

of that treaty of association.

Mr. YOUNG. Mr. Ramos, how close are you to being finished?

Mr. RAMOS. Thirty seconds, sir. However, we all know that some

elements of the definition would still be unconstitutional, while

others would simply fall short of being accepted by Congress. For

example, after the 1994 amendments to the Nationality Act, there

is no way that Puerto Ricans born after Free Association, or New

Commonwealth as they call it now, were born, could keep their

American citizenship and still be citizens of a separate sovereign

nation.

So I think, Mr. Chairman, in summary, that this New Commonwealth—colonial definition of New Commonwealth should be excluded from the bill, and that in order to comply with the avowed

desires of the sponsors of this bill, then Free Association, even if

we have to use or if you have to include two versions of it, one of

it would be the classical one and then another one called New Commonwealth, if that is what you have to resort to in order to comply

with your avowed desires and what is stated in the introduction of
41

this measure, then that is the way to go. But to do anything else

would be to complicate matters even further and have to face an

ever more complicated issue and problem 15, 20 or 50 years from

now.

Thank you, Your Honor.

Mr. YOUNG. Thank you. May I suggest, I don’t want it any more

complicated than it is, believe me.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Ramos follows:]
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54

Mr. YOUNG. Arturo Guzman.

STATEMENT OF MR. ARTURO J. GUZMAN, CHAIRMAN, I.D.E.A.

OF PUERTO RICO, INC., SAN JUAN, PUERTO RICO

Mr. GUZMAN. Good morning, Mr. Chairman. Once again, it is our

privilege to welcome you back to the colonies.

For many years and in testimony before different Congressional

committees we have stated that a solution to Puerto Rico’s status

condition and an end to our nation’s legacy of colonialism could be

only be achieved by an act of mutual self-determination on the part

of the Congress of the United States and we the people of Puerto

Rico.

H.R. 856 constitutes such an act, and it has our full concurrence,

endorsement and support.

We would be remiss if we didn’t take this opportunity to also recognize the support for our self-determination expressed by every

U.S. president since Harry Truman and of particular value to our

society the additional support given the cause of statehood by

Presidents Ford, Reagan and Bush, the latter two of which allowed

me the privilege of serving through the course of their administrations as an unofficial advisor on matters pertaining to Puerto Rico

and other areas of this hemisphere.

As with any process of this nature, there are some areas which

may warrant further definition, clarification or consideration which

we are covering in detail in our written statement. Due to time limitations, I will just mention the titles of the topics covered, should

you wish to direct any questions to them:

Under the option of Commonwealth, the question of immunity

from Federal taxation and the costs to the Federal Treasury of the

actual condition; under the option of independence, full or Free Association, a need to further outline the political economic models

that would ensue; the question of investor guarantees, particularly

during the transition period; and the question of continued U.S.

citizenship and some loopholes that may exist on the bill as drafted.

On the option of statehood, the question of the General Accounting Office report and our recommendation that it be revised and

updated; and then, under general provisions, the matter of voter

eligibility as it pertains to the Federal Relations Act and the U.S.

Constitution, the matter of voter education; and then, finally, the

question of language. It is to this subject that I must allocate the

time remaining in my oral presentation.

In this congressional process, the subject of language has made

an inappropriate change of venue from the field of education to the

field of politics in much the same manner as it has been treated

locally or perhaps as a direct result of it.

Allow me to try and set the record straight, for oftentimes the

impression has been given that Puerto Ricans are reluctant to

learn English or, worse and more demeaning, that we lack the intellectual capacity to learn more than one language, when nothing

could be further from historic fact.

Let me state that we oppose English or Spanish only as we oppose any condition that would have the detrimental effect of restricting the potential of human learning and development. Suffice
55

it to say, Mr. Chairman, that the history of civilization has proven

that diversity is the very essence of true culture.

However, I also believe that each and every American citizen has

the right to learn the English language; and it is precisely as a result of treating the question of language politically in order to preserve the current colonial condition that this right has been denied

the people of Puerto Rico, with the implicit complicity of the Congress and Federal Government of the United States and also at the

expense of the American taxpayers, who contribute 80 percent of

the funds for public education.

Language, like any other aspect of education, represents empowerment; and empowerment is conducive to emancipation. As I

have testified before in other congressional committees, for the

vested political and economic interests to allow the Puerto Rican

people the equal opportunity to learn English would have resulted

in their quest to seek parity in wages and equality in their citizen

rights, and that would have meant the demise of the status quo.

Colonial educational systems, Mr. Chairman, are designed for

two classes of citizen, the autocrats and administrators that assist

in the daily management of the colony, and a second class of peons

restricted by the denial of learning the English language to conform to the conditions imposed upon them by the acting regimes,

in alliance with the powerful economic interests that prevailed over

our lives and destiny until very recently.

We persist that the issue of language should be treated beyond

the scope of status and politics, but if others in the Congress and

elsewhere demand its inclusion in this process, then let them prove

their good intentions by providing equal conditions to all status options that entail U.S. citizenship, regardless of the type of its nature, and that also require Federal funding for their educational

systems.

If the true motivation is to correct an injustice and to provide the

people of Puerto Rico full bilingual capabilities that would allow

them a better life and better opportunity, then we must endorse it.

We need not wait for any future status transition or even for the

enactment of this legislation, because within the powers vested you

by the Territory Clause you possess the means to avoid condemning yet another generation to a life of inequality and mediocrity.

Finally, as a reminder to you and your colleagues in Washington,

I conclude with a quotation in the hope that it serves to affirm your

determination to conclude this process and put an end to an era of

colonialism in this hemisphere: ‘‘Do not ask for whom the bell tolls,

for the bell tolls for thee.’’

Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Committee members.

Mr. YOUNG. Thank you, Arturo.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Guzman follows:]
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64

Mr. YOUNG. Ms. Robles.

STATEMENT OF MS. BELEN B. ROBLES, NATIONAL PRESIDENT,

LEAGUE OF UNITED LATIN AMERICAN CITIZENS, EL PASO,

TEXAS

Ms. ROBLES. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and distinguished members of this Committee.

My name is Belen Robles, and I am the President of the League

of United Latin American Citizens, the oldest and largest community-based organization in the United States to include Puerto Rico.

LULAC was founded in 1929 in the State of Texas and has more

than 115,000 members in organizing councils throughout the

United States and Puerto Rico.

From its inception, LULAC has been one of the principal civil

rights organizations fighting to ensure Hispanics participate fully

in the American society.

Puerto Ricans have been American citizens since 1917 by decision of the U.S. Congress. Our Nation presents itself to the world

as a democratic example, and so it should act accordingly. Our first

request before you is that you grant Puerto Ricans their civil right

to choose freely their political status through a vote.

LULAC looks at this issue as one of civil rights and citizenship.

The political alternatives discussed will have a tremendous impact

on the Hispanic community both here and on the mainland. Therefore, it is of utmost importance that Congress seriously consider

our position as the largest and oldest Hispanic organization in the

United States.

Should the proponents of independence win the majority of votes,

they request that Puerto Ricans no longer be U.S. citizens but that

they will have free access to the United States because of the 100

years that Puerto Ricans have had access to our country. They also

contend that European countries have agreed to allow free access

for certain countries as an example of their position.

While taking into consideration this modality, Congress should

pay attention to the following: Congress did not grant free access

rights to the Philippines when they received their independence.

Congress should consider, nonetheless, the Philippines’ right to free

access if the Puerto Rican independence petition is approved.

It is important to remember that 25 years before the Mayflower

set sail from England, Don Juan de Onate, with 40 other men, arrived in what is today New Mexico via what today is the city of

El Paso, Texas, the city where I reside.

Don Bernardo de Galvez, Spanish Governor of the Louisiana Territory, cleaned the south part of the United States of English fortresses with Mexican, Puerto Rican, Cuban and Dominican soldiers.

Therefore, if Congress decides to accept this petition of free access for citizens of a future Puerto Rican Republic, it has to consider what to do with Mexicans who want to gain free access to the

United States, their former homeland.

LULAC is not against this petition from the Puerto Rican Independence Party, but we request equality for all Hispanics in Latin

America, especially Mexicans.
65

The proponents of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico request to

continue being American citizens without, however, being part of

the United States. They demand an association through a pact between both countries, while retaining their citizenship.

Thus, Congress should consider in this case the type of citizenship that should exist in the United States. The American citizenship requested in this case is an incomplete one, like the one currently owned by Puerto Ricans residing in the island.

How can the United States explain that we are the champions

of democracy when 3.8 million citizens cannot vote for their President? How can the United States explain that its Congress decrees

and laws apply to citizens who have no representation? How can

the United States explain to the world that part of their soldiers

who are enlisted in its military do not have the civil rights to elect

the President that could send them to war?

LULAC does not oppose maintaining a second-class citizenship,

if that is the wish of this Congress. However, we strongly feel that

you need to fully inform Puerto Ricans of the limitation of this

form of citizenship so they know what they will be voting for.

The statehood supporters propose that Puerto Rico be a State of

the Union with Puerto Ricans having the same rights and responsibilities as citizens residing within the 50 States.

This is a demand for equality. Should this request be granted, it

would be a big boost for Hispanic representation in the U.S. Congress, with the addition of six Congressmen and/or women and two

Senators residing from the island.

This civil right to equality, should it be granted, must be granted

completely.

Some Congressmen have stated their intention of requiring a majority vote in favor of statehood in order for it to be granted. Other

Congressmen demand that English be the official language of the

island. These two requirements, or any other ones, are not suitable.

The rights of American citizens must be the same and equal in

all the States of the Union and in Puerto Rico. To demand a vast

majority of the votes is to infringe the concept which is the cornerstone of democracy, and that is the vote must be equal for all.

A vast majority of the votes means that a vote for statehood has

less weight than a vote for independence or Commonwealth status.

This is not democratic.

In regard to the issue of English as the official language, we need

to say that the right to choose the language is naturally reserved

to the American citizens; and LULAC is on record of supporting

English-plus—English plus Spanish plus any other language that

the person is capable of learning.

In summary, Mr. Chairman and distinguished members of this

Committee, the League of United Latin American Citizens strongly

urges the U.S. Congress to pass the United States-Puerto Rico Political Status Act that would allow the people of Puerto Rico the opportunity to express their preferred relationship with the United

States. We request that you honor the civil rights of the residents

of Puerto Rica and allow them to choose freely their political status

through a vote.

It is important that the Congress make clear to the people of

Puerto Rico the true nature of statehood, independence and Com-
66

monwealth alternatives that are before them. We are opposed to requiring a vast majority of the vote cast to be for statehood in order

to grant that option. We are also opposed to requiring English to

be the official language of Puerto Rico.

I thank you.

Mr. YOUNG. Thank you very much.

[The prepared statement of Ms. Robles follows:]
67
68
69
70

Mr. YOUNG. I want to thank the panel for their excellent presentation.

If I can ask a couple of questions, what I hear from this panel

is that you want definite definitions in the legislation. Is that correct? Everybody agrees with that?

Ms. FERRER. Yes, Mr. Chairman. Because we feel that if the people of Puerto Rico do not understand what the United States is capable or willing to accept under each of the options, it might be

misleading during the actual plebiscite process in Puerto Rico.

Mr. YOUNG. That is the what your position is, too? You don’t

want to confuse it any more. If we don’t make it very black and

white——

Mr. RAMOS. That is precisely my point, Mr. Chairman. We have

heard some people come here before this Committee and refer to

an unlevel playing field. Now, the bumps in the playing field are

the result of a contorted and distorted and hodgepodge definition

which has been put together by some people who simply wish to

keep the different factions of the party together.

It isn’t the fault of the Committee. It is the result of that definition. So we need the Committee to clarify those definitions so the

people will know what they are voting for.

Mr. YOUNG. Ms. Robles, your organization, have you attempted

to promote this legislation?

One of our problems as a Committee, and we are doing this basically on our own, we need to get a more national attention to this

issue. Has your organization tried to promote this nationwide?

Ms. ROBLES. We definitely have, Your Honor.

Mr. YOUNG. Don’t call me Your Honor. That is twice I have been

called Your Honor today. That worries the daylights out of me, believe me.

Ms. ROBLES. Mr. Chairman, we have. As a matter of fact, we

have gone on record as a result of a unanimous mandate of our assembly. We communicated to all the Members of Congress our position on this. We will be glad to reiterate it again and to advocate

this particular position to Congress.

Mr. YOUNG. Just on the language issue, this is an issue that is

very dear to my heart. I was so impressed today. I was flying down

with the National Guard, and I wanted to congratulate them. Puerto Rico ought to be very proud of their National Guard. They were

professionals. But it made me feel good that I was informed by

your Resident Commissioner that they play such an important role

in the hurricanes in other parts of the Caribbean because there

was an ability to speak Spanish and English.

That will be up to the discretion of the Puerto Rican people.

There probably will be an amendment offered, I will tell you that;

and we are going to do everything in our possible power to make

sure that that amendment is not adopted, as I think it would kill

the legislation. It is the wrong thing to do. That is a decision that

the people of Puerto Rico will make.

Later on down the line, if Congress was to adopt something like

that, again, the people of Puerto Rico would have the decision within whatever decision they make as to what they will speak.

I want to thank each one of you. There are probably other questions.
71

Miriam, I wanted to thank you for being here, because you have

been bugging me for the last 7 years, you and Arturo both, and I

appreciate that.

For those that may have opposite views of the people at this

table, the one thing you will find out about this Committee, we are

very open-doored and we try to listen.

I wanted to congratulate the audience. We very frankly look forward to hearing the rest of the testimony.

I am going to do as I did Saturday. I am going to transfer the

gavel. One reason I am going to do it is this chair is very uncomfortable. I think my staff is trying to kill me, and I am going to

move the chair and transfer.

Mr. Miller, do you have questions?

Mr. MILLER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you to the witnesses for their testimony. I have a comment, and then I have also a technical question on the bill.

My comment is that there seems to be a substantial effort here

to somehow demonize or to suggest that the proposal that was in

response to the letter from Chairman Young and myself to the

leaders of the parties, the proposal for the New Commonwealth definition, somehow is so outrageous and far outside the norm. But

the fact of the matter is, when you look at it and look at the key

words in it, there is a lot of precedence and other relationships in

the United States; and there is constitutional precedence for these

actions.

The Congress can agree to a very wide range. Whether or not we

would or whether or not that would be acceptable to the people of

Puerto Rico is two different considerations. But clearly we, historically, some of which we are proud of and some not so proud of, we

can agree to a wide range of relationships with peoples and territories.

And we also can grant a wide range of privileges. The State of

California likes to engage in commercial transactions, and sometimes the Federal Government tells us we can’t, and sometimes the

Federal Government says that is fine.

Puerto Rico has sought to engage in various activities in the Caribbean and elsewhere, and the Federal Government said fine in

some instances and in other instance said you are trampling on the

sovereign powers of the United States or our ability to conduct foreign relations under the Constitution.

All I am saying is that it is not—that definition is not as clear

as statehood, it is not as clear as free association and obviously

seeks to be a hybrid. But to suggest that somehow the Congress

cannot accept a hybrid relationship is, I think, to mischaracterize

that definition. Whether, again, that would be wise, whether the

Congress would do it, whether the people of Puerto Rico will accept

it, that is what this process is about. The Congress will work its

will when we start writing the definitions on all of these issues.

There is some suggestions from this panel. Mr. Guzman has

made suggestions with almost each and every definition. So I

would hope we understand the process we go through here, and I

appreciate the political advantage.

I am a very partisan Member of Congress. I appreciate looking

for—I didn’t have to tell my Chairman that—but I want to make
72

sure that we not so politicize the process at the outset that it, in

fact, can kill the process. That can happen. That can happen, that

this process can sink as a result of politics; and at the other hearing I made somewhat the same admonishment, because I am concerned about that.

This is a very fragile process. Chairman Young is engaging in an

effort here that very few have been able to succeed in getting

through, and I would hope that people would understand.

Finally, and my time is short, the legislation requires if this is

not resolved and the current status continues it can require there

be an additional referendum essentially every 4 years.

Again, it is a rather well-established historical precedent that

one Congress cannot bind another. My concern has been with the

overall time lines within this legislation. I think it is very important that both Members of Congress understand that there are consequences to the decision that they make and the people of Puerto

Rico understand there is a serious consequence to the decision they

make and to being brought into union and we decide this matter.

The longer that is, the easier it is for Members of Congress to

maybe vote or not vote and not worry about the consequences, because it may happen 10 years later, and people come and go in our

Congress.

By the same token, if the suggestion is you can get a new bite

of the apple every 4 years, I suggest it diminishes the importance

of what—if Chairman Young is successful and all those involved in

this process are successful, it diminishes the importance of that

process because we can do it again if it doesn’t work out.

This is an important decision about the status, after all of this

history, to move to the future and say this is going to be the status

in the future. And I wonder if you would, just quickly because I

have used up most of my time with the question, but is that really

essential to this legislation, that we would have this ongoing referendum every 4 years sort of binding the future governments of

Puerto Rico and clearly cannot bind the Congress as to the outcomes of that?

If anyone wants to make a comment to that.

Ms. RAMIREZ DE FERRER. Yes, sir, let me make a few comments

and then allow our attorney——

Mr. MILLER. However you want to, the time is running.

Ms. RAMIREZ DE FERRER. Once you have a Commonwealth, you

have to consult the people again. You cannot finalize a status question if you have Commonwealth, as United States, we believe is

going to define it there. That is in my written testimony, and I oppose that.

Mr. COSTAS. With due respect, Mr. Miller, the problem with your

point of view, although it sounds reasonable, it flies against decisions in the past proceedings in the status bills. Every one of your

points that you made and are now being put out in an ELA flier

for a rally Saturday to you has been rejected.

For example, this, removing Puerto Rico from the territorial

clause, if you look at the testimony of Secretary of Justice Dick

Thornburg——

Mr. MILLER. Let me say, we spend a lot of time in this argument

fighting the past wars. We fight the 1993 referendum, we fight the
73

old issues. This is about now, what this Congress will and will not

do.

Mr. COSTAS. Why repeat the things that have already decided

against us? Studies are there——

Mr. MILLER. For the very reasons we told you before. One Congress cannot bind another. It is a different Senate and Congress,

and if people want to make those proposals——

Mr. COSTAS. It is the same Constitution. It hasn’t changed.

Mr. MILLER. Let us not pretend that each finding of the Congress

is constitutional.

Mr. COSTAS. No, these are legal decisions——

Mr. MILLER. I understand that.

Mr. COSTAS. [continuing] that have been invariable for the past

40 years, almost.

Mr. MILLER. What I am suggesting is, at the outset of the process, people have the right to submit that to the process; and the

whole purpose of this is for the Congress to work its will based

upon what the Congress could agree to accept and what we believe,

if offered to the people of Puerto Rico, we can make a rational

choice for.

Mr. COSTAS. If you look at the letter written by Chairman Young

to the Honorable William Jefferson Clinton, December 11th, 1996,

it is precisely this fuzzy language that got Huang into trouble.

Surely you don’t want to repeat that.

Mr. YOUNG. I am going to allow Arturo to comment, and then I

think the gentleman’s time has expired.

Mr. GUZMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Miller, if I may, may I ask you a question?

Mr. MILLER. If I could get an answer to my question about 4

years, first.

Mr. GUZMAN. The 4 years, I think language was developed by the

Resident Commissioner to have it as a maximum in repeating this

exercise over again in 4 to 8 years. You not only have to think

about our own destiny, but you also have to think about the constituents in your district and how long will they be willing to shore

up with their taxes this present condition. Are you going to condemn your district taxpayers to shoring up for this current Commonwealth forever?

Mr. MILLER. That is just your political rhetoric. That is not the

way the question suggested. I mean, you are welcome to it.

Mr. YOUNG. All right. The gentleman’s time has expired. I think

we will be able to address this issue as time goes by.

The gentleman from Guam.

Mr. UNDERWOOD. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I was hoping we

would keep Guam out of this discussion.

Mr. YOUNG. I am setting a hearing for you in June so you don’t

want to keep it out of the discussion.

Mr. UNDERWOOD. Here is the feeling I have, and it is the same

point I raised before. The issues that are discussed here in terms

of political status openings are phrased as formulas; and it tends

to imply that as a political status formula, one way or another, you

can rationally read into it whether the formula adds up or does not

add up. In reality, what we are talking about, at least in terms of

the way that we are describing these political status options is real-
74

ly a series of political aspirations; and I am willing to make a distinction between a legal explanation and a political program.

What I am a little—I don’t know whether the word is amused,

but bemused is I guess a better word—is that in the process of discussion about what is exactly the appropriate formula for this, we

are getting—at least I have certainly gotten—the impression that

the pro-Commonwealth people have somehow misled the entire

people of Puerto Rico on this issue.

For an electorate that seems to be highly sensitive to this issue

and an admission, at least on the part of the Commonwealthers at

the hearing on Saturday, that what we are putting forward is a series of aspirations that is subject to a political process which their

aspirations may indeed fail, may not come to fruition, and I think

that was clarified in the course of the hearing on Saturday. It

seems that all the attention that is given to the definition seems

like someone is trying to get a political advantage over another.

Now, the status, the electoral process itself, will account for that.

And I didn’t mean it as a kind of a cynical remark, but on Saturday

I said we will leave it up to elected officials and politicals to

mischaracterize each other’s position in the course of an electoral

campaign, and I think we should do that. I don’t think we should

do this in the context of this legislation.

But it seems to me—am I being led to believe that in the course

of discussion on this whole issue of political status of Puerto Rico—

that Congress, one, is somehow complicit in contributing to this

misunderstanding; and, second, are the people of Puerto Rico so

naive that they don’t understand this after discussing this issue for

a long time? Is someone willing to say here that the people of Puerto Rico don’t understand these options?

Mr. APONTE. If I may comment, Mr. Underwood, what I would

say is this. As long as the bill offers the problem as an answer, as

a solution to the problem itself, then the Congress would be contributing to perpetuating the problem. It would be like holding a

contest between different ways of washing one’s face and allow

leaving it unwashed as an option.

Mr. UNDERWOOD. But that seems to me to be a political argument about the relative merits of the positions. If one option is unacceptable to you, you are perfectly entitled to that; but if it is acceptable to others, they are entitled to that as well.

Mr. APONTE. Yes, sir, but then you would not be complying with

U.N. Resolution 1541, which is what the bill says you are complying with.

Mr. UNDERWOOD. Well, that is prefatory language.

Mr. YOUNG. May I suggest one thing? I have every intention to

debate all proposed definitions, but before this bill leaves the

House it will be definite definitions in the legislation. And not

speaking up for my friend from California, I have looked at this 4-

year deal and we are going to discuss this more. I would suggest

what we have to do is define this bill so finely that when the process goes forward the people of Puerto Rico will know exactly what

they are voting for.

The gentleman, my good friend——

Mr. ROMERO-BARCELO ́. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
75

I just wanted to take a moment to perhaps clear up a little bit

what has been said here. Because being in Congress, what we say

in Congress sometimes is perceived differently here in Puerto Rico.

These hearings are not to make a decision. We are not going to

make a decision in these hearings, right here, either one of us. So

these hearings are to hear, to make everyone feel they have a clear

opportunity to express their views and what their desires and aspirations are.

That is exactly what Mr. Miller was underlining and underscoring. He wants to listen. He does not want to argue whether it

is or is not constitutional. Maybe he will decide something that is

being asked is unconstitutional, but that will be later on when he

researches that and studies with his staff. Then he will make that

decision, not now.

He is going to listen to all of the aspirations. Whether they are

practical or not, he is not going to make that decision now. He

wants to hear the aspirations, and then he will make that decision

later on when we mark up the bill.

Whether the aspirations and the desires of any particular group

are acceptable politically, he is not going to decide that now. Neither are any of us going to decide that now. That is going to be

decided later on.

Most people here do know I have my mind made up. I would not

be telling the truth, I would not be honest if I didn’t say that. But

I have spoken to all of the others, and they don’t have their mind

made up. But they would consider it.

So don’t misunderstand what Mr. Miller says. Also that he will

listen to everything. He is not giving credit or patting on the back

any of the aspirations. He will make that decision later on.

And, George, if I have not correct—OK, you can take my time

and say so. So don’t misjudge.

Mr. MILLER. If you will yield, I just think that what you and

Chairman Young started out here is far different than how we

have handled this in the past. I said I think it has a great opportunity to succeed, and I am very concerned that we not have the

process overwhelm with the politics and that the people understand that we in Congress will have to make some difficult discussions.

There is a lot of arguments that have been suggested to us that

are they thin, with all due respect. But people should be entitled

to present them to us. Because the 49ers pick their colors and the

Rams pick their colors. There is a long history in this country of

these three parties. As Mr. Underwood said, let us not suggest that

the Commonwealth is a new argument.

So all I am saying is, as people present the evidence to us, let

us not try to swamp the other fellow’s boat in the process, because

that is not helpful to us.

Mr. YOUNG. May I suggest, what colors do the Yankees have?

Mr. MILLER. I am a Mets fan.

Ms. RAMIREZ DE FERRER. May I make a comment?

The problem is, sir, some of these proceedings in the past have

allowed kind of a wish list up there; and then they say let them

vote on it and then we will decide if those decisions are viable or
76

not when we come back, Congress. We need to know that before we

vote the first time.

Mr. ROMERO-BARCELO ́. That might be a decision to be made later

on; but what we obtain here, today, in this hearing, those decisions

will not be made.

On the contrary, I think every member here wants to listen as

broadly as possible to the proposals and aspirations of each one

that testifies. So when I ask questions about sovereignty and nationality and citizenship, I am trying to just make it clear for the

panel, so when we go to decide it in the markup, the panel knows

what each party, when they say they want to have citizenship, they

want to have sovereignty, they know what they mean, so we can

discuss it. Otherwise, we might make a decision based on assuming

facts that are not correct.

Mr. Aponte.

Mr. APONTE. One thing that should be clear is that we are right

now right here before Congress because we are under the territorial clause of the Constitution. If we had status that could survive independently from the Federal assistance, we would be before

the executive branch of Congress.

So the people of Puerto Rico, they know that Congress can design

a Commonwealth to fit all possible alternatives. We are not naive,

but we have been forced to adjust to the situation and try to take

advantage of the disadvantage of our political status, and that is

what we want to solve in this process.

If the definitions are not clear, we can go into the process, but

you bet we are going to have same discussion maybe 4 years from

now, maybe 6 years from now, but you will have the same problem.

If you want to solve the problem, all we are asking is not to use

the problem as a solution.

Mr. ROMERO-BARCELO ́. Mr. Aponte, the territorial clause more or

less says that the Congress has powers over the materials and possessions. But are you aware that this Congress, 105th Congress,

can make the option not to exercise those powers in this Congress?

You know that. But what it cannot do is perhaps tell the next Congress, 106th, that it cannot do it. Is that what you are trying to

say? Is that one of your points?

Mr. APONTE. What I am trying to say is this Congress has decided to find a solution to the problem of Puerto Rico. It has not

a legal obligation, but it has a moral obligation. It has a moral obligation. Since you are the ones that stepped forward, all I want to

tell you is we are willing to go through this process and find a final

solution. It will be best for you and best for Puerto Rico.

Mr. ROMERO-BARCELO ́. I think you can be assured that that is

what I have spoken and all the Members have spoken they want

to do.

Mr. YOUNG. The gentleman’s time has expired.

I want to thank the panel for their testimony and, as is usually

and customary, I want to pass the gavel down to Mr. Underwood,

who will be the chairman of the next panel. I will be in and out

of the room and listening to most of the testimony, but that is the

way we do it.

I want to thank you personally for very good testimony.
77

STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE JOSE GUILLERMO

RODRIGUEZ, MAYOR OF MAYAGUEZ, MAYAGUEZ, PUERTO

RICO

Mr. UNDERWOOD. [Presiding] OK. We will begin the second panel

and start with the Honorable Jose Guillermo Rodriguez, Mayor of

Mayaguez; and I would like, first of all, to thank you for welcoming

us to your beautiful, fair city.

Mayor Rodriguez, go ahead please.

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Mr. Underwood and Mr. Carlos Romero Barcelo ́, nuestro Comisionado residente en los Estados Unidos. Mi nombre

es Jose ́ Guillermo Rodrı ́guez y soy el Alcalde electo de la ciudad de

Mayaguez. Sen ̃ or Presidente y miembros del Congreso de los

Estados Unidos, deseo comenzar brinda ́ndoles la ma ́s cordial

bienvenida a nuestra ciudad de Mayaguez a nombre de los ma ́s de

100,000 habitantes que residen en ella.

Antes de entrar en los detalles de la ponencia, deseo indicarles

que los electores de esta ciudad en el plebiscito del an ̃ o 1993,

auspiciado por el gobierno del Partido Nuevo Progresista, le dieron

a la fo ́rmula del Estado Libre Asociado, sometido a la consideracio ́n

del pueblo, alrededor de 5,000 votos de ventaja. La mayorı ́a con

ma ́s amplio margen en todos los municipios del paı ́s.

Este servidor de ustedes, fue electo representante a la Ca ́mara

en las elecciones de 1998, el legislador electo representante a la

Ca ́mara por mayor cantidad de votos en la ciudad, Alcalde en el

1992 y reelecto en las elecciones de 1996, siendo el alcalde de Mayaguez que por mayor cantidad de votos consecutivamente ha sido

seleccionado en la ciudad de Mayaguez.

Entendı ́ importante participar en estas vistas congresionales,

donde se pretende establecer un proceso adecuado para que el

pueblo de Puerto Rico exprese una vez ma ́s su preferencia sobre el

status polı ́tico que habra ́ de regir los destinos de este pueblo.

Estoy seguro que ustedes se habra ́n preocupado por conocer el

trasfondo histo ́rico de la creacio ́n y establecimiento del actual

Estado Libre Asociado, sobre algunas reflexiones de su fundador y

ex- Gobernador de Puerto Rico, don Luis Mun ̃ oz Marı ́n, y sobre

todo, del panorama polı ́tico, social y econo ́mico que existı ́a en

nuestro paı ́s antes de la fundacio ́n del Estado Libre Asociado, deseo

hablarles un poco.

Nuestro paı ́s, era uno sin esperanza, azotado por la miseria y la

falta de oportunidades de progreso, au ́n estando durante ma ́s de

cincuenta largos an ̃ os sobre el dominio total de los Estados Unidos.

Ante ese cuadro desalentador, el fundador del Estado Libre

Asociado lucho ́ dentro de sı ́ en contra del deseo innato que reside

en la mayorı ́a de los seres humanos y el cual rechaza la idea de

sentirse esclavo, arrimado, extran ̃ o en su propia tierra. La

independencia, aunque digna, insensata en aquel momento.

Puerto Rico se encontraba totalmente dividido entre dos

extremos. Sobre cuatrocientos an ̃ os de historia marcaban en

nuestro pueblo un arraigado nacionalismo, protagonista de

sangrientos episodios en el paı ́s y ante el Congreso. La estadidad,

aunque digna, tambie ́n insensata por la resistencia extrema a la

entrega de nuestra cultura, de nuestro idioma, de nuestra

identidad. Sobre el dilema del status, decı ́a don Luis Mun ̃ oz Marı ́n

lo siguiente: ‘‘Cada dı ́a se me hacı ́a ma ́s difı ́cil tolerar aquel boxeo
78

de sombras, aquella contienda entre los dos fantasmas de la

independencia y la estadidad, tan amenazantes como irreales, que

brincaban da ́ndose pun ̃ os de sombra. A veces, disparando balas de

plomo sobre un cuadrila ́tero bajo el cual se acurrucaban la miseria,

el hambre, la desolacio ́n, la desesperacio ́n y la enferma resignacio ́n

de los desesperanzados.’’ Indicaba con profunda claridad de

pensamiento, que el status polı ́tico debe ser para servirle a la vida

buena de un pueblo y no para obligar a la vida de un pueblo a

ajustarse por razones abstractas, a un status polı ́tico

predeterminado.

De esa lucha interna, de la refleccio ́n del idealismo absurdo

frente a la realidad, surge una nueva creacio ́n polı ́tica que

armoniza el pensamiento sobre el status polı ́tico con los ideales de

justicia social, de vida buena y de honda satisfaccio ́n para los

Puertorriquen ̃ os. Es por eso que solo existe en el mundo un solo

Estado Libre Asociado. Porque se creo ́ para servirle al progreso,

desarrollo y aspiraciones de todos los Puertorriquen ̃ os, plasmando

lo mejor de los dos extremos tradicionales, logrando la paz entre los

Puertorriquen ̃ os y tomando lo mejor de dos mundos, para

confeccionar una exitosa y nueva herramienta de desarrollo

polı ́tico, social y econo ́mico.

Decı ́a nuestro Comisionado residente en Washington, don Antonio Fernoz Isern, ‘‘El Estado Libre Asociado responde a la historia

de Puerto Rico. Su molde ha sido la propia vida de Puerto Rico. No

hay que ir a buscar la definicio ́n ni la descripcio ́n del Estado Libre

Asociado en ningu ́n tratado de Ciencias Polı ́ticas. Forma de por sı ́,

un capı ́tulo nuevo que hay que agregar al libro.’’ Aquı ́ es que ha

estribado siempre, la difı ́cil misio ́n de los Estadolibristas, de hacer

entender a los que evalu ́ an con estrechez de pensamiento, el Estado

Libre Asociado. Estamos ante un nuevo concepto mundial, que ha

roto los conceptos tradicionales del pasado, de estadidad o

independencia.

La forma y manera en que esta ́ redactado este Proyecto, comete

el gravı ́simo error de llevar a nuestro pueblo al pasado, a la lucha

de los extremos, en vez de permitir fortalecer el Estado Libre

Asociado desde una perspectiva enfocada al futuro y no al pasado.

Es en este contexto, que el Estado Libre Asociado es un concepto

de avanzada, adelantado en el tiempo, apuntando siempre al futuro

y no al pasado.

Si es este un proceso genuino para alcanzar una nueva

negociacio ́n entre nuestras naciones, sera ́ necesario que el Congreso

al igual que el derecho internacional libere su estrechez retro ́grada

arcaica y la tempere a la nueva realidad mundial, recogiendo los

conceptos que en este momento mueven el mundo, eliminando

barreras, estableciendo mercados comunes, relegando a un segundo

plano los idealismos absurdos que aı ́slan y provocan conflictos

entre los pueblos.

Mr. UNDERWOOD. Thank you very much.

I trust there are no more mayors of Mayaguez on the panel. I

allowed you to go on simply because you are the mayor of this city,

and we will try to hold the witnesses as much as possible to the

5-minute time.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Rodriguez follows:]
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93

Mr. UNDERWOOD. I now call on Honorable Antonio Fas Alzamora,

the Minority Leader of the Senate-Popular Democratic Party, Senate of Puerto Rico.

STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE ANTONIO J. FAS ALZAMORA,

MINORITY LEADER OF THE SENATE-POPULAR DEMOCRATIC

PARTY, SENATE OF PUERTO RICO, SAN JUAN, PUERTO RICO

Mr. ALZAMORA. Muy buenos dı ́as, sen ̃ ores Congresistas. Como

bien ha mencionado el Congresista, represento a la delegacio ́n del

Partido Popular Democra ́tico en el Senado, cuerpo legislativo que

llevo diecise ́is an ̃ os en el y cuatro en la Ca ́mara. Para veinte an ̃ os,

trabajando en la polı ́tica Puertorriquen ̃a y defendiendo el ideal del

Estado Libre Asociado.

Por segunda vez comparezco ante esta honorable Comisio ́n, para

exponer algunos de mis puntos de vista en torno a este proyecto.

Hay dos aspectos que deseo enfocar, pero quiero previamente

adelantar que el mismo esta ́ redactado en forma viciada,

prejuiciado para fabricar una mayorı ́a a favor de la estadidad

aunque no se compromete a concederla.

Este proyecto, a mi juicio, como esta ́ redactado, le falta el respeto

a la democracia Puertorriquen ̃ a. En primer lugar, la discusio ́n del

futuro polı ́tico de Puerto Rico debe partir de la propia creacio ́n del

Estado Libre Asociado. Quiero citar palabras que dijera el primer

Gobernador electo por los Puertorriquen ̃ os, don Luis Mun ̃ oz Marı ́n,

el veinticinco de julio de 1952, cuando se izo ́ esa bandera

Puertorriquen ̃ a que ustedes ven ahı ́, junto a la bandera de los

Estados Unidos de Ame ́rica, y cito: ‘‘Voy a izar cuando termine mis

palabras, la bandera del pueblo de Puerto Rico al fundarse el

Estado Libre Asociado, en voluntaria asociacio ́n de ciudadanı ́a y

afecto con los Estados Unidos de Ame ́rica. El pueblo vera ́ en ella

el sı ́mbolo de su espı ́ritu, ante su propio destino y en el conjunto

de Ame ́rica. Junto a la bandera de los Estados Unidos, la del pueblo ma ́s pequen ̃ o del hemisferio significa que a los pueblos como a

los hombres, la democracia los declara iguales en dignidad’’ y cierro

la cita.

Estas elocuentes palabras del arquitecto del ELA, que ha

marcado el rumbo de nuestra relacio ́n con los Estados Unidos

durante las pasadas cuatro de ́cadas y media, pusieron fin a un

proceso de descolonizacio ́n. Se reconocio ́ nuestra soberanı ́a y el

pacto bilateral entre Puerto Rico y Estados Unidos. Todo este logro

le fue informado por ustedes, a las Naciones Unidas en 1953.

A Puerto Rico no se le conoce como una isla en el Caribe,

ocupada por ciudadanos Norteamericanos, sino como una nacio ́n

Cariben ̃ a con cultura, caracterı ́sticas y personalidad propia.

Estados Unidos no encontro ́ en 1898 a una isla desierta, sin

identificacio ́n nacional. No llego ́ a un territorio abandonado, sino a

una nacio ́n con caracterı ́sticas propias, con igual dignidad a las

dema ́s naciones del mundo.

El Proyecto en cuestio ́n debe incorporar, para que exista un juego

limpio o igualdad de condicio ́n en este proceso, la definicio ́n del

nuevo ELA que ha sometido el Presidente de nuestro partido. El

desarrollo y culminacio ́n del ELA no es hacia la independencia ni

tampoco hacia la estadidad, que es el status que conllevarı ́a a la

desaparicio ́n de nuestra nacionalidad Puertorriquen ̃ a. Insisto, la
94

estadidad no es el desenlace final en el desarrollo del ELA. Esta

no ha sido la intencio ́n de los que hemos favorecido la fo ́rmula del

ELA en las consultas de 1952, 1967 y 1993.

Un segundo aspecto de nuestra visio ́n de este proceso, es que hay

que desenmascarar la estadidad a nuestro juicio, de la cual se dice

es un status digno. Con el respeto que me merecen quienes ası ́

piensen, la asimilacio ́n serı ́a una condicio ́n de indignidad, porque

serı ́a retornar a Puerto Rico a un status colonial en forma

permanente.

Somos dos naciones distantes, dos razas distintas. Los estadistas

Puertorriquen ̃ os quieren la estadidad, no porque se sientan

Americanos, sino en razo ́n de los do ́lares y centavos que segu ́n ellos

llenarı ́an nuestras arcas. La inmensa mayorı ́a de los

Puertorriquen ̃ os, no nos sentimos Americanos. Nos sentimos

Puertorriquen ̃ os con ciudadanı ́a Americana, y no es lo mismo ni se

escribe igual, pues tenemos la voluntad y el compromiso de

mantener una relacio ́n con Estados Unidos porque nos sentimos

orgullosos de esa ciudadanı ́a y reconocemos su valor y sus

responsabilidades.

La estadidad tiene mu ́ltiples desventajas porque afecta

significativa y adversamente tanto a Puerto Rico como a los

Estados Unidos. En esencia, la estadidad darı ́a aunque muchas

cosas negativas, una significativa reduccio ́n en el crecimiento de la

economı ́a de Puerto Rico. En cuanto a los Estados Unidos, la

estadidad le impone mayores gastos en Puerto Rico, pero au ́n ma ́s

importante, la cultura y el idioma verna ́ culo de Puerto Rico ira ́

desapareciendo a medida que avanza el proceso de asimilacio ́n de

los Puertorriquen ̃ os para convertirse en Norteamericanos como ha

ocurrido en varios estados.

®Cua ́les serı ́an las ventajas de la estadidad? No puede haber

ventaja alguna, pues la asimilacio ́n es un proceso de

autodestruccio ́n, de dejar de ser lo que somos para convertirnos en

otra cosa. Es pretender borrar nuestra historia y reescribirla bajo

la asimilacio ́n. Con la estadidad, Puerto Rico enfrentarı ́a los

numerosos problemas que conllevarı ́a a hacerla el estado ma ́s pobre

de la nacio ́n Americana. Otro problema que enfrentarı ́a Puerto Rico

es la aplicacio ́n de contribuciones Federales a nuestra gente

productiva, lo que originarı ́a una situacio ́n catastro ́fica en la

economı ́a familiar pues tendrı ́amos que pagar ma ́s contribuciones.

La estadidad serı ́a el suicidio polı ́tico de Puerto Rico, la

desaparicio ́n de nuestra nacionalidad. Es por esto, que en lugar de

ayudar a imponer una fo ́rmula polı ́tica en contra de la mayorı ́a de

los Puertorriquen ̃ os expresada en las urnas, ası ́ como en contra de

los mejores intereses de nuestros pueblos, hay que darle

continuidad al compromiso desarrollado por nuestras naciones.

El ELA, como todo sistema, hay que mejorarlo en aquellas partes

donde no ha sido desarrollado. Para esto es menester tener la

voluntad polı ́tica de entender nuestro status. De eso es que se trata

esto, de la voluntad polı ́tica de unos y otros, voluntad polı ́tica de

los que queremos la ciudadanı ́a Americana y seguir siendo

Puertorriquen ̃ os y la voluntad polı ́tica de ustedes para respetar eso

y por tanto no darle la espalda a la creacio ́n ma ́s afortunada en

este continente.
95

Sen ̃ ores Congresistas, se necesita solo la voluntad polı ́tica para

mantener y desarrollar nuestra autonomı ́a con ciudadanı ́a.

Nosotros somos Puertorriquen ̃ os primero. Puerto Rico es una

nacio ́n. Definan el nuevo ELA con la misma dignidad como lo

concibe la mayorı ́a de nuestro pueblo, tal y como lo hemos

propuesto. Recuerden, la clave de todo es voluntad polı ́tica.

Nosotros la tenemos. Demue ́strenla ustedes. Atre ́vanse.

Muchas Gracias.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Alzamora follows:]
96
97
98
99
100
101

Mr. UNDERWOOD [Presiding]. Next we have Mr. Jorge de Castro

Font, a Representative of the Puerto Rico House of Representatives. Sir, the floor is yours.

STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE JORGE DE CASTRO FONT,

REPRESENTATIVE, PUERTO RICO HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, SAN JUAN, PUERTO RICO

Mr. FONT. Thank you very much. Mr. Chairman, Governor Romero, and distinguished members of this Committee, welcome to

the Commonwealth, indeed the shining star of the Caribbean.

Since 1900, with the adoption of the Foraker Act, through the

Jones Act of 1917, the Elective Governors Act of 1947, and finally

with the adoption of the Constitution creating the Commonwealth

of Puerto Rico in 1952, the United States has been complying slowly but consistently with its international obligations to Puerto Rico.

In 1952, a big step was taken defining United States-Puerto Rico

political and constitutional relationship. The official position of the

United States as respects the process culminating in the adoption

of the Constitution creating Commonwealth status can best be expressed in the words of former President George Bush while U.S.

Ambassador to the United Nations in 1972, and I quote:

‘‘Since 1953, the practice of self-government has become a firmly

rooted tradition among the people of Puerto Rico. The compact

under which the peoples of Puerto Rico and the United States live

harmoniously in association has been achieved in complete freedom.’’

However, Representative Don Young, through H.R. 856, in treating the present Commonwealth status as colonial in nature and

being under the plenary powers of Congress, openly and brazenly

contradicts official policy as pertains the nature of the present

Commonwealth relationship. If this is the case, then I submit to

the learned gentlemen from Congress that what Judge Magruder

refused to accept is quite true: ‘‘Congress did, in fact, perpetrate a

monumental hoax upon the people of Puerto Rico and upon the

international community.’’

The Popular Democratic Party believes in self-determination for

the people of Puerto Rico and self-government within the framework of an enhanced and permanent Commonwealth status firmly

rooted on common citizenship, common market, common defense

and common currency. We hold these principles to be nonnegotiable. We also believe in fair play.

We want to participate in this process but we must insist that

the status option that we support and have enjoyed since 1952 be

not only validated as to its constitutional soundness, but also that

it be treated on an equal footing with the other status options to

appear on the ballot.

The bill we now consider falls short of this prerequisite. It clearly

violates the fundamental principles governing the historic and special constitutional relationship between Puerto Rico and the United

States. This bill seems to be tailor-made for failure of statehood,

since it is the only option capable of assuming for Puerto Ricans

a permanent union with the United States and American citizenship, which we insist must be made part of any definition of Commonwealth appearing on the ballot.
102

Furthermore, the process contained in the Young bill lacks selfexecuting definitions and in no way binds Congress. It forces our

people to multiple referendums while not even guaranteeing a swift

and uninterrupted process of transition. It is, therefore, totally unacceptable to us and, in all candidness, should likewise be unacceptable to you. The question I ask each and every one of you is

the following: Why deprecate Commonwealth? Why deprecate Commonwealth? Governor Romero?

Commonwealth has been an exceptionally good partnership for

both the United States and Puerto Rico. It has assured a political

and social stability without parallel in this hemisphere, responsible

for the unbelievable transformation of Puerto Rico in the last 45

years. All this, gentlemen, has been possible under Commonwealth.

We are really not asking for the impossible. What we are asking

this Committee in general, and Mr. Don Young in particular, is to

be consistent with previous definitions of Commonwealth status

which have been specifically endorsed, to wit: that appearing on

H.R. 4765, of May 1990. We will ask nothing less.

We want a vote taken on this matter; but for this vote to have

any meaning, it must be an exercise of fair play and pursuant to

the most basic principles of American democracy. It must be a process that dignifies our relationship and that treats with due respect

the 1 million American citizens in Puerto Rico that favor Commonwealth. Estado libre asociado.

My party has always defended the political bonds that through

Commonwealth have united Puerto Rico and the United States. I

really hope that the doings of this Committee in relation to Commonwealth status, which I uphold, will fully justify that defense.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Congressmen.

[The prepared statement of Mr. de Castro Font follows:]
103
104
105
106
107
108
109

Mr. UNDERWOOD. Thank you. And now we have the Honorable

Severo E. Colberg-Toro, who is a Representative in the Puerto Rico

House of Representatives. Sir, the floor is yours.

STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE SEVERO E. COLBERG-TORO,

REPRESENTATIVE, PUERTO RICO HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, SAN JUAN, PUERTO RICO

Mr. COLBERG-TORO. Sen ̃ or Presidente y resto de los Congresistas.

El Proyecto 856 supone el establecer un proceso que lleve a Puerto

Rico a un completo gobierno propio. Para que ese objetivo se

cumpla, sen ̃ or Presidente, hay que garantizar que los

Puertorriquen ̃ os puedan optar entre las alternativas en forma libre,

sin presiones o manipulaciones. El proceso tiene que ser un

ejercicio verdadero del derecho a la libre determinacio ́n. Con el

historial de imposicio ́n a que Estados Unidos ha sometido a este

pueblo por casi cien an ̃ os, ®que ́ razones tendrı ́amos en esta ocasio ́n,

los hijos de esta tie®rra, para pensar que esto es un proceso

verdadero de libre determinacio ́n?

Veamos parte de ese historial antidemocra ́tico sobre Puerto Rico,

por parte de Estados Unidos, quien ha actuado de acuerdo a su

intere ́s y en violacio ́n a los principios morales de los cuales Estados

Unidos se vanagloria de ser el paladı ́n a nivel mundial. El 25 de

julio de 1898, las tropas Norteamericanas invadieron a Puerto Rico.

La ciudad de San Juan fue bombardeada, poniendo en peligro la

vida de mujeres y nin ̃ os Boricua. Estados Unidos impuso en

nuestra patria, un re ́gimen militar que dictatorialmente trastoco ́

todo nuestro sistema de vida.

La ley Foraker, que Estados Unidos tambie ́n nos impuso, trajo

un gobierno civil. Este re ́gimen fue valuado y comparado con el

sistema Norteamericano bajo la administracio ́n del Presidente

Carter y dicho informe determino ́, que en todos los sentidos no

adquirimos nada mejor de lo que tenı ́amos. Intento ́ imponer el

Ingle ́s en la educacio ́n y en la judicatura. Econo ́micamente, los

Estados Unidos no hizo nada de lo que ya hacı ́a Espan ̃ a al

devolvernos las tarifas que le imponı ́a a nuestros productos.

En 1917, ustedes impusieron la ciudadanı ́a Americana. La

legislatura de Puerto Rico, presidida por quien honramos hoy, don

Jose ́ de Diego, aprobo ́ una ́nimemente una resolucio ́n que establecı ́a,

que aunque se respetaba la ciudadanı ́a Americana, mantenı ́a su

oposicio ́n a ser declarados en su contra, ciudadanos Americanos,

intentando despojarnos de la ciudadanı ́a Puertorriquen ̃ a. Desde la

de ́cada de los treinta, el pueblo Puertorriquen ̃ o a trave ́s de sus

sectores ideolo ́gicos y polı ́ticos, han desarrollado todas las formas

de lucha concebibles, para conseguir que Estados Unidos colaborara

en la solucio ́n del status polı ́tico.

El cabildeo de los estadistas, las grandes demostraciones

electorales del Partido Popular y la lucha armada del Partido

Nacionalista no fueron suficiente para adelantar a nuestro pueblo

en su lucha por la libre determinacio ́n y autogobierno. Se desato ́

una represio ́n contra las fuerzas polı ́ticas Puertorriquen ̃istas y en

especial, contra el independentismo.

El Director del FBI, Edgar Hoover, le informaba al Secretario de

Justicia de los Estados Unidos con gran preocupacio ́n, que la

legislatura de la isla habı ́a aprobado una ley para que se celebrara
110

un plebiscito. Como consecuencia de esa intencio ́n, se desato ́ una

persecucio ́n contra las fuerzas Puertorriquen ̃istas.

En el 1952, sen ̃ or Presidente, como resultado de uno de los logros

ma ́s importantes de nuestra historia como nacio ́n y por ejercer ese

derecho a la libre determinacio ́n, nuestro pueblo aprueba una

constitucio ́n, de las ma ́s completas del mundo. En 1952, se creo ́ el

Estado Libre Asociado, en el entendido, que se creaba una nueva

fo ́rmula de relacio ́n no- colonial con los Estados Unidos. El

Congreso Norteamericano elimino ́ la Seccio ́n 20 de nuestra

Constitucio ́n, atropellando la voluntad de nuestro pueblo, y

maculando el ejercicio a la libre determinacio ́n.

Como resultado de la creacio ́n del ELA, el Gobierno de los

Estados Unidos fue a las Naciones Unidas y consiguieron que se le

eximiera de seguir brindando informes obligatorios, basado en que

Puerto Rico habı ́a entrado en una nueva relacio ́n no- colonial con

los Estados Unidos. El Proyecto 856, presentado por el sen ̃ or

Presidente y avalado por otros congresistas concluye, que Puerto

Rico sigue siendo una colonia de los Estados Unidos. Esta

aseveracio ́n nos lleva entonces a la conclusio ́n de que Estados

Unidos engan ̃ o ́ a las Naciones Unidas y engan ̃ o ́ a la humanidad en

el 1953. Esto demuestra el aspecto moral de esta controversia.

Se ha sen ̃ alado que el Partido Popular al que yo pertenezco,

colaboro ́ con ustedes en el engan ̃ o. Primero, creo que es bien injusto

dentro de la relacio ́n de fuerza entre Estados Unidos y Puerto Rico,

siendo nosotros los ma ́s en desventaja y donde ha predominado la

fuerza de la imposicio ́n, aceptemos nuestra parte en la

responsabilidad de los Puertorriquen ̃ os en el engan ̃ o. Sen ̃ or

Presidente, yo le digo que au ́n ası ́, yo acepto la parte que pueda

haber de esa responsabilidad histo ́rica. Ahora bien, yo pregunto,

®aceptan ustedes la responsabilidad moral del Gobierno de los

Estados Unidos por ese engan ̃ o?

La relacio ́n de 1953. . . Ustedes le deben una explicacio ́n al pueblo

Puertorriquen ̃ o. Si el reconocer esa situacio ́n significa que en esta

ocasio ́n el proceso se marcara ́ dentro de las normas del derecho

internacional, al dı ́a de hoy, para comenzar a cumplir con ese derecho y obligacio ́n, ustedes le deben a las Naciones Unidas cuarenta

y cinco informes correspondientes por cada uno de los an ̃ os del

1952 que no se ha cumplido. Desde el 1952 al presente, y en una

demostracio ́n de buena fe y anhelo del pueblo Puertorriquen ̃ o por

resolver su status, se han celebrado dos plebiscitos, se han creado

comisiones, comite ́s ad hoc, se han radicado proyectos en el

Congreso, se dio el proceso del 1989 y aquı ́ estamos como

empezamos. Como dirı ́a don Luis Mun ̃ oz Marı ́n, ‘‘Estamos en una

situacio ́n donde cada punto es un ’turning point’ porque estamos

movie ́ndonos en cı ́rculos.’’

Para romper este cı ́rculo sen ̃ or Presidente y terminar, vamos a

ver y tener un verdadero derecho a la libre determinacio ́n, de

acuerdo a lo que establece el derecho internacional. Yo, que creo en

lo establece ese derecho internacional para la asociacio ́n con

soberanı ́a entre dos naciones, la libre asociacio ́n, lo acepto. Ahora

bien, ®aceptan ustedes que entienden que Puerto Rico es una

colonia, y por ende no puede ser un caso dome ́stico, la aplicacio ́n

del derecho internacional en este proceso?
111

Finalmente les sen ̃ alo, que ustedes tienen un problema de ı ́ndole

moral con Puerto Rico y como ustedes saben, en este a ́mbito no

puede haber puntos intermedios. No se puede ser el lı ́der de la

democracia en el mundo y atropellar la voluntad de un pueblo

durante cien an ̃ os. En ese sentido, rechazo la utilizacio ́n de la

ciudadanı ́a Americana como forma de chantaje contra amplios

sectores de nuestro pueblo para favorecer a una de las opciones, la

estadidad. Eso es un acto de agresio ́n, caracterı ́stico de la polı ́tica

de las can ̃ oneras. El jugar con las lealtades y la querencias de un

pueblo. Ustedes impusieron la ciudadanı ́a Norteamericana cuando

nadie la pidio ́. Ahora tienen que asumir la responsabilidad por sus

actos. Lo que se da, no se quita. No pie ́rdanle perspectiva que la

paciencia del pueblo, por ma ́s pequen ̃ o que sea, tiene su lı ́mite y

puestos contra la pared no se suicidan, sino que se reafirman.

Muchas gracias.

Mr. UNDERWOOD. Now we have the Honorable Rony Jarabo, who

is the former Speaker of the House of Representatives. Sir, you

may proceed.

STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE RONY JARABO, FORMER

SPEAKER OF THE PUERTO RICO HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, POPULAR DEMOCRATIC PARTY, SAN JUAN, PUERTO

RICO

Mr. JARABO. Thank you, sir. Acting Chairman Underwood,

former Governor and Resident Commissioner Carlos RomeroBarcelo ́, Congressman Miller, I come before you as a deeply concerned citizen who finds the design of the process of consultation

and implementation of status preference as proposed by H.R. 856

very peculiar, highly objectionable, and very unfair to the people of

Puerto Rico. Decisions on the political destiny of a people are a

very serious matter, of such proportions and consequences that

they should exclude partisan and sectarian biases that prejudge

the merits of the questions involved.

The exercise of a nation’s most fundamental right, the right to

self-determination, and the possibly irreversible results that ensue

thereof, should be framed in a process that is equitable to all competing options, not slanted in favor of one of them. The process

should embody effective moral, political, and legal commitments of

all entities with a deciding role so that they shall be obligated to

act on the people’s mandate within a reasonable time.

Admittedly, the criteria of political feasibility is relevant and, indeed, essential to the responsible legislative choices that must be

made when drafting a bill that purports to be a means of self-determination. But such criteria should be applied evenhandedly, with

fair play as the guiding spirit of its application to all options in the

process, not just to the obvious target of the bill’s design.

Certainly the process should facilitate solutions to existing problems and not create new ones that cannot be solved. I am deeply

worried that we may be placing Puerto Rico on a sure course to a

no-exit situation, whereby the existing political reality, Commonwealth, is the means and disqualified; and the other probable

choice, the other alternative with sufficient political backing, there

is no commitment as to it.
112

So we could end up recognizing or viewing what we have as unacceptable and not being able to get what supposedly is acceptable.

I feel that would be a much worse situation than what Puerto Rico

now has in the present. And I feel that this Committee, and Congress in general, have a very special historic responsibility that

this situation not be created.

I respectfully submit to you that H.R. 856 does not meet the minimum basic requirements of a bill that fairly offers a means to legitimate and effective self-determination. Accordingly, I respectfully propose to you that this bill be amended as follows:

Eliminate all provisions on findings that demean the option of

Commonwealth or that assume that nothing of political, historic, or

of constitutional relevance happened when Commonwealth was created. They are unnecessary to the bill but they slant the balance,

the competitive balance, between the options before the people of

Puerto Rico.

Avoid the dualistic or bipolar approach of separate sovereignty

versus the formulas for union. I know you are getting an intensive

course in the labyrinth of Puerto Rican status politics. I know that

you have argued about sovereignty and citizenship, and maybe by

now you have realized that the word and the concept of sovereignty

in Puerto Rico is used at least in three different meanings:

One, natural, or inherent sovereignty, which means the inherent

sovereignty of a people, the ultimate source from which a political

entity derives its authority. Which means the right to self-government. Which means the right to self-determination; Sovereignty of

a political entity within the Federal system of self-governing units

within a Federal system, which means reserved powers, retained

rights. As, for example, the rights of States, not delegated to the

Federal Government according to the 10th amendment of the Federal Constitution. Or the Commonwealth sovereignty, ‘‘over matters not ruled by the U.S. Constitution.’’ The quote is from the U.S.

Supreme Court; And the third meaning of a concept of sovereignty

in Puerto Rico is national sovereignty, which is what the bill calls

sovereignty. Separate sovereignty, of course. The full sovereignty of

independent states, which as an essential characteristic exclude

other entities; authority over the same jurisdiction.

There is no conflict between the sovereignty of Puerto Rico understood in the first or second meanings of the concept and U.S.

citizenship for Puerto Ricans as it exists under current Commonwealth status. It is a basic flaw of H.R. 856 to equate statehood

with the only possible guarantee of permanent U.S. citizenship.

I submit to you that the nature of citizenship is one irrespective

of its constitutional or statutory origin. I believe we are afforded

the same guarantees against loss of citizenship that Afroean versus

Rusk defined for all citizens.

The fact that voting rights of citizens vary according to the political entity in which they reside, as do benefits under Federal programs and tax obligations, does not invalidate the principle of one

class of citizenship. These differences are a consequence of residence, not of citizenship, not of ‘‘levels of citizenship.’’

The Nationality Act provides that for the purposes of nationality,

U.S. citizens born in Puerto Rico shall be deemed to have been

born in the United States, thus bridging the gap of nonincorpora-
113

tion. I believe this bill should not create a gap between Puerto

Rican born U.S. citizens, natural born U.S. citizens, and fellow citizens born in one of the States of the Union.

There is no gap in the battlefield, there is no gap as to due process and equal protection of the laws, there should be no gap as to

citizens.

I know I am running short of time.

Mr. UNDERWOOD. You have run out of time, but, please continue.

Mr. JARABO. Well, there are a number of——

Mr. UNDERWOOD. Would you please wrap it up, sir?

Mr. JARABO. Yes. I will back Congressman Miller’s point of view

as to the Commonwealth definition. I could answer questions on it.

There is nothing unusual or heretical or unconstitutional in it.

I would like to end my testimony by addressing a number of matters on statehood which deeply worry me.

As I said before, there is no commitment that statehood will be

granted even if statehood wins. I find that very unfair.

I think that this bill should, in the absence of the resolution expressing the sense of Congress that statehood is possible, that Congress would be willing to grant statehood, if statehood wins in

Puerto Rico or if statehood reaches the required majority and sustains it; because it should worry you that since 1964 only twice, the

third time this year, a party has repeated its electoral victory. In

1964, PDP, the Popular Democrat Party won, in 1968 the PNP; in

1972. So it goes back and forth. So you could have a status decision

here and the consensus would not hold in 4 years or 8 years.

I believe there should be a policy established here as to the possibility of statehood. It is a very relevant and very essential factor

of the debate on Puerto Rican status whether statehood is possible

or not. And as you know, the consensus analysis of what happened

with the Senate bill in 1990–91 was that the Republican Senators

would not vote for the bill because it had automatic provision for

statehood, if statehood won.

Second——

Mr. UNDERWOOD. One final point, sir.

Mr. JARABO. OK. On the language issue. I believe no condition

should be imposed on Puerto Rico, in the event of statehood, that

would not be imposed equally when it is imposed on the rest of the

States.

There should not be a provision that seems to place Puerto Rico

in a different light than what other States would be. And that

there should be in this bill, in this bill, policy established as to

Spanish in the event that statehood would win and that Puerto

Rico would become a State of the Union.

I believe that a plebiscite every 4 years is excessive.

Mr. UNDERWOOD. Now you have gone from language to the plebiscite.

Mr. JARABO. That is my last point, Chairman Underwood.

Mr. UNDERWOOD. Thank you very much. All of this is very interesting testimony.

I wanted to ask a quick question of Mr. Castro Font. I read about

the vote in the newspaper. You alluded to it in your written testimony but you did not say it in your statement. Does your political
114

party have a unified stand on who should be eligible to vote in this

political status process?

Mr. FONT. I didn’t have that in my address today because of the

time, but you read the papers; so, good.

Mr. UNDERWOOD. I tried to.

Mr. FONT. Let me tell you something. I am a very pragmatic

man, let me tell you. I believe the only people that have the authority to vote in Puerto Rico must be the residents of the Island

of Puerto Rico, and that is my point of view.

I am pro-Commonwealth. I am a member of the Popular Party,

but I am a very pragmatic man. I believe this is fair. The fairness

of the process is, if you are going to a plebiscite in 1998, you have

to fix that definition, and also the only people that must have the

right to vote are the people living in Puerto Rico, and if they apply

the electoral law of Puerto Rico for the year of residency in Puerto

Rico.

Mr. COLBERG-TORO. Sı ́, sen ̃ or Presidente, en cuanto a esa

pregunta, nosotros diferimos respetuosamente del compan ̃ ero. El

Partido Popular no ha definido su posicio ́n en cuanto a eso y la que

se ha discutido. . . La que se ha discutido ha sido de que Puerto

Rico es una sola nacio ́n. Y eso incluye los Puertorriquen ̃ os que

viven en los Estados Unidos, que son tan Puertorriquen ̃ os como

nosotros los que vivimos aquı ́ en la isla.

Nosotros entendemos que es justo y razonable, que siendo una

sola nacio ́n y se vaya a definir. . . Se vaya a definir el futuro de la

nacio ́n, sean los nacionales, los Puertorriquen ̃ os eh. . . No importa

dondequiera que estos se encuentren. Y un ejemplo cla ́sico serı ́a el

Puertorriquen ̃ o que lleva tiempo viviendo en los Estados Unidos,

tiene siempre el deseo de regresar a Puerto Rico o que ha

regresado, lleva veinte an ̃ os, y esa persona y sus hijos son

Puertorriquen ̃ os no pudiera votar cuando viene una persona que

cumpla con la ley electoral y simplemente sea un residente de un

an ̃ o en Puerto Rico, ese sı ́ pueda votar en la decisio ́n de un pueblo.

Parece que hay una gran contradiccio ́n y que es un punto por lo

cual me parece que debe ser evaluado y sobre todo, si se va a

cumplir con el derecho internacional.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Colberg-Toro follows:]
115
116
117
118

Mr. UNDERWOOD. My only point was, I wanted to know whether

the party had a position, and it appears it does not.

Mr. JARABO. In the past, Mr. Chairman, the party has made public statements backing the vote by Puerto Rican-born citizens and

leaving the door open, given the problem of logistics, as to children

born of Puerto Rican parents and living in the States.

That is the past. I don’t know what the present position would

be.

But let me just point out that if this is a process of self-determination, it seems to me the only valid option is that all Puerto

Rican-born citizens would be able to vote.

Whether non-Puerto-Rican-born citizens residing in Puerto Rico

could vote, that is a different question, whether you would consider

them as a different segment of the vote, because they are part of

the people of Puerto Rico, because they reside here, they are citizens of Puerto Rico, their children have been born here, that type

of consideration.

But as to the first question, I believe all Puerto Rican-born

should be able to vote.

Mr. FONT. Mr. Chairman, very briefly, I want to add something,

because you are mistaken. This is my personal belief. I want to say

something to you.

My family is the Castro family. We came to Puerto Rico 500

years ago from Spain, 500 years. I have cousins in California, I

have cousins in North Carolina, I have Puerto Ricans, the Castro

family, in Florida and New York. I don’t vote for the decision of my

fellow cousins in the United States mainland.

Mr. UNDERWOOD. Very good, understood.

Before we go to the other members, just briefly on the issue of

reporting in the United Nations, I want to share an issue with you.

The issue of how that is portrayed is one that I have watched very

carefully.

In the case of Guam, Guam is still on the list of non-self-governing territories at the United Nations. It was communicated to

me in no uncertain terms that had Guam adopted what was called

a constitution of self-government, then the U.S. Government would

have moved toward removing Guam from the list, even without a

particular change in political status. So the issue has many different dimensions to it.

I have run out of time, and I will go to Mr. Miller from California.

Mr. MILLER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I appreciate your question on eligibility to vote. As you know, we

have been approached by our colleague, Mr. Serrano, who is deeply

concerned about that issue, and I am sure we will be debating it.

As he points out, we can resolve it in a manner in which he can

be a Puerto Rican with a vote in Congress but no vote in Puerto

Rico, which would be an interesting turn of events.

I really don’t have a question. I want to again make a couple of

defining remarks here about this process. It has been suggested by

various witnesses that we have had, both in Washington and

here—that somehow each of these definitions ties you down to a

specific status, and in some cases that is heralded as a benefit, and
119

in others it is suggested that is a detriment. Again, it is depends

on who is characterizing this.

I would only state this process comes at a rather unique time in

our own history, when the Congress is in the process of redefining

the status of many of the States. We are handing off burdens to

many of the States, some of which they asked for and think they

can handle, and others which they are now quite alarmed at having to deal with.

We also find our own courts now taking another look at the powers of the Congress with respect to the commerce clause vis-a-vis

the States and obligations that we can place on those, and even the

obligations we can place on individual citizens.

The general use of our system is that it is, in fact, a fluid system.

It is never static, it is constantly changing within those relationships. And that is why, again, I would argue that this process remain as open as possible and as fair as possible, because eventually

the decisions that will have to be made on both sides of the equation are very, very serious decisions.

As we properly should, we continue to dwell on the decisions that

the people of Puerto Rico will have to make. I suggest to you that

many Members of Congress, when they realize that this is in fact

a very real legislative proposal, this will be every bit as serious a

decision for them as any vote they cast in the Congress of the

United States. Some of them will come to that realization sooner

than others.

But the fact is, by the time we vote on the Floor of the House

of Representatives and the U.S. Senate and pass this to the President of the United States, this will be a very real concrete decision

for Members of Congress.

For that reason, I just continue to argue that we should remain

open to all suggestions. Again, we will not accept all suggestions,

by any means, but that is the process, and we have got to make

sure as we take that first step, which will be the presentation of

this legislation, that all parties feel truly enfranchised in that process.

I raise that point for some of the reasons that some of you raised

it here and the previous panel raised it. I think it is maybe the

most important gift that this Committee can give to the process, is

that all concerned citizens of Puerto Rico truly feel enfranchised by

this Committee.

I know that Carlos and Congressman Young have worked very

hard to do that. We had a lot of negotiations, and we will continue

to have those, to make sure that, in fact, people who are in this

room and watching this and participating in this long and historical debate believe that the Congress served them well. As we have

already heard, some of you are not so sure of that today. But that

is our obligation back to you.

I thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. UNDERWOOD. Thank you.

Mr. ALZAMORA. Mr. Chairman, I want to clarify something very

important. Se trata, como portavoz del Partido Popular en este. . .

En este grupo, dejar una cosa bien clara para el re ́cord. La posicio ́n

oficial del Partido Popular Democra ́tico, que fue aprobada en una

resolucio ́n y que no ha sido revocada, es que los nacionales
120

Puertorriquen ̃ os no importa donde vivan, participen en el plebiscito

que tenga que ver con el futuro de el paı ́s. La posicio ́n del querido

compan ̃ ero de Castro Font se la respetamos. Es un. . . Como e ́l ha

dicho, su opinio ́n personal. Pero la oposicio ́n oficial del partido,

hasta tanto no sea revocada y no anticipo que vaya a ser revocada,

es que todo nacional Puertorriquen ̃ o pueda votar en relacio ́n al

futuro del [U/I].

Mr. UNDERWOOD. Thank you for that clarification.

Mr. Romero-Barcelo ́?

Mr. ROMERO-BARCELO ́. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I want to start first of all by saying that we talk about the vote

of people that do not reside in Puerto Rico. We have too short a

time to discuss the logistics of it, but the logistics are just impossible. So to try to do that is the way of derailing the process.

The other thing: As far as some people claim, there are 3.3 million Puerto Ricans residing in the mainland, 50 States of the

Union, and in other countries. To give them the same process of

identification as we do here for those who vote here and to issue

them a voting card with a photograph, it would just be logistically

impossible.

The other thing that I would like to let you be aware of: This is

a process where we are asking that each group say what it is they

want from Congress; in other words, how do they define the formula? But you must also be aware of, this is not a one-way street,

this is a two-way street.

One thing is what you might want to see, and the other thing

is what can be reasonable or what others are going to be willing

to accept. Each Congressman and each Senator responds to their

citizens in their State.

So when you claim, for instance, that you want to have equal

benefits in Federal programs and yet you are not willing to pay

Federal income tax, well, you have to be aware, whether it is constitutional or not, how does that sit with the citizens of the 50

States who do have to pay Federal income taxes? That is part of

the things that each Congressman and each Senator is going to

weigh.

So one thing is what you might want, and the other things is

what Congress is going to be willing to give.

Then the other thing is, when you ask that the Congress commit

themselves, and I see that you underscore when they commit themselves to statehood, 37 territories became States after the original

Thirteen Colonies, and those 37 territories, none of them were offered or guaranteed statehood. They had to go through a process.

They had to ask for statehood. In some instances it was a very

short time, and in some instances it was a very long time.

But you think that we should be guaranteed something that has

not been guaranteed historically to anyone else? I know you have

great concerns for statehood. Please, let us deal with that. We will

take our chances. We will take our chances.

The other thing I wanted to say: When you think of a sovereign

nation—and Puerto Rico is a sovereign nation with U.S. citizenship—do you, as a sovereign nation, think Puerto Rico should abide

by the Federal banking laws or not—the banking laws adopted by

Congress, or not?
121

Mr. ALZAMORA. Bueno, la—la soberanı ́a de Puerto Rico la

reconoce el propio Congreso de los Estados Unidos, cuando en la

Ley 600——

Mr. ROMERO-BARCELO ́. Please, I know that you can evade answering my question and you can talk for the rest of the time, but

I am trying to get a point across so the people understand what

it is that you want in your choice. Do you think in the new Commonwealth—would you expect the banking laws that were then

adopted by the Congress—do you think they should be applicable

to Puerto Rico, yes or no?

Mr. ALZAMORA. Bueno, yo le voy a contestar conforme a como yo

entiendo que debo contestar mi pregunta no como usted desea que

yo se la conteste. La propuesta del Estado Libre Asociado esta ́

clara. En el Inciso C en particular, habla de una asamblea

constituyente especial para cualquier cosa que no este ́ debidamente

definida dentro del concepto de mejorar el Estado Libre Asociado

a obtener el ma ́ximo de autonomı ́a y que nosotros podamos decidir

sobre la legislacio ́n Federal a aplicarla o no. Esa asamblea

constituyente estarı ́a a cargo de redactar todo ese proceso que es

bastante detallado. Por lo tanto, eso no puedo contestarlo con un

sı ́ o un no. Ahora, si para complacerlo ma ́s, le puedo decir lo

siguiente. De ́nos la oportunidad a que se acepte esta definicio ́n.

Estoy seguro que con esta definicio ́n volvera ́ a ganar por tercera

ocasio ́n el Estado Libre Asociado y esa asamblea constituyente se

encargara ́ de esa preocupacio ́n.

[Applause.]

Mr. ROMERO-BARCELO ́. When the Congressmen or Senator asks

me, with this definition of ‘‘New Commonwealth,’’ when we pass

banking laws, are they going to be applicable to Puerto Rico, I say

I don’t know. How can we make a decision?

Mr. ALZAMORA. Pero precisamente, la Asamblea Constituyente

especial atendera ́ todo aquello que tenga que ver con la

aplicabilidad de leyes Federales.

Mr. ROMERO-BARCELO ́. So I cannot answer them, because then

they want to know. But they want the entitlements. On that they

are clear; they want the money, but not the obligation.

Mr. ALZAMORA. Pero es que la—el desarrollo del Estado Libre

Asociado obviamente tiene que estar basado en primero, en un

mandato del pueblo. A pesar de que han habido dos mandatos y

Estados Unidos no los ha atendido gracias al boicot del liderato

estadista en el Congreso, como en el del 1993 que ustedes lo

propusieron y no nos permitieron entonces a nosotros trabajar en

la forma que habı ́a que trabajar. Estamos aquı ́ ahora mismo,

debatiendo en un futuro status precisamente, porque al Estado

Libre Asociado no le han permitido desarrollarlo por el boicot

antidemocra ́tico de las personas que pierden plebiscito en este paı ́s.

Y entonces, ante esa realidad, pues estamos nuevamente en un

proceso congresional ahora para poder definir la fo ́rmula.

La estadidad se sabe cual es, una sola, Americana, la eliminacio ́n

de la nacionalidad Puertorriquen ̃a. La independencia se sabe cual

es, separarse de Estados Unidos. El Estado Libre Asociado tiene los

para ́metros ba ́sicos que se basa en la comu ́n ciudadanı ́a, la comu ́n

defensa, el comu ́n mercado, la comu ́n moneda y entonces la

aspiracio ́n de mejorarlo, manteniendo esos cuatro pilares ba ́sicos
122

pero logrando el ma ́ximo de autonomı ́a compatible con nuestra

relacio ́n permanente con los Estados Unidos. Y por eso en el Inciso

C proponemos como podemos desarrollar esa autonomı ́a a base de

que ley Federal se aplica Puerto Rico y cual no y que forma Puerto

Rico pueda tener su presencia internacional. Eso esta ́ contestado en

esta definicio ́n que hemos sometido.

Mr. ROMERO-BARCELO ́. It is not answered. You are just going

around in circles, but you are not answering.

Just one final question. How do I answer when they ask me, this

group of people that want U.S. citizenship, that one of the spokesman says, ‘‘I do not feel American’’? What do you think their constituents of the Congressmen and Senators are going to say? Why

do you want to give citizenship to those people that don’t want it?

Why? What can we tell them?

Mr. ALZAMORA. You don’t have to give us citizenship; we have

citizenship. Just nationality.

Mr. ROMERO-BARCELO ́. Why should we guarantee it?

Mr. ALZAMORA. Es que no hay—no hay que darles ciudadanı ́a. La

ciudadanı ́a la tenemos igual que la nacionalidad. Lo que sucede—

yo le pregunto a usted, si usted se siente—si usted se siente

Puertorriquen ̃ o o Americano porque yo me siento——

Mr. ROMERO-BARCELO ́. Las dos cosas.

Mr. ALZAMORA. ... Puertorriquen ̃ o.

Mr. ROMERO-BARCELO ́. I feel both.

Mr. ALZAMORA. No, yo me siento Puertorriquen ̃ o——

Mr. ROMERO-BARCELO ́. I feel both.

Mr. ALZAMORA. [continuing] y ciudadano Americano. Son dos

cosas distintas porque la nacionalidad no puede ser nada ma ́s que

una. La ciudadanı ́a puede ser dos como la tenemos en Puerto Rico,

la Americana y la Puertorriquen ̃ a por naturaleza. Pero nacional

uno es solamente de una nacio ́n, y nuestra nacio ́n es Puerto Rico.

Mr. ROMERO-BARCELO ́. Then you don’t want to be a U.S. citizen.

Will you defend it?

Mr. ALZAMORA. No, claro que la defendere ́, claro que defendemos

la ciudadanı ́a Americana. La defendemos, claro que sı ́. La hemos

defendido con nuestras vidas inclusive en las guerras,

defendie ́ndola dentro del pacto que existe bilateral, que es parte de

ese pacto, la ciudadanı ́a Americana.

Mr. UNDERWOOD. Thank you. Thank you very much. I am sure

we can continue this discussion ad infinitum. I would like to thank

again the members of the panel.

Before I turn the gavel over to Mr. Miller, I would like to just

take one small privilege and say, ‘‘Hafa Adai,’’ which is the greeting in Guam, to all the people of Puerto Rico and Mayaguez who

are watching this, and also take an opportunity to introduce a couple of people in the audience. One is Senator Elizabeth Barrett Anderson of the Guam Legislature. I see she is not there. The other

is her staffer, Jim Underwood, who magically has the same last

name. I don’t know how that happened. He is my first cousin. He

is also a former Senator of the Guam Legislature.

Thank you very much for being a good panel.

Mr. MILLER [presiding]. Thank you for your testimony and time

and consideration of the Committee.
123

The next panel will be made up of Mr. Julio Muriente Perez, who

is the president of the Puerto Rico New Movement Independent

Party; Mr. Roberto Cardona Ubinas, president of the National Patriotic Union; Ms. Lolita Lebron, the president of the Nationalist

Party of Puerto Rico; Mr. Frank Velgara, co-coordinator, Pro-Liberated; Mr. Carlos Gallisa, Hato Rey; and Dr. Edgardo Morales, professor of organizational psychology, University of Puerto Rico.

Welcome to the Committee.

Mr. Perez, we will begin with you.

Mr. GALLISA. Sen ̃ or Presidente, antes de comenzar a deponer este

panel queremos expresar nuestro profundo disgusto por la ausencia

del sen ̃ or Don Young que es el que preside este panel, y creemos

que es una falta de respeto.

Mr. MILLER. Mr. Young is watching this testimony. Mr. Young

happens to have a bad back. Mr. Young cannot sit through all of

the testimony. He has been monitoring and watching the testimony, just as he did in San Juan.

Mr. GALLISA. Pues yo espero que ası ́ sea, pero de cualquier

manera nos parece que el sen ̃ or Young ha hecho un compromiso de

venir a oı ́r aquı ́ a todo el mundo y que solamente esta ́ oyendo a

un sector de los que se expresan aquı ́. Ası ́ que conste nuestra

protesta desde este comienzo por la ausencia de e ́l, que entendemos

que es irrespetuosa.

Mr. MILLER. That is fine. That is simply an inaccurate statement.

Senor Perez, we begin with you.

STATEMENT OF JULIO A. MURIENTE PEREZ, PRESIDENT,

PUERTO RICO NEW MOVEMENT INDEPENDENT PARTY, SAN

JUAN, PUERTO RICO

Mr. MURIENTE PEREZ. Sen ̃ ores congresistas, mi nombre es Julio

Antonio Muriente Pe ́rez. Soy geo ́grafo y profesor universitario.

Comparezco ante ustedes en calidad de Presidente del Nuevo

Movimiento Independentista Puertorriquen ̃ o, hoy 21 de abril de

1997, fecha en que se conmemora treinta y dos an ̃ os de la muerte

del patriota don Pedro Alvisu Campos, cuya vida y ejemplo nos

inspira como igualmente nos inspira compartir aquı ́ con la heroı ́na

nacional Lolita Lebron, presente aquı ́ con la misma firmeza con la

que los enfrento ́ a ustedes. . . [Applause] En el Congreso el primero

de marzo de 1954.

Hace casi noventa y nueve an ̃ os, las tropas Estadounidenses

invadieron Puerto Rico y nos tomaron como botı ́n de guerra.

Entonces no hubo plebiscitos ni consultas. Se apoderaron de

nosotros a la fuerza. Desde entonces, Estados Unidos ha controlado

nuestras vidas, ha impuesto sobre los Puertorriquen ̃ os las leyes que

emanan del Congreso. Ha intentado imponer su lengua y su

cultura, ha militarizado grandes porciones de nuestras tierras.

Esta situacio ́n de unilateralidad no vario ́ con la creacio ́n del

Estado Libre Asociado en el an ̃ o 1952 y se mantiene hasta nuestros

dı ́as. Casi noventa y nueve an ̃ os despue ́s, ustedes sen ̃ ores

congresistas, radican un proyecto de ley que han catalogado como

de naturaleza descolonizadora sin contar con el parecer del pueblo

Puertorriquen ̃ o, concebido y disen ̃ ado en funcio ́n de sus intereses y

de los intereses de un sector antinacional y antipatrio ́tico que son
124

los eleccionistas que no representan el sentir de la mayorı ́a del

pueblo Puertorriquen ̃ o.

Ustedes le han pedido definiciones de status a los tres partidos

polı ́ticos del paı ́s, pero en u ́ltima instancia sera ́n ustedes quienes

decidan que definiciones aparecera ́n si el Proyecto Young se

convierte en ley y si se implementa alguna consulta al pueblo.

Incluso, si se diera dicha consulta, no se comprometen a reconocer

los resultados de la misma.

Ustedes celebraron unas vistas pu ́ blicas recientemente en Washington y celebran estas vistas pu ́ blicas en Puerto Rico para dar la

impresio ́n de que el pueblo de Puerto Rico participa en este

proceso. Pero la realidad es que ustedes aprobara ́n, si es finalmente

aprueban algo, lo que a ustedes y solo a ustedes les convenga. Vistas pu ́ blicas, que si para algo han servido, es para dividir au ́n ma ́s

al pueblo Puertorriquen ̃ o en tribus irreconciliables.

Mientras tanto, al pueblo Puertorriquen ̃ o se le mantiene en las

gradas mientras ustedes imponen sus decisiones en el campo de

juego. Cuando decimos el pueblo Puertorriquen ̃ o, nos referimos

tanto a quienes residimos en Puerto Rico como a los millones de

compatriotas radicados en Estados Unidos y otras partes del

planeta, que son hijos de esta tierra como el que ma ́s, y que tienen

los mismos derechos fundamentales para decidir sobre el destino de

este paı ́s.

El Proyecto Young, sen ̃ ores Congresistas, no representa un

proceso descolonizador sino una imposicio ́n similar a la ley. . . A la

Ley 600 de 1950. Ustedes, sen ̃ ores Congresistas, y la institucio ́n

que ustedes representan, tienen que demostrar que tienen la

voluntad para promover un proceso real y genuinamente

descolonizador en Puerto Rico si es que interesan gozar de alguna

credibilidad. Corresponde a ustedes reconocer que Puerto Rico es

una nacio ́n sometida al colonialismo y que son ustedes la metro ́poli

que somete a esta nacio ́n Cariben ̃ a y Latinoamericana.

Tienen ustedes que reconocer que existe una legalidad

internacional en materia de colonialismo que no comienza con la

quince (15) cuarenta y uno (41) quinza [sic] (XV) sino que esta ́

inspirada en la Resolucio ́n Quince Catorce (1514) Romanos quince

(XV) de la ONU, la cual establece que todo proceso de

descolonizacio ́n tiene que estar precedido por una transferencia de

poderes fundamentales de la metro ́poli a la colonia. Sin esa

transferencia de poderes, no puede haber proceso descolonizador.

Tienen ustedes que desistir de lanzar una escalada militar como

lo es la imposicio ́n del Comando Sur de su eje ́rcito y la instalacio ́n

de un sistema de radares por su Marina de Guerra. Sin

desmilitarizacio ́n, no puede haber proceso descolonizador. Tienen

ustedes que dar muestra de su buena fe liberando a los quince (15)

prisioneros polı ́ticos Puertorriquen ̃ os que purgan largas condenas

en las ca ́ rceles Estadounidenses por el solo delito de luchar por la

independencia de su patria.

Ustedes, sen ̃ ores Congresistas, y el Congreso que ustedes

representan, tiene el poder para hacer eso y mucho ma ́s, si fuera

su voluntad. Claro, tambie ́n tienen el poder para imponer un

proyecto de ley como el Proyecto Young, o ma ́s grave au ́n, tienen

ustedes el poder para intentar imponernos la anexio ́n, como nos

han impuesto el colonialismo.
125

La anexio ́n, quede absolutamente claro, no es una alternativa

descolonizadora para la nacio ́n Puertorriquen ̃ a. Por el contrario,

constituirı ́a la consumacio ́n del colonialismo, y ello es inadmisible.

Si prevalece como hasta ahora la soberbia colonial, o peor au ́n,

si se intenta llevar a la nacio ́n Puertorriquen ̃ a al despen ̃ adero que

representa la anexio ́n, sepan ustedes sen ̃ ores Congresistas y

ha ́ganle saber a sus colegas en el Congreso, que Puerto Rico es un

hueso duro de roer. No ha sido en vano que hemos logrado

prevalecer como nacio ́n tras casi un siglo de colonialismo. Si hemos

luchado por largo tiempo, primero contra el colonialismo espan ̃ ol y

luego contra ustedes, no tenemos ningu ́n reparo, ninguno, en

comenzar el siglo veintiuno combatiendo el colonialismo y la

anexio ́n.

Sepan ustedes, sen ̃ ores Congresistas, que la comunidad

internacional esta ́ muy atenta a los paso que de Estados Unidos

para adelantar legı ́timamente la descolonizacio ́n de Puerto Rico.

Ası ́ quedo ́ patentizado en la Conferencia Ministerial de la

Organizacio ́n de Paı ́ses No Alineados celebrada ası ́ varios dı ́as en

Nueva Delhi, India—a la cual asistimos.

Nosotros simplemente queremos alcanzar la meta que ustedes

alcanzaron hace ma ́s de dos siglos. En 1776, el pueblo de las Trece

Colonias hubiese rechazado firmemente un Proyecto Young

proveniente de la metro ́poli Brita ́nica, como nosotros hoy

rechazamos este que proviene de la metro ́poli Estadounidense.

Deseamos la autodeterminacio ́n e independencia, es decir, la

verdadera descolonizacio ́n y una relacio ́n de paz y respeto con

Estados Unidos. Estamos dispuestos a ir a la mesa de

negociaciones, pero tambie ́n al campo de batalla como lo hemos

hecho en el pasado.

En esta coyuntura tan injusta y desigual, corresponde a ustedes

sen ̃ ores Congresistas, y al Congreso de Estados Unidos, ofrecer algo

ma ́s que un proyecto de ley aman ̃ado, en el que una vez ma ́s se

nos impone su criterio y que tal como se ha conducido este proceso,

constituye un nuevo engan ̃ o y una pe ́rdida de tiempo.

Concluyo sen ̃ ores Congresistas, leyendo para ustedes el

fragmento de un poema, ‘‘Aleluya’’, escrito por el patriota Jose ́ de

Diego, cuya vigencia y pertinencia es indiscutible. Dice ası ́,

‘‘Hablamos otra lengua, con otro pensamiento, en la onda del

espı ́ritu y en la onda del viento y os estamos diciendo hace tiempo

en las dos, que os vaya ́is con el diablo y nos deje ́is con Dios.’’

Muchas gracias.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Perez (in Spanish) follows:]
126
127
128
129
130
131
132

Mr. ROMERO-BARCELO ́. Thank you.

Mr. Ubinas.

STATEMENT OF ROBERTO CARDONA UBINAS, PRESIDENT,

UNION PATRIOTIC NATIONAL, AGUADILLA, PUERTO RICO

Mr. UBINAS. Sen ̃ or Presidente del Comite ́ de Recursos, sen ̃ ores

Congresistas. . . Mi nombre es Roberto Cardona Ubin ̃ as. Presido la

organizacio ́n polı ́tica Unio ́n Patrio ́tica Nacional. En primera

instancia, quisiera solicitar respetuosamente que se admita en

evidencia la ponencia que se preparo ́ para esta audiencia ante

ustedes y me permito presentarles a quien sera ́ nuestro portavoz

durante la tarde de hoy, el Licenciado Eduardo Villanueva Mun ̃ oz,

quien ocupara ́ el turno concedido a la Unio ́n Patrio ́tica Nacional.

Sı ́, un saludo a todos los eh. . . A los Congresistas y a todos los

compatriotas que se encuentran aquı ́. Bienvenidos a mi patria, a

mi nacio ́n, Puerto Rico, para dialogar sobre un asunto tan

importante como es la descolonizacio ́n de Puerto Rico. Hubiera

preferido que este dia ́logo analı ́tico se diera ante un tribunal

internacional presidido por observadores imparciales que juzgaran

la controversia de forma objetiva y que no fueran parte interesada

o gestora del problema colonial como lo son ustedes. De todos

modos, si la intencio ́n real es terminar la relacio ́n colonial que nos

une, estamos dispuestos a iniciar un dia ́logo que propicie un

proceso justo para todas las partes y sectores.

La Unio ́n Patrio ́tica Nacional ha dialogado con sectores obreros,

ambientalistas, organizaciones independentistas no electorales,

maestros e individuos no afiliados, con el propo ́sito de recoger un

consenso sobre los elementos y garantı ́as que debe contener un

verdadero proceso de descolonizacio ́n. Estos elementos son los

siguientes:

Reconocimiento de la existencia de la nacio ́n Puertorriquen ̃ a tal

como la definio ́ el Senador Rube ́n Berrı ́os, con la cual coincidio ́ el

ex-Gobernador Herna ́ndez Colo ́n, a saber, la definicio ́n cla ́sica de

‘‘nacio ́n’’ es aquella incluida en el Diccionario de la Academia

Espan ̃ ola desde 1925.

Es ‘‘una colectividad de personas que tiene el mismo origen

e ́tnico y que en general, habla un lenguaje comu ́n y poseen una

tradicio ́n comu ́n.’’ Otras caracterı ́sticas comu ́nmente asociadas con

la nacio ́n o la nacionalidad son, territorio, historia, sı ́mbolos y

rituales comunes y fidelitas [sic] O lealtad primaria a la

nacionalidad. Por eso es que las lenguas romance de las que son

indı ́genas la palabra ‘‘nacio ́n’’ y ‘‘nacionalidad,’’ la raı ́z de esas

palabras se refiere a origen o ascendencia, ‘‘natio’’ en Latı ́n.

Reconocimiento de la ciudadanı ́a Puertorriquen ̃ a, con plenitud de

derechos constitucionales, a saber, derecho al voto, a viajar, a ser

elegido a puestos pu ́ blicos y con libre acceso al territorio de los

Estados Unidos de Norteame ́rica, con sustancial con el

reconocimiento de la ciudadanı ́a Puertorriquen ̃ a. Es necesario que

se garantice para esta y futuras generaciones, que el idioma oficial

de Puerto Rico bajo cualquier status ha de ser el Espan ̃ ol. El

idioma natural de los ciudadanos Puertorriquen ̃ os lo es el Espan ̃ ol

y no el Ingle ́s. Cualquier intento por imponer el Ingle ́s en la

ensen ̃anza o en gestiones administrativas bajo cualquier status

constituye una violacio ́n de nuestros derechos humanos, adema ́s de
133

ser antipedago ́gico como lo ha sen ̃ alado el Senador Roberto Resach

[sp] Benites. Tercero, liberacio ́n de todos los presos polı ́ticos

Puertorriquen ̃ os, en virtud de que no puede darse un proceso de

descolonizador en el cual la poblacio ́n votante sea intimidada o

coaccionada para evitar o disuadir la lucha por la independencia

con medidas represivas como lo es el encarcelamiento o la exigencia

de arrepentimiento. Dicho sea de paso, tambie ́n debe concederse el

indulto incondicional al luchador por la independencia en el

clandestinaje, Filiberto Ojeda Rı ́os. Cuarto, detencio ́n del proceso

de militarizacio ́n. Por ejemplo, que se desista de establecer

unidades del Comando Sur en la isla y se detengan los planes para

instalar el radar que auspicia la Marina en vista de que esto es un

organismo militar.

El uso de Vieques para bombardeo y pra ́ cticas de la Marina de

Guerra de Estados Unidos tambie ́n debe terminar, siendo que

Vieques es parte de Puerto Rico y sus votantes tambie ́n tienen derecho a autodeterminarse. Todas las fo ́rmulas sobre las cuales se

consulta al pueblo, deben ser no coloniales, a tono con las

Resoluciones Quince Cuarenta y uno (1541) y Quince Catorce

(1514) Quince (XV) de la Organizacio ́n de Naciones Unidas. Por

tanto es contraria al derecho internacional, incluir al ELA cla ́sico,

en virtud de que su fundador, Luis Mun ̃ oz Marı ́n, reconocı ́a que la

soberanı ́a seguı ́a en poder del Congreso y ası ́ lo reitero ́ el

Licenciado Javal Herna ́ndez Dolo ́n ante las vistas de 1989 que

presidio ́ el Senador Bennett Johnston.

El FBI, la CIA, el Consejo de Seguridad y todos los organismos

de inteligencia de Estados Unidos, deben abstenerse de participar

en cualquier proceso de autodeterminacio ́n del pueblo

Puertorriquen ̃ o para que e ́ste cumpla con los criterios reconocidos

por el derecho internacional. En ese sentido, nos preocupa el

anuncio de que ha de aumentarse la presencia del FBI en Puerto

Rico, mediante la apertura de nuevas oficinas en diversos pueblos

de nuestro paı ́s. Documentos de COINTELPRO Revelan que el FBI

jugo ́ un rol manipulador decisivo en el proceso plebiscitario de

1967.

En vista de la amplia documentacio ́n que existe acreditando la

intervencio ́n para amedrentar, dividir, dirigir procesos hacia el

resultado querido pero oculto de varios organismos de inteligencia

de Estados Unidos, es imprescindible que un verdadero proceso

descolonizador y de autodeterminacio ́n cuente con observadores

internacionales, especialmente de Latinoame ́rica, que es el entorno

geogra ́fico cultural e histo ́rico al cual pertenecemos.

Es imposible que un paı ́s intervenido militarmente, sin control

sobre su frontera, sin representacio ́n internacional, sin relaciones

comerciales libres y extremadamente dependiente, pueda en

realidad ejercer el derecho a la autodeterminacio ́n. Es por ello que

las normas de derecho internacional han disen ̃ ado un proceso

previo de transferencia de poderes como condicio ́n sine qua non a

un proceso descolonizador. Ese paso de justicia necesaria, obliga a

que ustedes y su paı ́s devuelvan al pueblo de Puerto Rico, la

soberanı ́a que detentan ilegalmente desde 1898.

Puerto Rico esta ́ preparado para recibir en una convencio ́n

constituyente todos los poderes constitutivos de la soberanı ́a y en

ejercicio de nuestro derecho a la libre determinacio ́n e
134

independencia, decidir el tipo de relacio ́n que convenga a los

intereses de ambos paı ́ses. Convendrı ́a a este proyecto incorporar

la transferencia de poderes como una expresio ́n genuina del

Congreso de Estados Unidos para propiciar y asegurar un

verdadero proceso de autodeterminacio ́n. La propuesta del——

[The prepared statement of Mr. Ubinas (in Spanish) follows:]
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142

Mr. MILLER. Mr. Velgara.

Mr. UBINAS. La propuesta del——

Mr. MILLER. If I might ask that you honor the time, please.

Mr. Velgara.

Mr. ROMERO-BARCELO ́. The original time for Mr. Cardona be

added to—if you want to yield that time, if that was your intent,

was to yield your time.

STATEMENT OF FRANK VELGARA, CO-COORDINATOR, PROLIBERATED, NEW YORK, NEW YORK

Mr. VELGARA. Yes.

Mr. UBINAS. La propuesta del PI [?] Para que exista un proceso

de transicio ́n econo ́mica de diez an ̃ os es una razonable y necesaria

en vista de la responsabilidad que tiene Estados Unidos por haber

creado y disen ̃ ado en nuestro paı ́s una economı ́a dependiente.

Los Puertorriquen ̃ os no tenemos duda de que podemos en la

Repu ́ blica, crear una economı ́a pro ́spera y autosuficientes. Existen

paı ́ses ma ́s pobres que nosotros ahora, pero los hay con igual o

menos poblacio ́n y territorio que son ma ́s pro ́speros y dina ́micos

que nosotros. La inmensa mayorı ́a del pueblo de Puerto Rico estoy

seguro, rechaza la alternativa que se nos convierta en un territorio

incorporado. Ello solo incrementa la dependencia econo ́mica y

sociolo ́gica y serı ́a como decı ́a don Pedro Alvisu Campos de la

estadidad, ‘‘El paso previo a la culminacio ́n del coloniaje.’’ Incluso

el electorado estadolibrista que ronda cerca de 900,000 electores,

deberı ́a considerar seriamente boicotear cualquier proceso que

contemple la incorporacio ́n, porque e ́sta jama ́s serı ́a un proceso

orientado a la culminacio ́n del ELA, sino ma ́s bien encaminado a

la transicio ́n hacia la estadidad. La generalidad del

independentismo Puertorriquen ̃ o preferirı ́a que en una votacio ́n

sobre nuestro destino ulterior, voten los nacionales

Puertorriquen ̃ os. Es importante que no voten personas con arraigo

en otra cultura, con intereses econo ́micos y polı ́ticos mucho ma ́s

vinculados a otros paı ́ses o incluso a estados federados, que de

advenir un resultado contrario a su ideologı ́a, no se quedarı ́an a

vivir las consecuencias de su eleccio ́n.

En un verdadero proceso de autodeterminacio ́n, la tendencia

histo ́rica ha sido permitir que voten exclusivamente los nacionales

del paı ́s que se autodetermina. Nacionales pueden definirse como

los hijos de Puertorriquen ̃ o y de aquello que lleven residiendo en

Puerto Rico ma ́s de cinco an ̃ os. No son nacionales Puertorriquen ̃ os

los Norteamericanos por adopcio ́n de ciudadanı ́a. Ejemplos,

Cubanos, Dominicanos, Argentinos, rabes, etce ́tera, que tienen su

domicilio en Puerto Rico porque tienen a ́nimos [uninteligible] Aquı ́.

Las transferencias de fondos Federales en el perı ́odo de

transicio ́n hacia la independencia pueden extenderse en bloques y

debe ser negociada la cantidad de an ̃ os por las cuales se recibirı ́an,

en virtud de que consideramos que son una compensacio ́n por los

dan ̃ os que ha causado el coloniaje en te ́rminos psicolo ́gicos, morales, econo ́micos y sociolo ́gicos a los ciudadanos Puertorriquen ̃ os

que lo han sufrido.

El Estado Libre Asociado y la Libre Asociacio ́n son dos fo ́rmulas

distintas, conforme al derecho internacional. El Proyecto Young

equipara la libre asociacio ́n con la independencia, lo cual en la
143

pra ́ ctica equivale a estimular o incitar los miedos que tienen

algunos sectores en Puerto Rico con la independencia. Por lo tanto,

el proceso segu ́n iniciado, y la definicio ́n de la fo ́rmula tiende a

favorecer la fo ́rmula estadista. No hay que decir que ello es injusto

y contrario a los mejores intereses tanto de Puerto Rico como de

Estados Unidos.

Finalmente, reconocemos que existen fuertes vı ́nculos histo ́ricos,

econo ́micos y polı ́ticos entre Estados Unidos y Puerto Rico.

Tenemos ma ́s de 2 millones de Puertorriquen ̃ os en Estados Unidos

que probablemente sigan viviendo alla ́ pero se preocupan por

nuestro destino. Queremos finiquitar el re ́gimen colonial y

queremos hacerlo de una manera racional, ordenada, pacı ́fica y

honorable para ambas partes.

Sin embargo, queremos hacer claro, que para los Puertorriquen ̃ os

el derecho a preservar nuestra identidad nacional, nuestra cultura,

nuestro idioma Espan ̃ ol, nuestro territorio para uso agrı ́cola, industrial y no militar, nuestra identidad deportiva incluyendo la

representacio ́n internacional olı ́mpica y el origen Latinoamericano

que establece un vı ́nculo indisoluble con nuestros hermanos que

viven desde el Rı ́o Bravo hasta Tierra de Fuego, son valores y

principios por los cuales no dejaremos de luchar en todas las

formas, absolutamente en todas, incluso en la estadidad federada.

Es por ello que esa fo ́rmula, que para nosotros es la culminacio ́n

de la disolucio ́n nacional, no conviene ni a Puerto Rico ni a Estados

Unidos, tanto desde un punto de vista pra ́ ctico, como desde la

proyeccio ́n histo ́rica que ustedes quieren impartir a este proceso.

Muchas gracias.

Mr. MILLER. Ms. Lebron.

STATEMENT OF LOLITA LEBRO ́ N, PRESIDENT, NATIONAL

PARTY OF PUERTO RICO, SAN JUAN, PUERTO RICO

Ms. LEBRO ́ N. Sen ̃ or Don Young, Sen ̃ ores Congresistas,

Distinguido Pueblo de Puerto Rico. . . Yo soy Lolita Lebro ́n,

Presidenta del Partido Nacionalista de Puerto Rico, ex-prisionera

polı ́tica de los Estados Unidos. Soy la que dirigio ́ el ataque al

Congreso de Estados Unidos de Norteame ́rica el primero de marzo

de 1954, en defensa de la liberacio ́n del Pueblo de Puerto Rico y

en rechazo al Estado Libre Asociado, o sea, al engan ̃ o que gracias

a ustedes, al Proyecto Young, puede hoy Puerto Rico decir que

estaba bien y don Pedro Albizu Campos se tiene que regocijar en

el Paraı ́so porque el ordeno ́ ese ataque por el abuso que se hizo con

nosotros.

Gracias . . . y gracias por un me ́rito ma ́s que tienen. El me ́rito

que tienen es que han conmovido a este pueblo para que se decida

definitivamente a liberar a su paı ́s. El Movimiento Libertador de

Puerto Rico existe desde 1868, cuando el Padre de la Patria, don

Ramo ́n Emeterio Beta ́nces lucho ́ para nuestra liberacio ́n y

proclamo ́ la Repu ́ blica de Puerto Rico, la primera, el 23 de

septiembre de 1868, cuna de la nacio ́n Puertorriquen ̃ a.

Don Pedro Albizu Campos, nuestro apo ́stol, Padre de la patria

contempora ́nea, nos quito ́ la venda de los ojos, nos dijo que somos

esclavos de ustedes, y les voy a decir que si ustedes nos hicieran

a nosotros banqueros y nos hicieran nuestras calles de oro y nos
144

llevaran a pasear a la luna, sen ̃ ores, aquı ́ hay un movimiento de

liberacio ́n que ha de haberlo, siempre.

Y yo le digo a todo este pueblo puertorriquen ̃ o que ha tenido la

desgracia de haber sido modificada su conciencia nacional para que

rechace su liberacio ́n, y para que viva un siglo de rodillas, que ellos

son sus vı ́ctimas.

Un paı ́s como los Estados Unidos de Ame ́rica, que cuando invadio ́

nuestro territorio, era entonces ‘‘La Luz del Mundo’’, decı ́an, que

traı ́an la libertad a los pueblos, engan ̃ aron hasta a unos patriotas

puertorriquen ̃ os. Pero ustedes vinieron aquı ́ con las armas. Ustedes

vinieron aquı ́ con sus cinco naves armadas y ustedes dispararon

aquı ́ sus cohetes, y vinieron aquı ́ con terror y la violencia y todavı ́a

quieren que nosotros bajemos la cabeza y nos hinquemos ante

ustedes.

Perdonen, debo decir, sus antepasados cometieron el grave error

de tener a este paı ́s bajo sus botas. Desgraciadamente, le han hecho

dan ̃ o a ustedes mismos y a nosotros y son unas llaga y un ca ́ncer

en el rostro del mundo, y ustedes esta ́n obligados a curar esta

desgracia. Y yo los invito a ustedes, y los exhorto desde aquı ́ y lo

hace la mujer que ataco ́ el Congreso de los Estados Unidos, estuvo

un cuarto de siglo allı ́ en defensa de la Nacionalidad

Puertorriquen ̃ a.

Yo los invito a ustedes, y les he mandado tres razones desde que

salı ́ de la prisio ́n, y ustedes deben haberlas recibido, porque hasta

el Presidente de los Estados Unidos le mande ́ a decir, que aquı ́ no

viniera jama ́s, jama ́s ponga un pie aquı ́, hasta que este pueblo sea

libre, ento ́nces sen ̃ ores, e ́l vendrı ́a aquı ́ como nuestro invitado de

honor, como iguales, de igual a iguales.

Yo los invito a ustedes a curarse su error, porque le han

infundido en la mentalidad puertorriquen ̃ a un rechazo y un repudio

a la libertad, y eso es un crimen, y ustedes tienen que curarse de

ese crimen. No son los pueblos libres llamados a ser esclavos en la

tierra, y ustedes deben saber que cuando la esclavitud estaba

presente, aquellos que andaban con cadenas, hubo que llevarlos a

la libertad casi obligados, porque tenı ́an miedo a la libertad. Esta

gente le tiene miedo a la libertad. Una inmensa mayorı ́a de los

puertorriquen ̃ os teme la libertad, porque ustedes los han infundido

con un temor a la libertad.

®Do ́nde esta ́ esa gran nacio ́n norteamericana, que era la luz del

mundo? ®Do ́nde esta? Sen ̃ ores ustedes corrijan su error. Dı ́ganle a

los puertorriquen ̃ os estadistas, dı ́ganle a todos los puertorriquen ̃ os

que no le teman a la libertad, que es la dignidad de sus hijos, que

desde que el nin ̃ o esta ́ en el vientre de la madre, debe herendar la

libertad, porque Dios nos hizo libres.

Yo le doy las gracias a Dios que estoy aquı ́, despue ́s de ustedes

haberme tenido un cuarto de siglo en sus prisiones, yo estoy aquı ́

para defender una dignidad que esta ́ dormida. ≠ Esta ́ dormida!

Ahora dicen estos sen ̃ ores que van a hacer un estado de la unio ́n

norteamericana de este paı ́s, jama ́s, jama ́s, jama ́s.

Nada puede suceder en esta tierra, a no ser la libertad plena y

total de este pueblo. Y cuando este pueblo haya disfrutado esa

libertad y quiera hacer cualquier negocio que sea digno con ustedes

o con cualquier pueblo del mundo, soberanamente lo puede hacer,

pero no antes.
145

Yo hablo duro sen ̃ ores, oigan mi voz, es fuerte y ha de morir y

vivir eternamente fuerte por este pueblo.

Adema ́s les tengo que decir que tienen unos prisioneros polı ́ticos.

Sa ́quenlos de ahı ́ porque ellos no han matado a nadie, y ustedes

cuando un asesino anda por sus calles le dan unos poquitos de an ̃ os

y los sacan por ahı ́ para que sigan matando. Los patriotas

puertorriquen ̃ os son castigados y torturados en las ca ́ rceles. Oscar

Lo ́pez esta ́ siendo torturado en las ca ́ rceles, todos ellos esta ́n siendo

torturados en las ca ́ rceles.

Yo les pido a ustedes, el Partido Nacionalista de Puerto Rico le

pide a ustedes, ponga a esos hombres, esas mujeres patriotas en las

calles.

Yo aquı ́ llamo a Clintock, ®como se llama e ́l? Kenneth McClintock, yo soy patriota. ≠ Tu ́ eres un entregado! Tu ́ no tienes patria,

te has expatriado a tı ́ mismo.

Sen ̃ ores, tomad conciencia de sus deberes en este Planeta.

Olvı ́dense tanto de las estrellas. ≠ que quieren hacer colonias allı ́!

Tomen conciencia de la gran dignidad que ustedes ostentan ante el

mundo, y echen a un lado esas pequen ̃ eces, porque la dignidad de

los hombres no se compra con dinero. Este pueblo tiene lo que tiene

porque lo ha trabajado, y es sudor de su frente. Ustedes a nosotros

no nos dan nada, nada, nada. Ustedes dicen que nos meten la

comida en la boca. Ustedes dicen y ası ́ me dijo una prisionera,

‘‘Look at them, they are asking for freedom. Give them freedom, my

country,’’ decı ́a ella ‘‘and you will see them here in week, asking

for food.’’

Sen ̃ ores, nosotros somos trabajadores y decentes. Nosotros somos

honrados, nosotros somos una gente civilizada. No abusen de

nosotros. Ustedes no nos dan a nosotros nada, nada, nada. Aquı ́

ustedes tienen el ma ́s grande comercio, el quinto comercio de

Latinoame ́rica y cada papelito que venden le sacan una millonada.

®Oyeron? Aquı ́ ustedes no . . . Ustedes le deben a esta tierra,

mucho, y cuando seamos libres, que tenemos que ser libres ya

mismo, muy pronto, y ustedes perdonados por nosotros y por Dios,

y Dios Perdonando a nuestro padres, nosotros podemos

encaminarnos hacia un mejor mundo y hacer una nueva era, una

era de paz y de concordia y de liberacio ́n para todos los pueblos.

Donde los nin ̃ os puedan levantar su frente y ser nin ̃ os con

esperanzas de un futuro, donde nadie se le pare encima.

Oiganlo bien. Yo les estoy llamando a ustedes la atencio ́n por

ustedes mismos. No crean ustedes que porque hayan miles y miles

y miles de puertorriquen ̃ os que dicen que lo que quieren ser es

americanos—miren sen ̃ ores, no quieren ser americanos, ellos

quieren ser puertorriquen ̃ os, pero ustedes le han infundido

cientı ́ficamente en la cabeza al puertorriquen ̃ o, que ellos son

pequen ̃itos y que no pueden ser libres.

Dios los bendiga a ustedes, porque yo soy una mujer de Dios.

Dios bendiga a este mundo, y ustedes como un poderı ́o grande de

la tierra, saquen esas bombas ato ́micas del medio del mundo.

Ustedes se las dieron al mundo y despue ́s que se las dieron . . .

Mr. MILLER. I’m going to ask if you might——

Ms. LEBRON. No, yo le voy a decir a usted, voy a terminar ya.

No quisiera que en mi paı ́s nadie me tuviera que mandar a callar
146

por defender la libertad de mi paı ́s. . . Y ella no se ha encontrado

todavı ́a.

[Applause.]

Sen ̃ ores, no hay odio, no hay nada. Lo que hay es el derecho y

el deber de un pueblo a ser libre. ≠ Nada, nada trabajara ́ aquı ́ que

se no la liberacio ́n total y plena del pueblo de Puerto Rico.

Muchas gracias.

[The prepared statement of Ms. Lebron follows:]
147
148
149
150
151
152
153

Mr. MILLER. Thank you.

Mr. Gallisa.

STATEMENT OF CARLOS GALLISA, HATO REY, PUERTO RICO

Mr. GALLISA. Sen ̃ or Presidente y miembros del Comite ́ de

Recursos. La primera pregunta que nos tenemos que hacer ante

este Proyecto Young, es si esta es una propuesta seria, que conduce

a la descolonizacio ́n de Puerto Rico o si por el contrario, este

proyecto se presenta como una recompensa o pago a los sectores

anexionistas de Puerto Rico por el dinero que han repartido en el

Congreso y las contribuciones y aportaciones que han hecho a las

campan ̃ as electorales de ustedes y de sus partidos.

En Puerto Rico hay un refra ́n que dice, que quien paga la mu ́ sica

escoge el repertorio, y en la prensa del paı ́s ha salido publicada el

nu ́mero de congresistas de este comite ́, sen ̃ or Kennedy, Burton,

Young y otros que tal vez no haya habido la informacio ́n para

publicarla, que han recibido dineros y contribuciones de Puerto

Rico y me parece que es hora de que tanto estos sen ̃ ores que he

mencionado de este Comite ́ comenzando por el sen ̃ or Young, le

digan al pueblo de Puerto Rico y hagan una declaracio ́n de todo el

dinero que han recibido de aquı ́ en Puerto Rico, la cantidad y

quienes, porque se puede decir como han dicho ya algunos, que es

legal recibir donaciones. Pero lo legal no es lo moral siempre, y creo

que se falta a los mı ́nimos de e ́tica y de moral que debe presidir

un cuerpo del Congreso, para que aquellos que pretendan fungir de

congresistas legislando para un proceso de descolonizacio ́n en Puerto Rico, tengan que observar una conducta distinta. Esa conducta

observada por este Comite ́, y no incluyo a todos los miembros, esta

conducta no puede crear credibilidad ni confianza entre los

Puertorriquen ̃ os de que aquı ́ se esta ́ trabajando un proyecto justo

para darle a Puerto Rico el derecho a la libre determinacio ́n.

Y no podemos creer en este proyecto, porque este proyecto fue

manufacturado en las oficinas del sen ̃ or Young, con un sector

anexionista de este paı ́s, excluyendo a todas las dema ́s tendencias

polı ́ticas de Puerto Rico en la confeccio ́n de este proyecto. Y por ahı ́

viene la doble desconfianza nuestra, respecto a las verdaderas

intenciones de este proyecto y al cara ́ cter del mismo.

La desconfianza de nosotros los Puertorriquen ̃ os en ustedes como

Congreso y en el gobierno de su paı ́s esta ́ so ́lidamente justificada

en la experiencia vivida a lo largo de los cien an ̃ os de dominacio ́n

colonial que ustedes le han impuesto al pueblo de Puerto Rico. Han

sido cien an ̃ os de mentiras, de medias verdades, de falsedades, de

imposiciones, de falsificaciones y de promesas incumplidas.

Desde la proclama del General Meiss [sp] Que vino aquı ́ con sus

tropas y a raı ́z de la invasio ́n le dijo a este pueblo que venı ́a a traer

democracia y libertades, desde ahı ́ comienza esta historia de

engan ̃ os. Y por aquı ́ al igual que ustedes congresistas, han pasado

docenas y docenas de congresistas, desde Ford aquel en el 1900,

Johnson en el 1916, el Senador Tydings en 1930 y en el 1940,

[uninteligible] Bryan, Aspinal, Bennett Johnston, Lagomarcino y

hoy es Young. Los presidentes de Estados Unidos desde McKinley

hasta Eisenhower, que prometio ́ la independencia cuando la

pidie ́ramos hasta el Gerald Ford hasta hoy Bill Clinton, tambie ́n

nos han hecho toda clase de promesas.
154

Y todos los Puertorriquen ̃ os independientemente de ideologı ́as y

de partidos hemos sido engan ̃ ados por ustedes a lo largo de cien

an ̃ os porque nunca han cumplido la promesa y nunca han cumplido

con su responsabilidad como potencia colonial, administradora de

este territorio. Y digo territorio porque ustedes insisten en

llamarnos territorio como si nosotros fue ́ramos un pedazo de tierra

en el Mar Caribe. Nosotros somos un pueblo con una historia, con

una cultura. Somos una nacio ́n Cariben ̃ a y Latinoamericana y

jama ́s vamos a entregar esta nacio ́n que es la u ́nica que tenemos

y es la patria nuestra.

Ese sentido que ustedes tienen de nosotros como territorio, es por

donde tienen que comenzar ustedes para entendernos a nosotros.

Ustedes y nosotros somos dos cosas totalmente distintas. Ni tan

siquiera hablamos el mismo idioma. Somos dos naciones, somos dos

culturas, somos dos pueblos y ustedes no se pueden tragar a este

pueblo, y ustedes no se pueden tragar una nacio ́n y ustedes nunca

se han anexado una nacio ́n. Ustedes se han anexado unos

territorios que estaban vacı ́os y que los llenaron ustedes con

Americanos mismos, como sucedio ́ con Hawai y con Alaska.

Si algo meritorio tiene esta gestio ́n, podrı ́amos decir algo, son los

diez puntos que ustedes han incluido en los llamados ‘‘findings’’ que

ustedes le llaman a las conclusiones de este proyecto y que tal

parece que por fin, ustedes reconocen que existe un problema colonial en Puerto Rico.

Ahora se me dice que por no ofender a los popular, van a sacar

los diez puntos del proyecto. O sea no ofendera ́n a los populares,

pero ofendera ́n entonces una vez ma ́s, a la verdad histo ́rica de este

paı ́s.

Nosotros creemos en la democracia y creemos en los derechos

civiles y en los derechos humanos, y nosotros los practicamos. Pero

mientras ustedes se proclaman ante el mundo como defensores de

la democracia y los derechos humanos, aquı ́ en Puerto Rico en su

dominacio ́n colonial, ustedes han sido unos violadores graves de los

principios democra ́ticos y de los derechos humanos.

Mientras ustedes se ufanan que su polı ́tica como nacio ́n esta ́

inspirada en los ideales de Washington, Jefferson y de otros que

ustedes los ‘‘Founding Fathers,’’ los Padres de la Patria, aquı ́ en

Puerto Rico a los que pensamos como los ‘‘Founding Fathers’’ de

ustedes, como los Padres de la Patria de ustedes, ustedes los han

perseguido como veinticinco an ̃ os de prisio ́n que le impusieron a

Lolita Lebron y a otros y han matado patriotas Puertorriquen ̃ os

para ejercer su dominio colonial en Puerto Rico. Ahora mismo hay

quince patriotas Puertorriquen ̃ os con condenas de sesenta y

ochenta an ̃ os de ca ́ rcel, por el u ́nico delito de luchar por la

independencia de esta patria. Y ustedes son los carceleros de esos

quince patriotas Puertorriquen ̃ os.

Si ustedes quieren comenzar un dialogo con este paı ́s, con este

pueblo, yo estoy seguro que aquı ́ todos los Puertorriquen ̃ os

queremos un dia ́logo, y queremos llegar a ponerle fin a este sistema

colonial. Empiecen ustedes con un gesto de buena fe, liberando a

los presos Puertorriquen ̃ os.

Pero este proyecto no puede ser credibilidad y garantı ́a para ese

dia ́logo. Este proyecto surge de unas componendas polı ́ticas con un

sector del paı ́s. Este proyecto no tiene credibilidad para la mayorı ́a
155

de los Puertorriquen ̃ os. Este proyecto pretende dejar a un lado las

consideraciones ma ́s importantes.

No nos llevan ma ́s a votar el plebiscito. No vamos a resolver el

problema de Puerto Rico, arrancando a votar en un plebiscito. Ese

es un camino fracasado, fracasado en el 1993, fracasado en el 1967.

Tenemos que empezar otro camino. Tiene que haber un dia ́logo

primero, antes de votar, porque ustedes no tienen consenso en

Estados Unidos en el Congreso y en los cı ́rculos de poder sobre que

hacer con Puerto Rico y nosotros los Puertorriquen ̃ os tampoco

tenemos consenso sobre el futuro de esta patria. Por lo tanto, no

se puede empezar a votar cuando no hay consenso en ninguno de

los dos lados.

Yo propongo que ustedes examinen otro curso de accio ́n que

comience con la creacio ́n de una asamblea constituyente que sirva

como instrumento negociador del pueblo de Puerto Rico y buscar

unos consensos para que este pueblo finalmente vote sobre opciones

reales, no sobre deseo y aspiraciones, sobre lo que es alcanzable.

Mientras no se vote sobre lo que es posible y alcanzable, no vamos

a resolver este problema.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Gallisa follows:]
156
157
158
159

Mr. MILLER. Mr. Morales.

STATEMENT OF EDGARDO MORALES, PROFESSOR OF ORGANIZATIONAL PSYCHOLOGY, UNIVERSITY OF PUERTO RICO,

CAGUAS, PUERTO RICO

Mr. MORALES. Buenas. Mi nombre es Edgardo Morales, soy

profesor universitario. Como un ciudadano privado, me preocupa la

forma en que los temas de identidad y cultura aparecen en la ley

que esta ́ ante su consideracio ́n.

Considero que esta ley parte de supuestos erro ́neos acerca de

nuestra cultura, nuestra historia y nuestra identidad. Adema ́s es

ambigua en cuanto a nuestras opciones para el futuro,

especialmente la estadidad. La visio ́n de la estadidad que aparece

en esta ley la describe esencialmente como una relacio ́n jurı ́dicopolı ́tica que existe entre diferentes jurisdicciones o estados. Es por

esto que los estadistas hacen referencia constante a los temas de

ciudadanı ́a y unio ́n permanente. Ambos te ́rminos jurı ́dico- polı ́ticos.

Entiendo que esta nocio ́n de la estadidad ignora el desarrollo

histo ́rico de su nacio ́n. Durante su guerra civil, uno de los factores

que hizo posible el movimiento Secesionista en los estados del sur,

era el [uninteligible] Que la lealtad y la identificacio ́n del

ciudadano era con su estado y no con la Unio ́n. Su guerra civil se

peleo ́ para restaurar la unio ́n como una realidad jurı ́dico- polı ́tica

y como una relacio ́n psicolo ́gica. Como consecuencia, durante los

u ́ltimos ciento cincuenta an ̃ os, su paı ́s se ha preocupado no solo por

las relaciones entre el gobierno Federal y los estados, sino por

asegurarse que sus ciudadanos se identifiquen a sı ́ mismos como

Americanos. Mientras que la estadidad que se propone en esta ley

ignora esta realidad histo ́rica, los lı ́deres del paı ́s en Puerto Rico

la niegan. Proclaman que la Constitucio ́n Estadounidense le da el

derecho a los estados a promover el que sus ciudadanos se

identifiquen con aquellos sı ́mbolos que los distinguen como pueblos

separados.

En nuestra u ́ltima eleccio ́n, mientras nuestro Gobernador

aparecı ́a en frente de la bandera Puertorriquen ̃ a en la mayor parte

de sus anuncios, la bandera Americana brillaba por su ausencia.

Por otro lado, los lı ́deres estadistas afirman que no existe problema

con que nuestro equipo Olı ́mpico bajo la estadidad compita en

contra de los Estados Unidos en competencias internacionales.

Deben entender sen ̃ ores Congresistas, que no estamos hablando

meramente de una competencia atle ́tica. Al igual que en su paı ́s,

nuestro equipo es un sı ́mbolo igual que nuestra bandera y nuestro

himno nacional son sı ́mbolos. Representan lo que somos como un

colectivo, como una unidad, como una nacio ́n. Nuestro idioma nos

es solo una herramienta de comunicacio ́n. Es un sı ́mbolo que

representa nuestra esencia de pueblo Cariben ̃ o y Latinoamericano.

La fortaleza de nuestra identidad nacional nos ha permitido

resistir los intentos por asimilarnos dentro de una cultura y un

sistema polı ́tico extranjero, porque despue ́s de todo lo que ustedes

son en Puerto Rico, son extranjeros. Es por eso que los

Puertorriquen ̃ os nos referimos a ustedes como ‘‘los Americanos’’ o

‘‘los gringos’’. Sus noticias aparecen en nuestros noticieros como

noticias internacionales y su bandera y su himno no estremecen

nada a nuestro electorado. Por eso es que los estadistas no pueden
160

apelar a los sı ́mbolos de su nacio ́n para aglutinar a sus huestes.

Aunque desean la ciudadanı ́a, muy pocos desean que se les refiera

a ellos como Americanos.

Para dramatizar este punto, les pregunto que le exh- les exhorto

a que le pregunten a los lı ́deres estadistas ®cua ́l es su paı ́s? ®Cua ́l

es la bandera de su paı ́s? Pregu ́ntenles, si son ‘‘Puerto Rican-Americans’’, pregu ́ntenles si son Americanos. Los estadistas ma ́s

fervientes contestara ́n inequı ́vocamente. La mayorı ́a, sin embargo,

disgregara ́n un poco y terminan hablando de la ciudadanı ́a

Norteamericana.

En cuanto a esto no han sido claro con nuestro pueblo ni con el

suyo. La verdad es que para muchos de ellos la estadidad es un

matrimonio de conveniencia, un arreglo legal sin amor, provocado

por el miedo a la pe ́rdida de las ayudas Federales y del libre

tra ́nsito hacia los Estados Unidos. Me parece que ustedes tienen la

responsabilidad de clarificar en esta ley lo que la estadidad

significa desde un punto de vista de la psicologı ́a y la identidad

nacional. Esto es necesario, no solo para nosotros sino para su

propio pueblo.

Deben preguntarse si esta ́n dispuestos a resucitar una visio ́n que

fue sepultada con la Guerra Civil, y ha creado una unio ́n que en

su esencia serı ́a una entidad multinacional, cuyos ciudadanos se

vinculan a trave ́s de lazos jurı ́dico- polı ́ticos y una ciudadanı ́a en

comu ́n, pero en donde sus lealtades psicolo ́gicas y emocionales,

permanecen con su estado o su grupo nacional. Claro, siempre

pueden seguir el curso de la ignorancia y la negacio ́n. Pueden creer

que todo lo que hacen es integrar una minorı ́a e ́tnica o cultural que

ha sido discriminada polı ́ticamente. Sin embargo, no se engan ̃ en.

Al considerar la estadidad, deben saber que esta ́n aceptando en

el seno de su unio ́n, una nacio ́n Latinoamericana, cuyo proceso

histo ́rico comenzo ́ mucho antes que ustedes fueran colonizados y

que ha desarrollado su propia identidad y cultura. Estara ́n

aceptando en su seno una nacionalidad Latinoamericana, cuyos

lı ́deres de estadı ́sticas- estadistas ya han proclamado su derecho a

proteger su idioma Espan ̃ ol, no importa los mandatos del Congreso.

Lo que deben saber, sen ̃ ores Congresistas, es que si la cla ́usula

nu ́mero diez de la Constitucio ́n nos protege, segu ́n alegan los

lı ́deres estadistas, tambie ́n nos permite escoger el idioma Espan ̃ ol

como el idioma del estado de Puerto Rico. Lo hemos declarado ası ́

en el pasado. Nada impedirı ́a que lo volvie ́ramos a hacer en el

futuro. Al no ser como ustedes, seremos un ca ́ncer para su Unio ́n,

representando y dirigiendo las fuerzas que habra ́n de

desintegrarlos.

La necesidad de que su ley sea clara en cuanto a las

implicaciones de las opciones que habra ́n de redactar y en cuanto

a su concepto de lo que es el pueblo de Puerto Rico, es tan

importante para ustedes como para nosotros, ya que al tratar de

resolver nuestros debates, estara ́n debatiendo los temas que son de

fundamental importancia para su pueblo. ®Quie ́nes somos?

®Quie ́nes queremos ser? ®Cua ́l habra ́n de ser los lazos que nos

unan? Este ́n seguros que al intentar definir su futuro, estara ́n

definiendo el fut- nuestro futuro, estara ́n definiendo el suyo propio.

Rue ́guenle a Dios que no cometan un error. La existencia de su

nacio ́n como hoy la conocen, esta ́ en juego.
161

Mr. MILLER. Thank you very much.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Morales follows:]
162
163
164
165

Mr. MILLER. Mr. Underwood.

Mr. UNDERWOOD. Thank you very much. It has been a long time

since I have been called a gringo, although I appreciate the——

Mr. MORALES. I exclude you from the category.

Mr. UNDERWOOD. Thank you very much. I was hoping that you

would give me some relief from that characterization.

You touched on a very important point, Dr. Morales, on identity

and nationhood, yet you have offered as an example the American

Civil War.

It strikes me that even though there is much sympathy and

much empathy for the idea of a national identity and that that national identity is one that is of primary importance inside an individual, there are also many other identities in life and that, in fact,

much of the history of the world in recent times has been moving

in a direction that is not exactly comforting or compatible with nation states as such.

So my question to you is, given the complexities of modern identity, given the fact that we are talking about one aspect of our lives

and none of these are in isolation—and I am sure you readily

admit as a fellow academic that none of these characteristics that

we take with us are in isolation from others—and given the reality

that at least, as has been portrayed to me, although there may be

many explanations for support for independence as a political option has remained relatively stable over time and has declined from

earlier decades, is it not conceivable that your characterization of

identity as a national identity is seen by many people as just one

dimension of their entire political personality and perhaps not the

dominant one?

Mr. MORALES. Yes, let me answer that. I am a psychologist, so

we could have a profound discussion about levels of identity and

depths of identity and all those relevant terms.

Mr. UNDERWOOD. That is why I am so relieved we are not.

Mr. MORALES. The point I am trying to make—or I was trying

to make—in my presentation is that I believe that, really, the issue

here is not about us but it is about your conception of who you are

as a nation.

The question really is whether it is important within the present

framework of the United States and whether it is important for the

Congress to consider your identity as a nation as a key element in

any relationship or an inner relationship with a future state and

the identification of inhabitants of that state with the idea of being

part of the Nation and being, in a sense, Americans.

My whole point is that, for the last 150 years, the key issue that

has driven most of the policy of the Congress has been, and it is

presently underlined, the whole question, around English only and

other laws having to do with immigration and having to do with

who is an American. I believe that that is a key point. Now, you

have to make a decision about that. That is my whole point.

What I think is confusing is when you start talking or making

an equivalence between American citizenship and the psychological

identification with being an American. I think those are two totally

different things. I think you should consider that.

Mr. UNDERWOOD. I think it is a point well taken, and I would

hasten to point out that the debate inside the United States has
166

not fully been resolved either. And although there are always people that have a very narrow definition as to what constitutes being

American, there are also other more expansive views.

Mr. MORALES. My question is whether you would be willing to

have a state where at least 50 percent of the people do not feel

themselves to be Americans. That is just my point. Is that acceptable to the U.S. Congress, where half of the population of a future

state, at least half of the population—I am not including the

statehooders in this, but I imagine some percentage of those would

resent being called americanos or at least they certainly do not call

that themselves—would you be willing to accept that type of state?

Now that is a question I think for the Congress to decide. What

I am suggesting is that you should introduce that as part of the

debate that you are having in your own Nation.

Mr. UNDERWOOD. OK. Thank you.

Mr. MILLER. Mr. Romero-Barcelo ́. Mr. ROMERO-BARCELO ́. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I think everyone who has given testimony, they obviously mean

what they have said, they are very sincere, and I think their points

of view are very, very clear. I have no questions.

Mr. MILLER. Thank you.

I want to thank you very much. I think the views represented

here and represented on other panels reflect the political history of

this country. That is why I hate to keep beating a drum to one note

here, but this is a very serious decision, and it should not be taken

as anything other than that. It is very, very serious for the Congress, for the people we represent and for the people of Puerto Rico;

and there is no way to get around that.

One of the problems I have always had in the past when we have

considered starting this process is that sometimes people thought

this was a free vote. They thought this was something you could

do for politics. You could appear one way or another—the

statehooders, the commonwealthers, the independents or what

have you. I do not think it is that way at all. I think—if anybody

believes that, I think they are losing the dignity of the political and

cultural history of Puerto Rico. I just think that is fundamental.

I think that you have given us a great deal to think about and,

hopefully, our colleagues in the Congress. Because this is not a

trivial matter, and certainly it is not a trivial matter when we consider that worldwide dynamics of people in this day and age. I

want to thank you very much for your testimony and for giving

your time to the Committee.

Mr. UBINAS. Sen ̃ ores Congresistas, una pregunta. Le habla

nuevamente——

Mr. MILLER. Oh, excuse me, I’m sorry.

Mr. UBINAS. Roberto Cardona Ubin ̃ as de la Unio ́n Patrio ́tica

Nacional. Todos los deponentes en este panel hemos coincidido en

varios puntos, pero uno en particular. Quince compatriotas

nuestros se encuentran presos cumpliendo condenas- largas

condenas en Estados Unidos por el u ́nico delito de defender la idea

de la libertad en su propio paı ́s. Nosotros interesamos que ustedes

nos digan a nosotros, que ustedes van a hacer ahora con esta

peticio ́n que al unı ́sono le hace la inmensa mayorı ́a del pueblo

Puertorriquen ̃ o.
167

We would like to know, what is your answer to our request?

Mr. MILLER. That is quite easy. I have received the petition, I

have received individual letters over the recent past, and I will do

as I do with all those. I will look into it. I will not speak for others,

but very clearly that is my situation. And those who chuckle do not

know my political history.

I thank you.

Mr. MURIENTE PEREZ. Sen ̃ or Congresista, si me permite a mı ́ un

tanto——

VOICE. Nosotros no admitimos eso, habla de ellas un poquito.

Mr. MURIENTE PEREZ. Nosotros, como ustedes, entendemos la

importancia de la situacio ́n polı ́tica del paı ́s. Esa es una de las

razones por la que estamos aquı ́ esta man ̃ ana. Solo quiero hacer un

sen ̃ alamiento, conforme a esa importancia que se supone que se le

este ́ asignando a esto, el Por Tanto nu ́mero cinco de la Resolucio ́n

1514 XV romano. . . 1514 romano XV de la ONU establece lo

siguiente, muy brevemente. ‘‘En los territorios en fideicomiso y no

auto ́nomos y en todos los dema ́s territorios que no han logrado au ́n

su independencia, debera ́n tomarse inmediatamente medidas para

traspasar todos los poderes a los pueblos de esos territorios sin

condiciones ni reservas en conformidad con su voluntad y sus

derechos libremente expresados, y sin distincio ́n de raza, credo ni

color para permitirles gozar de una libertad y una independencia

absoluta.’’

Si ustedes creen, como dice creer, en la aplicacio ́n de la legalidad

internacional para el caso de la descolonizacio ́n de Puerto Rico,

tendrı ́an ustedes que comenzar por aplicar el Por Tanto nu ́mero

cinco de la Resolucio ́n 1514 Romano XV que supone la

transferencia——

Mr. MILLER. Thank you.

Mr. MURIENTE PEREZ. [continuing] de poderes al pueblo de Puerto Rico. De esa manera si podemos imprimirle esa importancia, que

usted Congresista Miller dice que tiene este proceso. De otra

manera, lamentablemente prevalece la unilateralidad del Congreso

que usted representa.

Mr. MILLER. Thank you very much.

Mr. ROMERO-BARCELO ́. [Presiding] I will call the next panel: The

Honorable Victor Garcia San Inocencio, Mr. Erick Negron-Rivera,

Ferdinand Lugo Gonzalez, Carlos A. Lopez-Rivera, Julian O.

McConnie, and Joaquı ́n Marquez.

STATEMENT OF HON. VICTOR GARCIA SAN INOCENCIO,

HOUSE MINORITY LEADER, PUERTO RICAN INDEPENDENCE

PARTY, PUERTO RICO HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, SAN

JUAN, PUERTO RICO

Mr. ROMERO-BARCELO ́. We will start the panel now. We will start

with Victor Garcia San Inocencio. Welcome.

Mr. INOCENCIO. Muy buenas tardes. Nuestro saludo a los

miembros del Congreso, al sen ̃ or Presidente Actuante.

Antes que nada, quisie ́ramos que para propo ́sito de registro, sea

admitida nuestra ponencia alargada, que obviamente es mucho

ma ́s extensa de la que vamos a leer aquı ́, que fue sometida el

jueves pasado para que sea admitida en re ́cord.
168

Mr. ROMERO-BARCELO ́. The statement by Mr. Victor Garcia San

Inocencio has been submitted in writing and will be made part of

the record. So ordered.

Mr. INOCENCIO. Muchas gracias. Saludamos al sen ̃ or Presidente

y a los miembros de esta comisio ́n. Permı ́tasenos dirigirnos a un

asunto crucial debe ser objeto de tratamiento en la versio ́n final de

este proyecto. Un asunto crucial ma ́s, entre los muchos. ®Co ́mo

propiciamos una consulta sobre el futuro polı ́tico de Puerto Rico en

la que el asfixiante poder econo ́mico de las corporaciones privadas

y el gobierno controlado por el anexionista Partido Nuevo

Progresista, no influyan indebidamente para favorecer una fo ́rmula

de status particular. Se trata de un asunto de equidad esencial.

Nuestra historia polı ́tica reciente muestra la enorme influencia

que ejercen las personas jurı ́dicas en los recaudos de fondos para

las campan ̃ as polı ́ticas, junto a la utilizacio ́n de dinero y recursos

del pueblo para subvencionar esas campan ̃ as. La autorizacio ́n de

fondos y recursos pu ́ blicos para adelantar la causa del partido

polı ́tico que controla el gobierno.

Es preciso que sus investigadores este ́n al tanto, de como a lo

largo de nuestra historia polı ́tica, el partido polı ́tico incumbente se

ha valido del presupuesto y los recursos pu ́ blicos para apoyar su

posicio ́n polı ́tica. El asunto fue tratado por el Tribunal Supremo de

Puerto Rico el an ̃ o pasado, concluyendo que se utilizaron

indebidamente millones de do ́lares por el gobierno controlado por

el PNP para resaltar su imagen.

Se trata de un mal viejo del que no han estado exento ninguno

de los dos partidos polı ́ticos que predican la unio ́n permanente con

los Estados Unidos. Han tenido derecho otro unio ́n permanente con

el presupuesto pu ́ blico, para adelantar ventajeramente sus

intereses partidistas y status polı ́tico.

Segundo punto, el mal de los donativos y contribuciones polı ́ticas

de las cam- de las corporaciones pu ́ blicas. Los partidos polı ́ticos de

la unio ́n permanente con el presupuesto, PNP y PPD, no se

contentan con este abuso que burla cualquier aspiracio ́n de que

haya un proceso eleccionario o plebiscitario democra ́tico. An ̃ aden a

su mofa, la pra ́ ctica habitual de requerir a contratistas

gubernamentales, aportaciones econo ́micas cuantiosas para

financiar campan ̃ as polı ́ticas.

Se crea una asombrosa simbiosis corporativa y de partido de

gobierno. Cientos de campan ̃ as individuales de alcaldes,

legisladores y de los partidos que ocupan las oficinas

gubernamentales, son financiadas por contratistas y proveedores a

trave ́s de donativos. Lo cierto es, que lo que no se financia con

dinero pu ́ blico esquilmado ilı ́citamente, se financia con donativos

corporativos de proveedores y suplidores. Para los contratistas

inescrupulosos, tales donativos se traducen en una inversio ́n

econo ́mica de campan ̃ a que sera ́ recuperada con creces en el

siguiente te ́rmino de gobierno.

Punto nu ́mero tres, las raı ́ces del mal. Lo cierto es que la polı ́tica

local al interior de la colonia, contiene un semillero de corrosio ́n y

de corrupcio ́n. Acostumbrados a predicar, promover e intensificar la

independencia econo ́mica hacia los Estados Unidos, los lı ́deres

polı ́ticos coloniales del PNP y del PPD se han encargado de hacer

lo que halla que hacer para quedarse en el control de los cargos y
169

han fomentado la dependencia econo ́mica y los miedos a la libertad

a trave ́s de los resortes de control econo ́mico.

Nu ́mero cuatro, el remedio que proponemos. Sostenemos que bajo

la cla ́usula territorial, ustedes, miembros del Congreso, deben

prohibir los donativos de contratistas del gobierno de Puerto Rico

o el de los Estados Unidos y de las personas jurı ́dicas en general,

a las campan ̃ as partidistas o de comite ́s de accio ́n polı ́tica dirigidos

a favorecer algunas fo ́rmulas de status final para Puerto Rico.

Ma ́s au ́n, sostenemos que el proyecto debe incluir tambie ́n

medidas coercitivas que prohı ́ban la utilizacio ́n de recursos

gubernamentales y fondos pu ́ blicos para promover directa o

indirectamente cualquier campan ̃a de status. Existirı ́a una

excepcio ́n a este principio y serı ́a la de los fondos expresamente

consignados en la ley de plebiscito Federal o estatal para el uso en

campan ̃ as.

Una mencio ́n final, urge que se modifique el proyecto para

restringir los donativos corporativos y de contratistas

gubernamentales a las campan ̃as de status. Resulta igualmente

urgente que se controle cualquier gasto gubernamental en especie,

anuncios de dinero pu ́ blico, para favorecer a alguna fo ́rmula de status.

Gracias por su atencio ́n.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Inocencio follows:]
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177

Mr. ROMERO-BARCELO ́. Senor Erick Negron-Rivera.

STATEMENT OF ERICK G. NEGRON-RIVERA, TAX POLICY ADVISOR, PUERTO RICO INDEPENDENCE PARTY, PUERTO

NUEVO, PUERTO RICO

Mr. NEGRON-RIVERA. Good afternoon. Mi nombre es Erick Gustavo Negro ́n-Rivera y comparezco como asesor econo ́mico del

Partido Independentista Puertorriquen ̃ o. En conversaciones sobre

el Proyecto Young y al igual que ocurrio ́ en las discusiones

plebiscitarias de 1989 a 1991, varios congresistas ya han empezado

al PIP su intere ́s por conocer lo que serı ́a el perfil econo ́mico de la

independencia para Puerto Rico. Es mi intencio ́n resumir los

contornos ba ́sicos de esa opcio ́n de status.

Durante las de ́cadas de 1950 y 1960, Puerto Rico logro ́ un gran

crecimiento econo ́mico, alcanzando en el 1970 un producto per capita casi similar al de Israel, Italia, Japo ́n y Austria. En los u ́ltimos

veinticinco an ̃ os, sin embargo, la experiencia ha sido muy distinta.

Un buen nu ́mero de paı ́ses independientes que en 1970 eran ma ́s

pobres o mucho ma ́s pobres de Puerto Rico, como Singapur, Malta,

Portugal, Irlanda y Argentina, entre otros, nos ha sobrepasado en

producto per capita a veces por mucho.

A la vez, los paı ́ses que en 1970 eran ma ́s ricos que Puerto Rico,

han aumentado considerablemente su ventaja sobre la isla

mientras que esta no ha sobrepasado en producto per capita a un

solo paı ́s desde entonces.

El relativo estancamiento de Puerto Rico frente a tantos paı ́ses

independientes no ha sido casualidad. Las ventajas econo ́micas de

la independencia, en efecto, se han multiplicado como consecuencia

del gradual desmantelamiento de las barreras comerciales y los

avances en la inversio ́n trasnacional durante el u ́ltimo cuarto de

siglo.

Hoy dı ́a la independencia en vez de impedirle a un paı ́s pequen ̃ o

el acceso a los principales mercados mundiales, le permite a los

paı ́ses competir eficazmente en la economı ́a globalizada, ajustando

sus polı ́ticas de incentivos a sus propias necesidades particulares.

En el caso de Puerto Rico, la independencia permitirı ́a accesar

[sic] Otros mercados aparte del Norteamericano con mucha mayor

facilidad que en la actualidad. Al dejar de aplicar las restricciones

Norteamericanas de importacio ́n, tarifa, cuotas, presuntos

requisitos de calidad, leyenda de cabotaje, etce ́tera, la isla podrı ́a

comprar bienes y servicios del extranjero a un costo ma ́s bajo que

el actual, tanto en el renglo ́n de los productos de consumo como en

el de los insumos agrı ́colas e industriales.

A la vez, la capacidad de suscribir tratados comerciales con otros

paı ́ses, harı ́a posible ampliar nuestro mercado de exportacio ́n,

principalmente en el Caribe, Ame ́rica Latina y Europa. Por otro

lado, en el a ́ rea contributiva, tras la reciente eliminacio ́n de la

Seccio ́n 936, Puerto Rico ya ha quedado sujeto para propo ́sitos de

nuevas inversiones, a las mismas normas Federales generales

aplicables a las inversiones Norteamericanas en paı ́ses

independientes. Paı ́ses como Irlanda y Singapur han usado estas

normas durante de ́cadas para atraer exitosamente industrias

Norteamericanas. Bajo la independencia ma ́s au ́n, Puerto Rico

podrı ́a suscribir tratados de exencio ́n contributiva con los paı ́ses de
178

Europa Occidental, Japo ́n y Canada ́, diversificando ası ́ sus fuentes

de inversio ́n y tecnologı ́a.

Si Puerto Rico, usando las herramientas de la independencia,

lograra reducir en tan solo uno por ciento anual el costo de sus

actuales compras de bienes y servicios en el exterior, ya fuere

mediante el acceso a mercados ma ́s baratos o mediante la

sustitucio ́n competitiva de importaciones, se estarı ́a ahorrando a

los diez an ̃ os ma ́s dinero del que actualmente recibe en

transferencias unilaterales del gobierno Federal, es decir,

excluyendo derechos adquiridos y excluyendo los gastos

operacionales de las agencias Federales en la isla.

El beneficio de esas transferencias que han convertido a la isla

en un gueto econo ́mico, han sido a lo sumo dudoso. Lo que si ha

beneficiado a Puerto Rico, ha sido la cultura de libre mercado que

ha desarrollado en su relacio ́n con los Estados Unidos. Esa cultura

unida a nuestra localizacio ́n geogra ́fica, infraestructura fı ́sica y

adelanto te ́cnico, situ ́a a Puerto Rico como foco potencial de enlace

comercial y liderato econo ́mico en el Caribe.

Frente a las propuestas del ELA y la estadidad, basadas en

perpetuar y aumentar la dependencia que desmoraliza a Puerto

Rico y socaba sus fibras de convivencia, la independencia se basa

en el trabajo digno, productivo y autosostenible. Esa diferencia fundamental hace de la independencia la mejor opcio ́n econo ́mica tanto

para Puerto Rico como para el Tesoro de los Estados Unidos.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Negron-Rivera follows:]
179
180
181
182
183

Mr. ROMERO-BARCELO ́. Thank you, Mr. Negron-Rivera.

Mr. Gonzalez.

STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE FERDINAND LUGO GONZALEZ, REPRESENTATIVE, PUERTO RICO HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, SAN JUAN, PUERTO RICO

Mr. GONZALEZ. Buenas tardes, sen ̃ or Presidente de la Comisio ́n

de Recursos, sen ̃ or Comisionado Residente Romero-Barcelo ́ y a los

distinguidos congresistas que esta ́n presentes y nos visitan.

Se dirige a ustedes el Licenciado Ferdinand Lugo. Primero

bienvenidos al Distrito Representativo nu ́mero diecisiete de

Mayagu ̈ ez, y al a ́ rea oeste del Estado Libre Asociado de Puerto

Rico. Represento en la legislatura el distrito en el cual nos

encontramos y tambie ́n a miles de Puertorriquen ̃ os que como yo,

esta ́n indignados ante la poca o ninguna consideracio ́n polı ́tica

seria que el lenguaje del Proyecto 856 ha tenido para el pueblo de

Puerto Rico y sobre todo, para su mayor logro polı ́tico- jurı ́dico: el

Estado Libre Asociado de Puerto Rico.

Puerto Rico ha tenido y tiene una tradicio ́n autonomista, que se

materializo ́ por vez primera luego de luchas, sufrimientos,

encarcelamientos y negociaciones en la carta autono ́mica con

Espan ̃ a alla ́ para el an ̃ o de 1897. Este an ̃ o precisamente,

celebramos los hijos y las hijas de la nacio ́n Puertorriquen ̃ a, cien

an ̃ os de haber obtenido nuestro primer proyecto de gobierno propio,

la carta autono ́mica, que dio origen al primer gabinete

constitucional y gobierno de Puertorriquen ̃ os, inaugurado el 14 de

febrero de 1898.

Luego vino la guerra Hispanoamericana y sin ser Puerto Rico

parte del acto be ́lico, fuimos ocupados militarmente por los Estados

Unidos y nuestro primer gobierno autono ́mico Puertorriquen ̃ o fue

desecho por vı ́a de la ley congresional Foraker.

Volvimos de nuevo a la lucha de pueblos, a rescatar el gobierno

propio, el orden constitucional civil, el idioma Espan ̃ ol para

nuestros hijos, mejorar las condiciones de vida, restaurar nuestra

naturaleza de pueblo dominado y mancillado. Cincuenta y tres an ̃ os

despue ́s lo logramos, producto de otras luchas, sufrimientos,

encarcelamiento, persecucio ́n y negociacio ́n con el Congreso de los

Estados Unidos de Ame ́rica para llegar a un pacto y obtener

gobierno propio.

En el an ̃ o de 1950, luego de que el pueblo de los Estados Unidos

y la comunidad internacional vieron la fuerza, pujanza y exigencias

del pueblo de Puerto Rico por obtener mayor autonomı ́a, un

gobierno propio y una constitucio ́n, el Congreso aprobo ́ la Ley 600,

la cual fue ratificada por mayorı ́a del pueblo de Puerto Rico.

Posteriormente se perfecciono ́ un pacto al aprobar el Congreso y el

Presidente firmar, la Ley Pu ́ blica 447 el 3 de marzo de 1952 y

completarse un pacto bilateral entre dos pueblos.

Fue de tal manera reconocido por los Estados Unidos el pacto y

el nacimiento del Estado Libre Asociado de Puerto Rico, que el

propio Departamento de Estado de los Estados Unidos, a trave ́s de

la delegacio ́n Estadounidense, presento ́ ante el Consejo General de

las Naciones Unidas, la posicio ́n de que Puerto Rico habı ́a superado

su condicio ́n colonial y habı ́a sido investido de los atributos de
184

gobierno propio con su soberanı ́a, como una entidad polı ́tica

auto ́noma.

Ese pacto y nueva relacio ́n polı ́tica ha sido respaldada por

nuestro pueblo en tres plebiscitos, habiendo sido el u ́ltimo en el

1993, y ahora el Congreso pretende con este Proyecto 856 hacernos

retroceder en la historia, entregar los derechos colectivos

alcanzados con nosotros en asociacio ́n con los Estados Unidos, y

volver al coloniaje de antes de 1952 u obligarnos a optar por la

estadidad en contra de nuestra voluntad. Obviamente, eso no lo

puede permitir este pueblo.

Este proyecto, aparte de ser indigno y denigrante para nuestro

pueblo, esta ́ siendo legislativamente procesado como si las vistas

pu ́blicas fuesen un ejercicio investigativo rutinario del Congreso, y

no un proyecto de la seriedad que amerita la situacio ́n del status

de este paı ́s. Advertir a los testigos que pueden ser bajo juramento

tiene el efecto, si no la intencio ́n de amedrentar a los deponentes,

o por lo menos crea una disgustante opinio ́n sobre los procesos de

la Comisio ́n y sus fines.

Sen ̃ ores congresistas, cuarenta y cinco an ̃ os despue ́s de haberse

constituido el Estado Libre Asociado ratificado en tres ocasiones

por los Puertorriquen ̃ os, ustedes van a entender, van a tener que

entender de corazo ́n, que la nacio ́n Puertorriquen ̃ a no quiere ser

incorporada como otro estado de la Unio ́n. Exigimos el respeto al

pacto establecido en 1952 y vamos en camino a solicitar ma ́s

gobierno propio y ma ́s poderes para el Estado Libre Asociado. Si

ustedes aceptan la definicio ́n propuesta por el Presidente del

Partido Popular Democra ́tico, aceptan las definiciones propuestas

por las otras dos fo ́rmulas tan dignas como la nuestra y se

comprometen implantarla en un te ́rmino razonable el mandato del

pueblo, entonces estaremos ante un proceso justo, en el cual

podemos participar sin ceder los derechos, garantı ́as, privilegios

obtenidos en ma ́s de cien an ̃ os de lucha, por autonomı ́a y gobierno

propio.

Muchas gracias, sen ̃ or Presidente.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Gonzalez follows:]
185
186
187
188
189
190

Mr. YOUNG. I thank you.

Carlos Lopez-Rivera.

STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE CARLOS A. LOPEZ-RIVERA,

PRESIDENT, MAYORS ASSOCIATION OF PUERTO RICO, DORADO, PUERTO RICO

Mr. LOPEZ-RIVERA. Muy buenos dı ́as, sen ̃ ores Congresistas. Mi

nombre es Carlos A. Lo ́pez-Rivera, Alcalde de la ciudad de Dorado

y Presidente de la Asociacio ́n de Alcaldes de Puerto Rico, que

contiene el cincuenta por ciento de la poblacio ́n de nuestra patria.

Todos defendemos el Estado Libre Asociado en la forma en que el

Congreso lo definio ́ en el informe y en la legislacio ́n que aprobo ́ el

10 de octubre del 1990.

Este Proyecto Young es un proyecto engan ̃ oso. Llama a las cosas

por nombres distintos a lo que son. A la colonia la llama Estado

Libre Asociado. A la independencia la llama Libre Asociacio ́n. La

trampa es clara. Quienes conocen bien a Puerto Rico saben que

atesoramos nuestra identidad propia, porque somos una nacio ́n con

su propia historia, su propio idioma y su propia cultura, de la cual

es eje fundamental nuestro idioma Espan ̃ ol.

De igual manera, atesoramos la ciudadanı ́a de los Estados

Unidos, que adquirimos en el 1917 y que hemos honrado y

defendido con nuestras vidas. Si Puerto Rico atesora su propia

identidad a la vez que atesora la ciudadanı ́a Americana, tiene que

votar por una fo ́rmula de status donde dos pilares de las

aspiraciones del sentimiento Puertorriquen ̃ os puedan lograrse en

armonı ́a Este proyecto es un proyecto mezquino, pequen ̃ o. Le hace

dan ̃ o a los Estados Unidos y le hace dan ̃ o a Puerto Rico. Yo no se

de leyes, pero sı ́ se que las Leyes 600 del 1950 y la Ley 447 del

1952 hablan de un pacto. Puede haber diferencias sobre la

naturaleza de ese pacto, pero lo que no puede haber es una ceguera

tal que se niegue que en esas leyes se dice lo que cualquier persona

que sabe leer sabe que dicen. Venir ahora con el legalismo de que

el Congreso de los Estados Unidos no tenı ́a autoridad para hacer

lo que hizo o tratar de hacer aparecer a los Estados Unidos como

un paı ́s engan ̃ ador, mentiroso ante los ojos del mundo, cuando le

informo ́ a las Naciones Unidas lo que le informo ́ en el 1953,

representa un servicio pobre a la democracia Americana.

En este momento, le planteo a ustedes lo siguiente. ®Que ́

credibilidad nos merece lo que ustedes digan y hagan hoy? Sen ̃ ores

Congresistas, no se puede jugar ası ́ con el destino de un pueblo, de

una nacio ́n.

El Proyecto Young, un proyecto de imposicio ́n de la estadidad. . .

Yo le digo a ustedes los siguiente, el fuerte no puede abusar del

de ́bil, y aquı ́ me refiero a la debilidad en el sentido de fuerza

econo ́mica, de poderı ́o militar, porque moralmente y en orgullo

somos tan fuerte como el ma ́s.

La verdad es ma ́s fuerte que el engan ̃ o. La nacio ́n Americana es

una historia gloriosa, de ese respeto al ser humano y a los derechos

que la asisten. Este proyecto es una negacio ́n y representa un

bochorno para los Estados Unidos. Si you fuese Congresista como

lo son ustedes, me avergonzarı ́a de auspiciar un proyecto como

este.
191

Les propongo lo siguiente, primero, descarten este proyecto

ofensivo. Segundo, eliminen toda sospecha fundado de que los

proponentes de la legislacio ́n esta ́n parcializados hacia una fo ́rmula

de estadidad. Tercero, expresen la realidad con una visio ́n ma ́s

respetuosa de la historia polı ́tica y jurı ́dica de nuestra patria, Puerto Rico. Cuarto, incorporen a los propulsores de las tres fo ́rmulas

polı ́ticas en la redaccio ́n de distintos borradores, de los cuales se

produzca uno final que sea aceptable a todos. Quinto, sometan la

legislacio ́n plebiscitaria al modelo de la Ley 600. Sexto, dispongan,

que de no tener ningu ́n fo ́rmula ma ́s del cincuenta por ciento de los

votos emitidos, se celebrara ́ una nueva votacio ́n entre las fo ́rmulas

con el mayor nu ́mero de votos. Se ́timo, comprome ́tanse en aceptar

la decisio ́n del pueblo en cuanto a la preferencia que este exprese

por cualquiera de las fo ́rmulas de status, legislando para que la

decisio ́n de Puerto Rico sea autoejecutable. Octavo, una vez se

certifiquen los resultados del plebiscito, el pueblo queda autorizado

a convocar una asamblea constituyente para establecer los

procedimientos y adoptar las medidas necesarias para coordinar

con los Estados Unidos la implantacio ́n de la fo ́rmula de status

triunfante en un perı ́odo no mayor de tres an ̃ os.

Sen ̃ ores Congresistas, es posible que no todos ustedes este ́n

conscientes de la trampa que representa esta legislacio ́n. Yo los

invito a examinar con detenimiento todo este proceso y toda esta

propuesta. Puerto Rico no se merece este atropello. Esta legislacio ́n

es un acto de tiranı ́a. Puerto Rico se merece un trato justo,

honrando la relacio ́n que por casi cien an ̃ os hemos mantenido con

los Estados Unidos, relacio ́n que Puerto Rico ha honrado hasta [sic]

La. . . A ofrendar la vida de sus hijos.

Les dejo sen ̃ ores Congresistas, para que hablen con su conciencia,

pero sobre todo, para que sus conciencias le hablen a su

entendimiento. Puerto Rico, Borinquen, nuestra patria, se lo habra ́

de agradecer.

Muchas gracias.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Lopez-Rivera follows:]
192
193
194
195
196
197
198

Mr. YOUNG. Senator?

STATEMENT OF JULIAN O. McCONNIE, JR., ATTORNEY AT LAW,

RIO PIEDRAS, PUERTO RICO

Mr. MCCONNIE. It is indeed an honor to be talking to the most

important deliberative body in the world, and I know and expect

that attention of such talented persons will lead to a solution in

this matter.

According to instructions, the first thing you have to say is your

status. My preferred status is statehood. I do not object to the approval of this bill as long as it offers all Puerto Ricans the opportunity to back their respective ideologies equitably and democratically.

As a lifelong Puerto Rican statehooder active since the early fifties as President of Citizens for State 51, which Carlos remembers

well, I have learned to respect the ideals and sentiments of those

who differ with my statehood ideal. After all, it is from their ranks

that additional votes must be obtained to attain statehood. Therefore, I must strongly object to the unfair attitude against Commonwealth repeatedly expressed in the past and the present Young bill,

perhaps conflicting with matters under the control, not of this

Committee.

This clashes with everything that I have been taught during

more than 40 years to the effect that a plebiscite process must be

fair and not mixed with a normal elective process. The voters are

the ones to decide the issues as to the preferred status, not the

Young Committee. As testified on Saturday by nonpartisan witnesses, the choice, of course, must be within the pertinent constitutional and legal parameters.

I am glad to see that Congressman George Miller said Saturday

that it must be a fair and open process. That is fine. We are in

agreement. So this Committee has a great amount of work to do

amending the Young bill in order to bring that about, and I am

sure that you will do it. We offer our cooperation. I don’t think this

is going to be a short session nor is it going to be easy. It is hard.

What you have before you is very difficult. I know that. Nobody

said being a Congressman was an easy job. You guys have to work

like hell, and this is a very tough problem. We will help you in any

way we can. We are helping you now with our limited statement

here.

Unfortunately, Saturday’s hearing confirmed this is anything but

fair and open. The angry and offensive demonstrations were to be

expected in view of the provocation of this bill. You cannot strip

from the present legal status of Puerto Rico all pretense of legality

without offending many Puerto Ricans.

To many it would seem that Public Law 600 and Public Law 447

of the U.S. Congress creating and confirming Commonwealth are

still in effect until annulled by the courts or other proper authorities, which has not happened. The 2-year thing is not that easy.

You can’t just say if not, I will go to Congress and not listen to any

law that is passed more than 2 years and disobey it. This is much

more complicated than that.

In this case, that is not enough of an explanation. Maybe there

are explanations, and this bill, this Committee will bring them
199

about. They have not said so now. You don’t even say whether your

bill is valid because Public Law 600 and Public Law 447 were approved by a different Congress.

It is no small wonder that the Chairman had difficulty controlling the noisy behavior of commonwealthers and statehooders.

When you provoke a hornet’s nest, you are not going to get flowers

and kisses in return. But Chairman Young, to his credit, handled

the matter with restraint and great patience. Thank you, Congressman Young.

Saturday’s hearings confirmed that the sooner the unfair, improper and unnecessary hostile attacks on Commonwealth are

amended away and all differences of opinion are presented in a fair

and impartial manner, as all the previous status bills were able to

do, I appeared before all five of them, in writing or in person, and

all of them were able to define the issues and go ahead, the sooner

the level playing field that such a serious matter demands will be

created.

It should also be remembered that any victory in a flawed and

unfair plebiscite could indeed be hollow and last only until its first

encounter in court. The ones that don’t win here could be in court

the next day, unless this Committee sticks to what they have to

stick to, setting up the rules, but don’t try to decide the issues. Because you have not the authority. That is what the plebiscite is for.

We should also note the fact that commonwealthers have not completely eliminated the possibility of their not participating in what

they will consider an unfair plebiscite. They said we are listening

to you, but are not saying we are going ahead with the whole thing.

In all the past bills and hearings, Commonwealth has participated.

So from any objective point of view, this could constitute a very serious problem.

Because statehood is the Crown Jewel, the Holy Grail, the Super

Bowl of American democracy, it must be earned, and earned in fair

combat. I have held for a long time that the only way to deserve

statehood is by decisively, overwhelmingly defeating Commonwealth, like Alaska and Hawaii defeated their opposition to statehood. We Puerto Ricans have not done that. We have not earned

that.

Mr. ROMERO-BARCELO ́. Do you have much longer to go?

Mr. MCCONNIE. No, I don’t have much longer to go. Just one

paragraph, and then it is over. I have another statement. This is

shorter.

This will take much more than a mere partisan effort as shown

by the defeat in the 1993 status plebiscite, despite controlling all

the marbles. I know it is very hard, but somehow you, the Committee, has to distinguish between nonpartisan idealogy and partisanship. This is not a fight between the parties. This is between

statehood, Commonwealth and independence, and you guys have to

fight this out, not me. I merely talk here, and you can forget me.

But eventually that is one thing you will have to decide.

What I am telling you is really ideological and not partisan. So

I tell people instead of attacking the loyalty of commonwealthers

to the U.S., it simply must not be continued, because it is not the

actual truth and harms statehood.
200

I served 30 years in the Army. We did not have any cases of disloyalty of American soldiers from Puerto Rico for partisan or ideological beliefs. There is no Puerto Rican Army. As a Civilian Aide,

I served the Army from 1970 to 1984, and have been Civilian Aide

Emeritus since 1985 to date. The said experience has been continued. There has never been any disloyalty of any Puerto Rican soldier in the Army with their uniform on.

I believe and trust that the 200 years of Ballots and not Bullets

of both the U.S. and Puerto Rico will make Puerto Rico the 51st

State, especially if we Puerto Rican stateholders show the proper

respect and admiration for commonwealthers and for all Puerto

Ricans and for those who have chosen to be here and stay with us.

No one ever said being a U.S. Congressman is an easy job. It

isn’t. That is all, thank you.

[The prepared statement of Mr. McConnie follows:]
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210

Mr. ROMERO-BARCELO ́. [Presiding.] Thank you. Mr. Joaquin

Ma ́ rquez?

STATEMENT OF JOAQUI ́N A. MA ́ RQUEZ, ESQUIRE,

SPRINGFIELD, COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA

Mr. MA ́ RQUEZ. Chairman Young, Mr. Miller, Mr. Underwood, Mr.

Romero, my name is Joaquı ́n Ma ́ rquez, and I appear before you as

a private citizen. I have been a resident of the Old Dominion, the

proud State of Virginia, for the last 29 years. In the seminal book,

a Nation of Immigrants, Daniel Patrick Moynihan richly describes

the successive waves of immigrants that form the fabric of our Nation, as well as their legacy.

I am a part of that legacy and a part of that immigrant wave

that has helped build our Nation, the great wave of Puerto Rican

immigrants that is still struggling to earn its rightful place in the

American melting pot.

Although my generation did not land at Ellis Island, it landed at

Idlewild and Newark in search of the same thing, a better future.

My generation’s contribution to the general commonwealth is no

less valuable than the contributions of earlier waves of immigrants

that washed upon our shores.

Because of time constraints, I would like to address only two

very sensitive issues relating to the proposed legislation: who

should be allowed to vote in the referendum; and, the requirement

that English be used as the official lingua franca for the Federal

Government in Puerto Rico.

The issue of who may vote may be disposed of very easily. However much I love my Borinquen, and I come from Humacao, I cannot in good conscience vote in the proposed referendum because I

am no longer a resident of the island. Only those persons who will

personally have to bear the direct consequences of the results of

the proposed referendum should have the right to vote. Only those

who have a direct stake in the outcome, regardless of where they

were born, should be the determinants of Puerto Rico’s future status.

Let those nonresidents who demand the right to vote by proclaiming their love for Puerto Rico prove their love by returning to

our island and contributing their sweat, toil and talent to the

building of a better community.

Let me quickly turn to the issue of language. Puerto Ricans have

been enslaved by a political system under Commonwealth status

that has used language to intentionally create an economic, social,

and political ghetto. By failing to teach English, Commonwealth

politicians have erected an insurmountable barrier to opportunity

and progress for Puerto Ricans. The result has been that at least

three generations of Puerto Ricans have been condemned to economic slavery and dependence on the island, and particularly, on

the mainland.

It is interesting to note that the leading supporters of Commonwealth all speak excellent English, and even though they chose to

not speak English here, they have attended Ivy League and other

prestigious mainland schools and universities. It is cruel for Commonwealth leaders to impose the crushing burden of English language illiteracy on the people of Puerto Rico, while forcing many
211

to migrate to drug-infested mainland ghettos in search of meaningful employment.

When Commonwealth leaders say that most Puerto Ricans cannot read and write the English language well, they are indicting

themselves. Puerto Ricans have not learned more English simply

because Commonwealth leaders have deprived them of the opportunity to learn the language.

Before Commonwealth was established, English was taught in all

the public schools by teachers properly schooled in the language,

many of whom were retired teachers from the mainland. The Commonwealth leadership, then headed by former Governor Munoz

Marin, recognized that a fully bilingual Puerto Rico would have the

option of seeking statehood or easily transferring to the mainland.

In order to preclude statehood and to prevent a brain drain, they

elected to discontinue the teaching of English coequally with Spanish. Under the guise of preserving our cultural identity, they thus

created an artificial barrier, in the hope that Puerto Ricans would

not seek the full measure of their American citizenship.

In spite of this barrier, over 1 million Puerto Ricans fled the

Commonwealth to fetid mainland ghettos in search of a better future. The people of Puerto Rico have come to see the perfidy of this

situation and have increasingly turned to statehood as the fulfillment of their hopes and aspirations in their inalienable right to

pursue happiness and economic progress. It is high time that this

ugly secret be exposed and corrected.

If English has not supplanted Spanish after nearly a century of

American domination, I submit it will not do so when Puerto Rico

attains its full rights as a State of the Union. Puerto Ricans must

master the language of Cervantes as well as the language of

Shakespeare in order to realize the full potential of their God-given

talents.

I disdain those who denigrate the abilities and talents of my fellow islanders. Puerto Rican doctors, lawyers, carpenters, mechanics, barbers, whether professionals or laborers, are no less capable

than their counterparts on the mainland. They may just be unable

to realize their full worth simply because of a language handicap.

Puerto Ricans need to be apprised of the terrible price they are

paying as a result of a failed ethnocentric policy imposed by Commonwealth leaders in order to keep them in a linguistic reservation.

Almost 38 years ago, I appeared in support of statehood in Puerto Rico before a subcommittee of this Committee’s predecessor, the

House Interior and Insular Affairs Committee, which was then

chaired by Mr. Wayne Aspinall. I was a 17-year-old student then.

At that time statehood was supported by a small minority of the

electorate. What gave me great hope that in time, in spite of the

long odds, my fellow Puerto Ricans would come to appreciate the

many blessings of statehood was the shining example of your own

State’s struggle, Mr. Chairman, to add Alaska’s bright star to the

constellation of American stars in our flag.

Ernest Gruening’s life-long fight to attain full equality under the

Constitution for all Alaskans had finally borne fruit. His successful

struggle kindled a passionate fire for equality in me and many of

my generation.
212

I have always struggled in defense of the proposition that all

Americans cannot be equal as long as one citizen is unequal. The

world has turned many times since that day, but the fire has only

grown stronger in me. Let this be the Congress that brings about

full equality for Puerto Rico, ending the stench of a century of colonialism that stains both the soul of my people and the conscience

of our Nation. Let this be the Congress that fulfills the implied

promise of full equality through statehood made to Puerto Ricans

when citizenship was granted in 1917.

Let this be the Congress that burnishes our Nation’s honor by

proving to a doubting world that the price of admission to the

blessings of full equality under statehood is not measured by the

amount of tax dollars paid, but by the recognition of our continuing

love and commitment to the American ideals of freedom and democracy embodied in our national Constitution.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Ma ́ rquez follows:]
213
214
215
216
217

Mr. ROMERO-BARCELO ́. Thank you, Mr. Ma ́ rquez.

I would like to make a couple of statements before we go into the

questions. One of them is regarding what has been said about

whether the United States lied or not at the United Nations. I

want to say that my belief and my understanding, because of what

was said, is that the United States lied, but they didn’t lie by

themselves. The Government of Puerto Rico was part of the conspiracy of that lie. The Government of Puerto Rico supported that

lie, and the administration then in effect in Puerto Rico actually

proposed they go to the United Nations and relieve the United

States from having to submit the reports to the United Nations, because what they said to the United Nations was that in Puerto

Rico, a full measure of self-government had been achieved. And

now I am in Congress, and I don’t have a right to vote on the Floor,

and I see there every day laws being passed that affect Puerto

Rico, that obligate Puerto Rico, Puerto Rico has to abide by them.

So, therefore, there is no full measure of self-government. Whoever says that there is a full measure of self-government here in

Puerto Rico, we are not telling the truth. Whoever said it before,

didn’t tell the truth. It wasn’t only the U.S., it was also the administration in Puerto Rico at that time.

The other thing I would like to say for a historical perspective

is the statements that something is unfair as far as the Commonwealth is concerned. I think we should be concerned with the fairness to the people, not fairness as a status, but to the people. The

people of Puerto Rico, when they are presented with a decision,

that the decisions are fair to them, that they are decisions which

are realistic. That is what we should be concerned about.

If one of the options contains elements that are not realistic, either constitutionally, legally, or politically, we should take care

that they are not included, and that is why we should be concerned. We should be fair to the people of Puerto Rico, not to statehood and not independence and not to Commonwealth.

And to say that the reason is because the Commonwealth Party

has said that they might boycott this plebiscite, that is nothing

new. The reason that the Commonwealth party had participated in

the prior plebiscites is because they were the ones that formulated

those plebiscites.

When Commonwealth was adopted, the second party in Puerto

Rico was the Independence Party, and they boycotted the whole

process. They boycotted the process for two reasons: They didn’t

like the process, and they also knew they were going to lose; so

why go through the process? That is one of the reasons they boycotted the process.

Then came the plebiscite in 1967. In 1967 there was a plebiscite

that gave the three options, and the two parties that represented

those options at that time, they both boycotted the plebiscite. Both

parties boycotted, the Republican Party and the Independence

Party, and only groups organized by themselves went to represent

their options.

So every time we have had a plebiscite, the opposing parties

have the tendency to boycott it, because they realize they are going

to lose, and that is the only reason there will be a boycott to a plebiscite.
218

Of course we learned a lesson in the 1967 plebiscite, and that is,

by boycotting the plebiscite, the Republican Party disappeared and

a new party sprung up, so that is something the Popular Party will

have to look at.

But I want to bring this into perspective, because the first to boycott is not only that the people might be dissatisfied with what is

said, but also because they feel they are going to lose. If they felt

they were going to win the plebiscite, I am sure they would participate.

Now I would like to ask some questions about the—to Ferdinand

Lugo Gonzalez.

When I hear your statement, I wonder, ask myself, why, if you

feel that way about the United States, do you want to be a U.S.

citizen?

Mr. GONZALEZ. Sen ̃ or Comisionado Residente, voy a mencionarle

unos asuntos personales. Mi sen ̃ or Padre, fue veterano de la

Segunda Guerra Mundial, mi hermano mayor veterano, mi segundo

hermano veterano, y este servidor tiene diecisiete an ̃ os de servicios

con la Fuerza Armada de los Estados Unidos. O sea, yo no tengo

que estarle probando a nadie si yo aprecio la ciudadanı ́a Americana. No tengo que estar proba ́ndoselo a nadie. Eso es eh. . . Se

concedio ́ y no se debe estar discutiendo Lo que a mı ́ sı ́ me preocupa

es lo siguiente, por eso yo planteo en mi ponencia, que respetemos

el pacto. Con mi accio ́n personal, la de mi padre, la de mi hermano,

la de mis familiares, nosotros cumplimos con nuestra parte del

pacto y ahora resulta que en el proceso, fuimos engan ̃ ados. Ahora

resulta, que del 1952 para aca ́, no hubo pacto. Ahora resulta que

el sacrificio de los Puertorriquen ̃ os se hizo como parte del producto

de un engan ̃ o.

Aquı ́ no debe estar en ‘‘issue’’ la cuestio ́n de la ciudadanı ́a Americana. Se concedio ́ en 1917, los que nacieron posterior a eso son

ciudadanos por el derecho natural. Eso no es un asunto que debe

estar en discusio ́n aquı ́. O sea, los Puertorriquen ̃ os somos

Puertorriquen ̃ os, la nacio ́n Puertorriquen ̃ a con ciudadanı ́a Americana. Lo que a mi me preocupa en todo esto y yo le respeto

obviamente su posicio ́n que usted es el Comisionado de todos los

Puertorriquen ̃ os aunque no estoy- estoy en total desacuerdo con su

posicio ́n, pero respeto obviamente, porque yo cumplo siempre mi

parte del pacto. Ahora, me preocupa cuando la otra parte no la

cumple. Bien, entonces me preocupa por ejemplo en estos momentos, la posicio ́n suya que luce que es la posicio ́n de esta Comisio ́n,

si no me corrigen, es que los Estados Unidos en confabulacio ́n

cuando vino a Puerto Rico, engan ̃ aron al mundo.

Las consecuencias de eso van a ser que si resentimientos hay

contra los Estados Unidos en estos momentos y ustedes lo vieron

en el panel anterior, Lolita Lebron, mancillada, dan ̃ ada en su

espı ́ritu. Si resentimiento habı ́a, ahora despue ́s de las

expresiones. . . No, si lo que paso ́ fue que no hubo ningu ́n pacto,

esto todo era un engan ̃ o, obviamente los Estadolibristas vamos a ir

a los tribunales. Por lo menos yo voy a los tribunales. Pero va a

haber ma ́s resentimiento—en este paı ́s.

Va a haber ma ́s resentimiento en este paı ́s, porque siguen

dividiendo al pueblo de Puerto Rico. Yo tengo la fuerza moral para

exigirle el pacto, le di diecisiete an ̃ os de servicio, todavı ́a estoy en
219

la reserva activa. Mi padre, mi hermano, mi otro hermano. . . Yo

tengo la fuerza moral. Ahora resulta que no hubo pacto, pues

vamos a los tribunales. Pero el problema de todo esto es que siguen

dividiendo al pueblo de Puerto Rico y eso es ma ́s lamentable porque

crea ma ́s resentimiento.

Tambie ́n quiero tocar. . . Aprovechar la oportunidad, alguien toco ́

el asunto del Ingle ́s. O sea, que los Puertorriquen ̃ os el problema del

aprendizaje del Ingle ́s. No, el problema del aprendizaje del Ingle ́s

de los Puertorriquen ̃ os. Es que aquı ́ no se ha ensen ̃ ado Ingle ́s para

que aprendamos Ingle ́s. Aquı ́ se ha ensen ̃ ado Ingle ́s para

desnaturalizar a los Puertorriquen ̃ os. A mı ́ siempre me llega. . . A

mı ́. . . Inmediatamente me llega a la mente, el cuento que nos

estuvieron contando de nin ̃ os, de Jorge Washington, el que nunca

dijo una mentira. Yo quiero hacer igual que Jorge Washington que

nunca dijo una mentira. Entonces nos esta ́n vendiendo, a nuestros

nin ̃ os le han estado vendiendo durante todo el siglo, de que la

mejor forma de ser mejor ciudadano es parecerse a Jorge Washington en los Estados Unidos. Entonces en el proceso, en lugar de

ensen ̃ arles Ingle ́s a los Puertorriquen ̃ os reconociendo los valores de

los Puertorriquen ̃ os, los queremos desnaturalizar. Y por eso es que

el espı ́ritu del Puertorriquen ̃ o se resiste a aprender el Ingle ́s. No

es porque no quiera aprender Ingle ́s, es porque lo que le esta ́n

ensen ̃ ando es. . . Simplemente le esta ́n dan ̃ ando su naturaleza. El

Puertorriquen ̃ o quiere aprender el Ingle ́s y quiere aprender el

France ́s, pero es que en el proceso, no le quieren ensen ̃ ar Ingle ́s,

lo quieren desnaturalizar. Y todas esas cosas, pues son lamentables

pero tienen que llegar a esta Comisio ́n.

Mr. ROMERO-BARCELO ́. My time is up. I have to turn to the others.

Mr. Underwood.

Mr. UNDERWOOD. I have no questions.

Mr. ROMERO-BARCELO ́. Mr. Young.

Mr. YOUNG. I have one comment to Ferdinand.

You are in the State House? State Senate?

Mr. GONZALES. House.

Mr. YOUNG. Do you have rules?

Mr. GONZALEZ. Si.

Mr. YOUNG. The rules apply to everyone.

Mr. GONZALEZ. Si.

Mr. YOUNG. I have rules that apply to everybody, too. Everybody

is asked to testify, consent to the same form. That is the rules of

the House, as you have rules in your House. Don’t question my

rules.

Mr. GONZALEZ. Sen ̃ or Presidente, este pueblo y los

representantes de este pueblo tenemos el perfecto derecho a

cuestionar los procedimientos, por cuanto durante cien an ̃ os, hemos

estado divididos y ahora en cinco minutos quiere que hagamos una

expresio ́n a los efectos de decidir una cuestio ́n tan importante como

es el status de este paı ́s. Tenemos el perfecto derecho como hombres libres y mujeres libres, a cuestionar los procedimientos con

mucho respeto.

Mr. YOUNG. I haven’t asked you a question.

Mr. ROMERO-BARCELO ́. No more questions. That is the rules. No

more questions.
220

Mr. LOPEZ. La democracia est coartada entonces.

Mr. ROMERO-BARCELO ́. No, that—that’s the rules.

Mr. LOPEZ. Exacto.

Mr. ROMERO-BARCELO ́. No more questions.

Mr. LOPEZ. No, porque deberı ́amos reaccionar a las expresiones

que usted hizo. La democracia esta ́ coartada entonces.

Mr. ROMERO-BARCELO ́. That’s what—you would say, that’s your

freedom to say it.

Mr. LOPEZ. Una vez ma ́s.

Mr. ROMERO-BARCELO ́. I will call the next panel, Luis Vega

Ramos, Ramon Velasco, Hector Borges, Julio Cezar Lopez Gerena,

Gonzalo Fernos-Lopez, and Angel Ortiz-Guzman.

STATEMENT OF LUIS VEGA RAMOS, PRESIDENT, PROELA, SAN

JUAN, PUERTO RICO

Mr. RAMOS. Good afternoon.

We come before this Committee for the third time in as many

years to ask you to enact legislation for the Puerto Rican Nation

to self-determine its sovereignty.

We sincerely hope we have reached a stage where we have more

congressional appearances behind us than ahead of us. Last year

we testified on H.R. 34, on that time which claim to fair place and

today, refer to H.R. 856, we add the following.

Goodwill requires to refrain from offering any territorial status.

If you mean what you say, when you claim you want to decolonize,

you cannot offered unincorporated territory or the incorporated one,

not even as an option to another status. The options are independence, statehood, and free associated state, or ‘‘Estado Libre

Asociado,’’ in Spanish. That is what us and international law provide for. The options should be clearly defined in terms of economic

and political consequences.

This is particularly important in the case of statehood, because

we are a distinct Spanish speaking nationality that won’t assimilate easily into the American body politic. Certainly it forbids that

two options have the same definition. That would be highly misleading to the electorate. Each of the three options should have its

own valid text. All Puerto Ricans must be allowed to vote. Self-determination applies to nations and not to random groups. Puerto

Rico, as you have seen in these hearings, is a nation, so all of us

have a say in this decision.

Finally, both fair play and goodwill demand a quicker response

and implementation mechanisms. We shouldn’t have to wait for

decades and new votes so our grandchildren finally know if Congress is going to implement our will.

We congratulate the administration and Chairman Miller for

your stand on this issue. We refer you to notes that have been filed

by another witness in this panel, the attorney, Angel Ortiz. We

said last year, let us be totally clear, Estado Libre Asociado has to

be one of the options, but not as it is today, because in fact nobody

is asking for that. Instead, it must be included as it should be, sovereign, clearly outside the territorial clause and associated to the

United States only by means of bilateral compact.

We said our proposal represented the majority of the pro-Commonwealth forces. Recent events have confirmed this. On March
221

15th, the youth organization of the Popular Democratic Party sponsored a definition that was endorsed by prominent leaders of that

party. It is the acceptable minimum for all of the organizations,

and in fact, many of the leaders who have been here today support

that definition. It should be the building block for an offer of bilateral association to Puerto Rico.

This definition, which we include in our statement, establishes

Estado Libre Asociado, as a formula based solely on Puerto Rican

sovereignty. This has clear implications for H.R. 856 for the kinds

of options it includes.

Let there be no mistake about it; the consensus in the Popular

Democratic Party in Puerto Rico, the consensus of which is a proud

part of, is for the unadulterated Puerto Rican sovereignty. That

means full, free, association.

Much has been argued by the implement of this option by the retention of citizenship for Puerto Ricans and their offspring. Even

the former Ambassador has expressed an opinion. We did our

homework and found no constitutional impediment for the inclusion in the compact of U.S. citizenship for new generations of Puerto Ricans.

I repeat, there is no constitutional impediment for the inclusion

in the compact of U.S. citizenship guarantees for these and new

generations of Puerto Ricans.

Furthermore, two are alternatives for the long-standing U.S.

presence. We submitted a letter to the chairman recently prepared

by our experts that explains in detail our citizenship proposal.

After seeing it, members of the Committee, you will agree that

Puerto Rican sovereignty and U.S. citizenship are compatible. It is

simply a question of political will.

We urge Congress to adopt a policy that is sound and that is

right. The United States has the duty to act. H.R. 856 can be another drummer in an endless march of follies, or it could still be

the beginning of a beautiful friendship and partnership between

both our Nations. The choice, Members of Congress, is all yours.

Thank you.

Mr. YOUNG. Thank you, Luis.

Mr. Velasco.

STATEMENT OF RAMON L. VELASCO, ASSOCIATION OF PROCOMMONWEALTH ATTORNEYS, BAYAMON, PUERTO RICO

Mr. VELASCO. Good afternoon, members of the Committee. I represent the Association of Pro-Commonwealth Attorneys. The Association of Pro-Commonwealth Attorneys appears before the Committee today in order to participate in this congressional hearing

on H.R. 856.

We believe it is important to point out to this Committee that

there are several basic findings included in the bill that, in our

opinion, are incorrect or inconsistent with the law as interpreted by

the U.S. Supreme Court and other Federal court decisions.

In 1950, the U.S. Congress enacted Public Law 600, which enabled the people of Puerto Rico to make a constitution to cover its

internal affairs consistent with the American democratic tradition

of government by the consent of the governed. The act itself was

submitted to and approved by the people of Puerto Rico.
222

Public Law 600 declared that when the Constitution was approved, the organic provisions of the Jones Act would be automatically repealed. The Constitution was approved by Public Law 447

as a pact between Congress and the people of Puerto Rico. Through

this process, the people of Puerto Rico achieved full self-government. The Federal Government’s relations with Puerto Rico

changed from being bounded by merely the territorial clause and

the rights of a people the Puerto Rico as United States citizens, to

being bounded by the United States and Puerto Rico Constitutions,

Public Law 600, the Federal Relations Act, and the rights of the

people of Puerto Rico as United States citizens.

Federal statutes, U.S. Government official positions, and judicial

interpretations provide a clear picture of Commonwealth. It is a political status that created a body politic, with autonomy and sovereignty over local matters of a nature equal to a state. This authority has recognized a compact that cannot be change unilaterally, because the term ‘‘compact’’ implies or presupposes a bilateral

agreement.

In view of this history of judicial interpretations and U.S. Government official positions, we think it should be clear that Puerto

Rico has achieved self-government and that its autonomy and sovereignty are equal to those normally attributed to a State. It is

therefore a mistake to base this bill on the assumption that the

only alternative to full self-government is the ones included in the

bill.

The Commonwealth created in 1952 is an alternative. It is not

perfect, and can be expanded and modernized. The definition exalted by the Popular Democratic Party appealed to the goal of and

opens the process of negotiation to clarify, and or expand, the

present relationship.

The concept of self-determination applies to the process of presenting the alternatives itself. The way this bill is enacted does not

comply with that rule. The bill disqualifies the present state of the

law without any participation of Puerto Rico.

The final arbiter of these matters is the Supreme Court, as was

announced to the United Nations. When Public Law 600 was approved by the Congress, the requirement of its acceptance was dictated to the people by Congress. That same procedure must be used

now.

There is another aspect that should worry us all. The United

States has been consistent, year after year in the United Nations,

in its positions that Puerto Rico’s case is closed. The future development and greater autonomy of Puerto Rico is both necessary and

desirable in a modern and changing world. However, it is a private

matter between two sovereigns that are associated by a compact.

The United Nations Resolutions Number 1514 and 1541 and

other resolutions require, among other things, the demilitarization

of the territory. This applies to territories that have not achieved

full self-government and are still under the jurisdiction of the

United States. Puerto Rico is not such a territory and arguing that

it is does not serve the best interests of either the United States

or Puerto Rico. It is unnecessary and can be ill advised and risky.

The enemies of the United States and Puerto Rico may try to influence this Congress to fall into that mistake. The presentation of
223

alternatives present under this bill does not satisfy a majority of

the potential voters in a plebiscite. The existing relationship may

devote the need for the court’s intervention to adjudicate the authorities by the premises included in it.

Statehood is not good for the United States and Puerto Rico. And

neither is it good for our desire to be a distinct people and your

need to be a cohesive natural body. These things have been pronounced by the Supreme Court on several occasions.

Puerto Rico is associated with the United States, permanently

bounded by our many common interests. Any bill should take this

into consideration. The Congress should follow suit since, after all,

this is a matter of political will. It is not foreclosed by legality. We

are confident we will win a fair and just plebiscite. Let us create

a fair and modernization of the compact that would make the next

generation of Americans and Puerto Ricans proud of this generation.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. YOUNG. Thank you, Hector.

STATEMENT OF HECTOR QUIJANO BORGES, ASSOCIATION OF

STATEHOOD ATTORNEYS, SAN JUAN, PUERTO RICO

Mr. BORGES. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman, distinguished Members of Congress. Welcome to Puerto Rico.

My name is Hector Quijano Borges, and I come before you on behalf of the Attorneys for Statehood, an organization that represents

thousands of attorneys who believe in the democratic system of the

United States as well as in the permanent union with the same

Nation.

It is a fact that in Puerto Rico, the vast majority of attorneys,

especially the younger generations, treasure our U.S. citizenship.

We also represent the new generations of job professionals who decide a new future of security, progress, equality, for our families,

our children.

I would like to begin by commending the Committee on Resources for its contribution in providing a process that would put

an end to the colonial dilemma of Puerto Rico. This bill reflects the

effort of the U.S. Congress to respond to the aspiration of our 3.7

million U.S. citizens eager to become Americans.

The Association of Attorneys for Statehood endorses the sevenpoint definitions of the statehood contained in this bill. And in this

hearing you have heard the statement of those who oppose that

Puerto Rico should become federated State of the Union. They

argue that statehood represents three basic problems for the

United States.

First, they allege that if Puerto Rico became the 51st State, it

would be dependent State; second, that both our language and culture are now not compatible with becoming a State; third, that

statehood for Puerto Rico would be extremely costly for the U.S.

Obviously, those are arguments that only pretend to manipulate

your conscience as well as that of the Puerto Rican people. Let’s

take those arguments and discuss them one by one.

I must be clear that, in the ELA, dependency of Puerto Ricans

to work for our problems increase every day. We are much more

dependent proportionally than all 50 States. The so-called new defi-
224

nition of ELA proposes equal treatment in Federal programs with

our contribution, a penny, for the Federal Treasury.

Could there be a better example of the dependency than asking

for benefits without assuming any duties? It is a fact that this definition does not fit in the fair and constitutional system of the

United States. In legal, constitutional, and practical terms, this

definition is not acceptable.

Furthermore, the perpetration of a colonial status for Puerto Rico

is in clear violation of the basic principles of international law. History reveals that no one State has become poorer after joining the

Union. On the contrary, experience tells us that economy of all territories after becoming State has strongly developed.

Far from becoming a dependent state, Puerto Rico with the advantage of becoming a bilingual State, and with the assets of its

hard-working people, will become the commercial bridge between

the Spanish-speaking world and the United States. Our economic

development as a State will be notorious.

To say that Puerto Rico as a State will be a problem for the

United States for speaking both Spanish and English contravenes

the constitutional principles that all men are created equal. Far

from being a problem, our bilingualism enriches our U.S. Nation.

So that everyone clearly understands this point, allow me to continue my statement in Spanish.

Esto lo hago, para que quede tambie ́n meridianamente claro que

no hay incompatibilidad en creer en la estadidad, ser estadista y

ser Puertorriquen ̃ o, atesorar el idioma Espan ̃ ol, nuestra cultura,

tradiciones y religio ́n. Estados Unidos es un vitral de etnias y

culturas, unida por unas mismas creencias, por unos mismos

principios de convivencia humana y democracia, sin importar el

lugar de origen, la raza y el color. Y nosotros an ̃ adimos, sin

importar si se hablan o no, uno o ma ́s idiomas.

El hecho de que en Puerto Rico tengamos el Espan ̃ ol y el Ingle ́s

como idiomas oficiales, en nada afecta a la nacio ́n. Por el contrario,

la enriquece y le da la versatilidad deseada en un mundo donde las

comunicaciones y la computacio ́n han eliminado las barreras de las

distancias entre las naciones. Estamos en la era de la globalizacio ́n.

Los pueblos no pueden ni deben colocar barreras entre unos y

otros. Lo que deben colocar son puentes de entendimiento y de

amistad. Ese es el nuevo mundo, al cual aspiramos los jo ́venes

profesionales de esta bendita tierra, las mismas personas que le

dicen ustedes que su fo ́rmula incluye paridad de fondos Federales

sin la obligacio ́n de contribuciones Federales, son aquellas que

insinu ́ an que Puerto Rico no puede ser estado porque la cantidad

de fondos que recibirı ́a serı ́a muy grande y constituirı ́a una carga

para el presupuesto de los Estados Unidos, como si el problema del

status se tratara de un asunto de do ́lares y centavos. El problema

colonial de Puerto Rico es un asunto de dignidad humana. No es,

y repito, no es un asunto de dinero o de negocios. La nacio ́n que

ustedes representan, los Estados Unidos de Norteame ́rica, siempre

se ha distinguido por ser la nacio ́n ma ́s generosa del mundo.

Nos preguntamos ahora, ®es que ese sentimiento de generosidad,

ese sentimiento magna ́nimo se puede perder? El permitirle a los

Puertorriquen ̃ os decidir su destino polı ́tico, final, con fo ́rmulas

realmente descolonizadoras y constitucionalmente aceptables,
225

incluyendo la estadidad, tampoco puede ser un asunto de do ́lares

y centavos para los Estados Unidos de Norteame ́rica.

Finalmente, queremos llamar la atencio ́n a este Comite ́ sobre las

expresiones vertidas aquı ́ por lo que presentan la nueva definicio ́n

del ELA. Segu ́n ellos, el proceso tiene que ser uno de consenso,

donde la fo ́rmula que concursen segu ́n aprobadas por el Congreso,

sean aceptables para los proponentes de las fo ́rmulas. Sin embargo,

nos preguntamos, ®co ́mo se puede complacer a los proponentes del

ELA si la definicio ́n que proponen es totalmente irreal e

inconstitucional?

Mr. YOUNG. Puerto Rico is like Alaska. Just a little more.

Mr. BORGES. Definitely.

We believe that statehood is the first commission to the colonial

problem. We want to preserve, protect and make our U.S. citizenship be permanent, equal to that of Puerto Rico’s brothers and sisters in the United States. We find that can only be achieved within

the framework of sovereignty shared with the other 50 States of

the American Nation. Thank you very much.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Borges follows:]
226
227
228
229
230
231
232
233

Mr. YOUNG. I love America and I love the process. I have two opposing views side-by-side.

STATEMENT OF HON. JULIO CESAR LOPEZ GERENA, MAYOR

OF HUACAO, HUMACAO, PUERTO RICO

Mr. GERENA. Good afternoon. We are going to request that you

take our statement in English for the record, but this afternoon we

would like to present it in Spanish.

Mr. YOUNG. Without objection.

Mr. GERENA. Chairman Young, Mr. Miller, Mr. Romero-Barcelo ́,

members of the Committee on Resources, my name is Julio Cesar

Lopez Gerena. I am the mayor of the city of Humacao, located in

the eastern coast of our Island, with a population of approximately

60,000. Last November I had the privilege of being reelected to a

second 4-year term, albeit with a municipal assembly controlled by

the same party, the pro-statehood New Progressive Party.

I take much pride in this electoral achievement, as Humacao had

always been a stronghold of the Popular Democratic Party. Certainly our city has undergone significant changes as well as many

other municipalities around the Island. Throughout the 1970’s and

1980’s, conventional wisdom was that in order for the pro-statehood

New Progressive Party to win a general election it had to depend

on a strong showing in the municipalities encompassing the metropolitan area. Since there were over two dozen municipalities on the

rest of the Island, the pro-commonwealth party had never lost an

election. That was the case of our city in Humacao.

The logic was supposedly that statehood appealed as a status option to those Puerto Ricans with the mainstream; in other words,

the upper and middle classes that had ready access to cable TV

and the opportunity to study in the mainland in the United States.

Therefore, following this same logic, the pro-commonwealth party

was the party that appealed to the working classes and the rural

poor, as it supposedly continued its original quest for social justice

using the party slogan of ‘‘bread, land and liberty.′′

Yet a silent and irreversible transformation has been underway.

As the general elections of 1982 and 1996 show, the pro-statehood

New Progress Party, which advocates statehood, has shown incredible strength in every region of our Island, garnering 54 out of the

78 municipalities in the elections, 14 out of the 16 district Senators

and 30 out of the 40 district Representatives in 1992, as well as

13 district Senators and 31 district Representatives in 1996.

For many years the economic model for the pro-commonwealth

Popular Democratic Party depended exclusively on section 936.

This incentive showed many limitations. While the pro-commonwealth Popular Democratic Party was the power between 1985 and

1993, it did not show any effort to nourish the development of other

sectors of our economy and then avoid an overdependence in the

sector of manufacturing.

Still, the extent of such a myopic vision did not end there, as

there was no significant massive infrastructure development during these years. That is why prosperity could only go so far, failing

to reach in a significant manner many regions of our Island, including our eastern coast.
234

As an example, according to the statistics of the U.S. Census Bureau in 1990, our city of Humacao had a per capita yearly income

of $3,955. To me, the most surprising and regrettable fact about

the figures is that Humacao ranked the 16th highest among the Island’s 78 municipalities.

In 1993, the pro-commonwealth party had the slogan of ‘‘the best

of two worlds.’’ How can they say that when in 1991, 58.9 percent

of all Puerto Ricans lived below the poverty line and when the gap

between Puerto Rico and the per capita income in Mississippi was

even becoming wider?

The efforts of the Rossello administration were health and education, which allowed us to be fair and to empower even the poorest of our citizens. As the mayor of a middle sized city, I know the

benefits that statehood would bring to my citizens, both individually as well as collectively. Our city would receive the benefit of

an increase in assistance to be able to improve the services provided in housing, health, education, solid waste disposal, as well as

many others.

As a firm believer in the American dream, we know that to be

able to provide real social justice, we need to become the 51st State

of the Union. I want to make it clear that I also favor statehood

for Puerto Rico, as it is the only option that would allow us to

stand on our feet. We are statehooders because we have dignity

and we have complete confidence in our people. We know for sure

that we will be contributors for the future well-being in this great

Nation of ours.

Finally, I want to stress to this Committee the importance of

making it clear that under the territorial definition of Commonwealth, Congress has disciplinary powers over Puerto Rico as it has

over any other territory. Let us proclaim this in the clearest and

least ambiguous terminology and language.

As the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit said in the case

of U.S. vs. Sanchez of 1993, ‘‘Congress may unilaterally repeal the

Puerto Rican constitution of the Puerto Rican Federal Relations

Act and replace them with any rules or regulations of its choice.’’

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

[The prepared statement of Mr. Lopez-Gerena follows:]
235
236
237
238

Mr. YOUNG. Thank you, Julio. With your indulgence, I hope to

come to your city someday. It is the east side I have not seen, so

I want to do that.

Mr. GERENA. You will be very welcome.

Mr. YOUNG. Thank you.

Mr. Fernos-Lopez.

STATEMENT OF GONZALO FERNOS-LOPEZ, SAN JUAN, PUERTO

RICO; AND ANGEL J. ORTIZ-GUZMAN, GUAYNABO, PUERTO

RICO

Mr. FERNOS-LOPEZ. Mr. Chairman, before my time comes, if I

may, I want to make some logistical remarks which I believe are

important for the record of this hearing.

Mr. YOUNG. Without objection, as long as it does not take too

long.

Mr. FERNOS-LOPEZ. No, it is very short. On May 16 and 17 of

1963, the Territorial and Insular Affairs Subcommittee of the

House conducted hearings on certain bills, about eight bills, all

with the same purpose, and the title was ‘‘To establish a procedure

for the prompt settlement in a democratic manner of the political

status of Puerto Rico.’’

That was 34 years ago. A commission was created resulting from

these hearings and some recommendations were made and filed

away, and the whole thing remained in oblivion until the 1967

plebiscite in Puerto Rico.

Now, on March 21st I sent to Your Honor the request to testify

in this hearing, and the reply came on April 9th and I was given

8 days to submit my statement or testimony with 100 copies, and

that was quite a lot to write in that short period. So I must ask

Your Honor the indulgence of the Committee for all the mistakes

I may have committed in my statement, my full statement.

I want to thank you for letting me start, and now you can start

counting my time.

Mr. YOUNG. For your information, we forgive all mistakes because we make many ourselves. But go ahead.

Mr. FERNOS-LOPEZ. Thank you. Mr. Chairman and members of

the Committee, I respectfully submit the following verbal summary

of my written testimony. I perceive that the controversy arising

from the definition of commonwealth status in the bill H.R. 856 is

the main disagreement threatening to create a stalemate situation

and thus preventing this bill from being carried by both congressional Chambers.

It follows that if the House Committee on Resources does not

cede to the already presented Popular Democratic Party’s definition

of the new commonwealth, the bill will be dead before it reaches

the House floor for a vote. In that case, we commonwealth advocates may be compelled to seek redress in an international forum

for an impartial, independent ruling to resolve the controversy.

First, the Treaty of Paris of 1898 is of doubtful international validity, because after having been challenged and sustained in the

1st Circuit Court of Appeals of the U.S. on the grounds that Spain

had granted Puerto Rico an autonomic charter in 1897, the challenge was never raised before the U.S. Supreme Court, the United

Nations nor the International Court of the Hague for a final ruling.
239

Second, the U.S. Congress and previous military rule of Puerto

Rico have been reluctant to release the power over the Island. Mild

concessions leaning toward self-government were granted to Puerto

Rico by the Foraker Act of 1900 and the Jones Act of 1917, yet the

Island continued under the ironclad power of the U.S. Congress

until 1952.

Third, in 1950 to 1952, the U.S. Congress legislated to grant

Puerto Rico an irrevocable autonomous self-government status

through a mutually binding covenant, which now seems it wishes

to repeal through bill H.R. 856.

Fourth, in 1953, the U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations,

Henry Cabot Lodge, appeared before the United Nations General

Assembly to reaffirm Puerto Rico’s colonized status since 1952, and

to request the United Nations to exempt the U.S. from continuing

to transmit yearly information to the United Nations under article

73(e) of the United Nations Charter.

To that effect, on November 27, 1953, the United Nations General Assembly in plenary session approved resolution 748. Thus,

the U.S. has assumed an ambivalent position concerning the

decolonization of Puerto Rico by granting full self-government

under Public Law 447 and is now disclaiming such granting

through the filing of House bill H.R. 856.

Fifth, I submit that the plebiscite process, if it ever takes place,

should be monitored by a United Nations mission.

Sixth, since U.S. Supreme Court decisions have not clarified to

date the Puerto Rico commonwealth status, a ruling clarifying the

controversy from the U.S. Supreme Court itself, the United Nations

General Assembly, through its Decolonization Committee, or the

International Court of the Hague should be obtained.

Seventh, I maintain that the territorial clause of the U.S. Constitution has been erroneously applied to the case of Puerto Rico.

Eighth, I am proposing a substitute definition of the new commonwealth to replace the one spelled out in the House bill H.R.

856, notwithstanding that the Popular Democratic Party has already submitted its official definition of new commonwealth status.

Ninth, for nearly a century three separate juridical entities have

been debating to see which one will prevail. All the while U.S. Congressmen sit back smiling at all the bickering. I propose that all

three entities could be geographically implemented by proportionately dividing the Island among the three political parties according to the percentage of votes obtained in the plebiscite.

This is, of course, a conceptual basis. It is not real. While this

may sound absurd on a geopolitical basis, conceptually it is very

feasible through the sui generis formula of the new commonwealth

status, which would include at once all the advantages of statehood, independence and commonwealth, but very few of their disadvantages.

Tenth, I am suggesting a formula or method to determine the

voting rights of the people in a plebiscite.

Eleventh, I am touting the language issued by labeling the

‘‘English only’’ posture as xenophobic.

Twelfth, I maintain that U.S. citizenship, once granted, cannot

be taken away.
240

Thirteenth, in my final statement I emphasize the need to arbitrate as an independent, impartial forum the controversy of whether Puerto Rico has attained autonomous self-government under the

covenant of 1952 or still is under the plenary power of the U.S.

Congress pursuant to the territorial clause of the U.S. Constitution.

Last, I submit that the controversy must be resolved before proceeding to consider any further House bill H.R. 856. Thank you

very much.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Fernos-Lopez follows:]
241
242
243
244
245
246
247
248
249
250
251
252
253

Mr. YOUNG. Angel Ortiz-Guzman.

STATEMENT OF ANGEL J. ORTIZ-GUZMAN

Mr. ORTIZ-GUZMAN. Good afternoon, members of the Committee.

My name is Angel Ortiz-Guzman, and I testify on behalf of a new

generation of Puerto Ricans who firmly believe in the sovereignty

of Puerto Rico in association with the United States through the

status known as Free Association.

I would like to suggest a definition of Free Association that will

help this Committee to achieve the goal of H.R. 856 of decolonizing

and disposing of the Territory of Puerto Rico.

It is time for Congress to act honestly in this matter. Congress

must offer status options valid under international law. Those options are statehood, independence and Free Association, which you

may call a free associated state. It is my judgment that an option

of Free Association according to international law must be included

in H.R. 856 if Congress really wants to decolonize Puerto Rico.

In that sense, I suggest the following: There must be a final disposition of congressional powers over Puerto Rico. Congress must

dispose in a final and irrevocable manner of any and all remaining

power or authority over Puerto Rico under the terms of Article IV,

section 3, of the United States Constitution.

It is necessary to clarify the nature of the association between

Puerto Rico and the United States. The options of Free Association

and independence should be separated and have their own definitions.

A Free Associated State must be defined as a sovereign nation

in full free association with the United States by means of a bilateral compact which can only be amended by mutual agreement.

The Free Associated State option must be sovereign, clearly outside the territorial clause, with full authority and responsibility for

its internal and external affairs. The name of the option is not important, but the substance is.

It is necessary that Congress recognize the full power of Puerto

Rico’s government with respect to its territory and population, language and culture, determining its own relations and participation

in the community of nations and exercising all the attributes of a

sovereign political entity, except those especially delegated to the

Government of the United States in the text of the bilateral compact.

Congress shall recognize Puerto Rico’s power to determine and

control its own nationality and citizenship.

Congress shall recognize, as it did in the Compact of Free Association of 1986 with the Marshall Islands, that a United States citizen who becomes a citizen of the Free Associated State of Puerto

Rican and who does not voluntarily renounce his United States citizenship will retain his United States citizenship and continue entitled to the same rights and privileges as any other United States

citizen.

Congress must guarantee that the terms of the bilateral Compact

of the Free Associated State can only be determined or amended

by mutual agreement and that the people of Puerto Rico will give

their consent or agreement in accordance with the terms of the

compact and the applicable constitutional process.
254

Congress shall recognize Puerto Rico’s eligibility for United

States assistance to be provided in a block grant government-togovernment basis, including foreign aid or programmatic assistance, at a level similar, but never superior, to the present ones.

I also suggest that in the event none of the three options get a

majority by itself but the sum of the votes for Puerto Rican sovereignty options—Free Association and Independence—does

produce a majority, the process to decolonize and to dispose of the

Territory of Puerto Rico may go forward.

Finally, I urge this Committee to strike out the present Commonwealth definition included in H.R. 856 and offer a sovereign Free

Associate State or Commonwealth in full free association by means

of a bilateral compact between the United States and Puerto Rico.

In considering our suggestions, we invite this Committee to study

a series of amendments drafted by PROELA, an organization in

which I am vice president, that will comply with the applicable criteria for Free Association and self-determination.

Members of this Committee, there are answers to colonialism.

The United States and the people of Puerto Rico deserve an opportunity to choose between non-colonial and non-territorial options in

their referendum scheduled for 1998. It only takes the will to do

it.

Thank you.

Mr. YOUNG. Thank you.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Ortiz-Guzman follows:]
255
256
257
258
259
260
261
262
263
264
265

Mr. YOUNG. I want to thank the panel.

Carlos, do you have questions?

Mr. ROMERO-BARCELO ́. Yes, I have a couple of questions.

I want to ask Mr. Velasco, if the Congress today would pass a

banking law, can they make it applicable for Puerto Rico without

Puerto Rico’s previous consent?

Mr. VELASCO. A banking law, yes.

Mr. ROMERO-BARCELO ́. And fair trade laws?

Mr. VELASCO. And fair trade laws, yes.

Just to answer your whole question, the only laws that are not

applicable to Puerto Rico made by the U.S. Congress are those that

are locally inapplicable because of geographic or that kind of laws

and also those that do not address the compact.

Now, what is the compact? The compact is Public Law 600, the

Federal Relations Act, the Constitution of Puerto Rico. Those are

the laws—and 447, of course.

Mr. ROMERO-BARCELO ́. Can Congress pass income tax laws taxing income produced in Puerto Rico?

Mr. VELASCO. Income tax laws?

Mr. ROMERO-BARCELO ́. Taxing income produced in Puerto Rico.

Can they not pass laws?

Mr. VELASCO. No, they cannot.

Mr. ROMERO-BARCELO ́. Why are they taxing the companies that

are here in Puerto Rico for their income produced in Puerto Rico

now, what used to be section 936? Why are those taxing the income

produced here if you say they cannot?

Mr. VELASCO. Mr. Romero, those companies that were under 936

are U.S. companies.

Mr. ROMERO-BARCELO ́. No, they are subsidiaries.

Mr. VELASCO. Excuse me, the subsidiaries are U.S. subsidiaries

that are doing business in Puerto Rico; so, therefore, those subsidiaries, because they are citizens of the States where they were incorporated, are under the Internal Revenue Code; and that is why

you can do it.

Mr. ROMERO-BARCELO ́. But they are taxed here for the income

produced in Puerto Rico.

Mr. VELASCO. But they are taxed because they are citizens of

other States, not because they are citizens of Puerto Rico.

Mr. ROMERO-BARCELO ́. And when a Puerto Rican earns income

outside of Puerto Rico, they are also taxed by the United States,

right?

Mr. VELASCO. Because that income is derived outside of Puerto

Rico. But the income derived inside of Puerto Rico is not taxable

under the Internal Revenue Code. And it is not taxable, first, because they are not in the Internal Revenue code; and, second, because it is part of the compact.

Mr. ROMERO-BARCELO ́. An excise tax, they cannot impose excise

taxes on Puerto Rico?

Mr. VELASCO. Excise taxes? Puerto Rico imposes excise taxes, not

the United States. The United States imposes custom duties.

Mr. ROMERO-BARCELO ́. How about the rum excise tax?

Mr. VELASCO. The rum excise tax—the problem with the rum excise tax is the Puerto Rico government did not do anything at the

time.
266

Mr. ROMERO-BARCELO ́. Why didn’t they do it afterwards?

Mr. VELASCO. They haven’t done it.

Mr. ROMERO-BARCELO ́. They have had 8 years for the Popular

Party Administration, and they didn’t go to court.

Mr. VELASCO. That is besides the point. The point is, Mr. Romero, that independent of what they did or didn’t, you can’t impose

it; and if the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico goes to court, that is

another matter. They didn’t do that.

Mr. ROMERO-BARCELO ́. Why don’t you file a claim? Why don’t you

file a claim and have them return the money?

Mr. VELASCO. They didn’t do it at the time.

Mr. ROMERO-BARCELO ́. You can do it now. If you have the law

with you, you can file a claim to have the money returned?

Mr. VELASCO. I can’t speak for the commonwealthers of Puerto

Rico, Mr. Romero.

Mr. ROMERO-BARCELO ́. You can speak for the taxpayers.

Mr. VELASCO. That is something to be studied at this time. We

are not going to do that now.

Mr. YOUNG. I don’t want to cut the gentleman short, but we are

about ready to run out of time, and the gentleman from Guam is

all excited about Free Association, so he is allowed to ask questions.

Mr. UNDERWOOD. I just want to offer some observation since I

know we are at the end of the line. I just wanted to point out as,

obviously, a vitally interested observer of this process because of

the impact it may have on Guam as well as being a member of the

Committee, it strikes me that there are many fingers being pointed

in this process.

All along and throughout the day we have heard about the status

of Estado Libre Asociado has misled the people, we have heard that

statehood status is being offered but it is not being guaranteed,

and many people that are advocates of independence are saying

that people have been made to be afraid of independence.

And then we hear in the written testimony, at least there are

many references to court cases, some involving Guam, some involving the Commonwealth of the Northern Marianas. We have heard

references to the Compacts of Free Association. Yet that brings to

mind a whole series of other issues that are attendant to it.

Again, even in the process of seeing that or hearing it, I recognize that some of those things, while not entirely being inaccurate,

they are not entirely accurate as well. The Compacts of Free Association and the Covenant of the Northern Marianas are very different from each other. The reference to continuing citizenship applies to a very small group of people who happened to be U.S. citizens before the implementation of the compacts, and that is a very

different process coming in.

I just want to point out that it seems to me—and I hate to go

back to this very, very basic point. It seems to me that, of the entire political status process, at least as we did it on Guam, is we

understood what we were trying to do. I think we understood what

we were trying to do, and we tried to argue it from what we wanted, and then we are going to Congress and see what we can get.

Now, if Congress doesn’t want to do it, then Congress will own

up to us at that time and make it clear what it wants to do and
267

what it does not want to do. I submit that, subsequent to that, the

people of Guam are still free to engage in a lot of things, because

I think the right of self-determination is not extinguished, because

people will have that right.

But I do think that making these very glib comparisons, I always

want to know, what happened to the old ELA that we need a new

ELA?

Mr. RAMOS. Mr. Underwood, if you would permit a brief comment

on my part, I would agree with you the Marianas arrangement and

Compact of Free Association Agreement are two different things.

The Marianas arrangement is under the sovereignty of the U.S. We

don’t want that. The people of Puerto Rico have said, at least the

people who are supporting the Estado Libre Asociado today, want

a relationship with the United States based on sovereignty for

Puerto Rico. That leaves only the space for a Free Associated State

relationship.

With regards to what Resident Commissioner Carlos Romero was

talking about, we can argue about what laws apply and what laws

don’t apply today. But under our proposal, it would be clear that

the only Federal laws that would apply would be those included in

the terms of the bilateral compact.

So what we are basically doing here is trying to put some things

back into the discussion of the autonomy formula by saying, here

is a relationship that it is open to negotiation, and you have political will, and you get some things, and others don’t.

Mr. UNDERWOOD. Luis, with all due respect—and I am one seeking a status that has many similarities to what you already have,

and I fully recognize that—but I really am torn on the horns of a

dilemma in trying to understand all the vague terms that are being

used. I sometimes wonder whether we would be better off, Mr.

Chairman, holding a contest like they used to hold for various

products: Send us your description of political status in 25 words

or less. And then, once we do that, then you make a choice on that.

Because a statement of political aspirations is not a statement of

a status. It is a statement of a political program, and that will be

part of the discussion and the campaign. I clearly understand that.

I just can’t understand why that has to be part of the definition.

Mr. RAMOS. I would have a one-sentence comment. Everything in

our proposal, everything, is validated by previous precedents in

U.S. law and international obligations. Then it is an issue of political will.

Mr. UNDERWOOD. It should not be a matter phrased as a issue

of political will or political aspirations. It should be phrased as a

description.

Mr. YOUNG. The gentleman’s time has expired.

We could argue this point. I would like to—before I dismiss the

panel, I would like to suggest two things.

Mr. FERNOS-LOPEZ. I would like to, before you begin, to mention

something.

Mr. YOUNG. I recognize maturity and gray beards, so go ahead.

But don’t take too long. We have to catch a helicopter.

Mr. FERNOS-LOPEZ. I am concerned that I have not heard any

testimony here which has stressed the point that the U.S. Congress
268

under the U.S. Constitution has the plenary power to grant Puerto

Rico anything they want to.

Mr. YOUNG. And you hit a very valid point. I was just going to

come to that.

Mr. FERNOS-LOPEZ. The point is the Constitution itself, and particularly the territorial clause, when it says that you could dispose

in the way you wish, is so ample that you were not to be parsimonious, you would be giving Puerto Rico anything under Commonwealth that could be attained through statehood or independence.

Mr. YOUNG. We will not disagree with that. The problem we have

is the political reality and what can sell and what cannot sell in

the Congress.

I have made a commitment, I will say this right up front, that

I do not believe that we can have a territory today in this arena

and still be the United States of America. What we are trying to

do is reach some kind of solution to the problem.

I am not going to tolerate the status quo; and I am not, very

frankly, going to use a—no, don’t applaud. I am not going to let

someone use a method to go back to where we were before.

One of the things that bothered me is some of the testimony, and

I will tell you I do have a bad back. As you know, I got rid of one

chair today. Gardner threw it off the wall. But I do not like to be

impugned for my motives. This disturbs me a great deal.

Because this—as Chairman Miller said, this is a very serious

question that affects all Americans, and affects mostly the Puerto

Rican people, but affects all Americans. This is a chance, I believe,

for America to show its great leadership, as it has in the past; and

we are going to continue to pursue a solution.

Before I do close this and I will ask Carlos to say a few words,

I am going to ask unanimous consent to submit the statements for

the record of the Governor of Puerto Rico, the Mayor of San Juan,

the Mayor of Biyamon and Hernandez-Arana.

[The statements follow:]
269
270
271
272
273
274
275
276
277
278
279
280
281
282
283

Mr. YOUNG. And, in closing, let me thank the University of Mayaguez for hosting this congressional hearing. I hope all of you appreciate this. The University did an extremely good job, especially

the president of the University, the chancellor, the dean, President

Maldonahdo, Chancellor Stuart Ramos and Dean Antonio Santos.

I think this was one of the better hearings.

I would like to thank the Puerto Rican Department of State—

they did an excellent job—the Puerto Rican National Guard, the

Puerto Rican State Police, Commissioner Pedro Tolaydo, for the

tremendous support in both Mayaguez and San Juan.

Let me also thank the Puerto Rican Senate for the hospitality

last night and the cooperation of the three political witnesses and

the participation of all the witnesses in Mayaguez and San Juan.

And I say this with all sincerity, this has been a good 3 days.

I want to compliment all the people here in this great city and the

people who are in the audience that had differences of opinion, because our job is to listen and to learn and to make decisions. I am

very pleased to say I believe we have been able to do that.

We will be reviewing all comments and all statements, all written presentations; and we will deliberate on this, as Mr. Miller

said, for a great deal of time.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Young follows:]
284
285
286
287
288
289
290
291
292

Mr. YOUNG. Mr. Carlos, Mr. Commissioner, you represent this

great, I was going to say Nation, Commonwealth, State, but I

would say he represents the Puerto Rican people very, very well.

If you have a closing statement?

Mr. ROMERO-BARCELO ́. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

On behalf of the people of Puerto Rico, I want to thank you and

Mr. Miller and Mr. Underwood for having taken the time out from

your recess. I want everybody to realize now, Congress is on a recess until Tuesday; and they have taken their time out of the recess to come to Puerto Rico because of their interest.

As the Chairman has stated, it is not only for the people of Puerto Rico. He recognizes, as does everyone else now, and every day

more and more people in Congress are recognizing, this is important for the United States. This is important for all of the people

of the United States, because the example and inspiration of democracy throughout the world cannot continue to have a territory

or a colony or have 3.8 million U.S. citizens disenfranchised. This

is impossible in this day and age.

As we end this century and go into the new millennium, I am

sure the Nation wants to solve the problem as we do. So they are

taking their time and are very serious about it. I am very confident

we will get this bill through the House and be working toward getting it approved in the Senate.

I want to thank every one of you also for being here with us

today and the panel for their testimony and each one of you for the

wonderful way you approved today. Thank you very much.

Mr. YOUNG. This meeting is adjourned.

[Whereupon, at 3:08 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.]

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

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