PUERTO RICO STATUS PLEBISCITE 

JOINT HEARING 

BEFORE THE 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIVE AMERICAN & INSULAR 

AFFAIRS 

OF THE 

COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES 

AND THE 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE WESTERN HEMISPHERE 

OF THE 

COMMITTEE ON 

INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS 

HOUSE OF_ REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED FOURTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

ON 

EXAMINATION OF THE POLITICAL PREFERENCES OF THE U.S. 

CITIZENS OF PUERTO RICO 

OCTOBER 17, 1995-WASHINGTON, DC 

Serial No. 104-56 (Committee on Resources) 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Resources and the Committee on 

International Relations 

2(}-766cc 

U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 

WASHINGTON : 1996 

For sale by the U.S. Govenunent Printing Office 

Superintendent of Docurnenrs, Congressional Sales Office, Washington, DC 20402 

ISBN 0-16-052610-8 
COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES 

DON YOUNG, Alaska, Chairman 

W.J. (BILLY) TAUZIN, Louisiana GEORGE MILLER, California 

JAMES V. HANSEN, Utah EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts 

JIM SAXTON, New Jersey NICK J. RAHALL II, West Virginia 

ELTON GALLEGLY, California BRUCE F. VENTO, Minnesota 

JOHN J. DUNCAN, JR., Tennessee DALE E. KILDEE, Michigan 

JOEL HEFLEY, Colorado PAT WILLIAMS, Montana 

JOHN T. DOOLITTLE, California SAM GEJDENSON, Connecticut 

WAYNE ALLARD, Colorado BILL RICHARDSON, New Mexico 

WAYNE T. GILCHREST, Maryland PETER A. DEFAZIO, Oregon 

KEN CALVERT, California ENI F.H. FALEOMAVAEGA, American 

RICHARD W. POMBO, California Samoa 

PETER G. TORKILDSEN, Massachusetts TIM JOHNSON, South Dakota 

J.D. HAYWORTH, Arizona NEIL ABERCROMBIE, Hawaii 

FRANK A. CREMEANS, Ohio GERRY E. STUDDS, Massachusetts 

BARBARA CUBIN, Wyoming SOLOMON P. ORTIZ, Texas 

WES COOLEY, Oregon OWEN B. PICKETT, Virginia 

HELEN CHENOWETH, Idaho FRANK PALLONE, JR., New Jersey 

LINDA SMITH, Washington CALVIN M. DOOLEY, California 

GEORGE P. RADANOVICH, California CARLOS A. ROMERO-BARCELO, Puerto 

WALTER B. JONES, JR., North Carolina Rico 

WILLIAM M. (MAC) THORNBERRY, Texas MAURICE D. HINCHEY, New York 

RICHARD (DOC) HASTINGS, Washington ROBERT A. UNDERWOOD, Guam 

JACK METCALF, Washington SAM FARR, California 

JAMES B. LONGLEY, JR., Maine PATRICK J. KENNEDY, Rhode Island 

JOHN B. SHADEGG, Arizona 

JOHN E. ENGLISH, Nevada 

DANIEL VAL K.!SH, Chief of Staff 

DAVID DYE, Chief Counsel 

CHRISTINE KENNEDY, Chief Clerk/Administrator 

JOHN LAWRENCE, Democratic Staff Director 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIVE AMERICAN & INSULAR AFFAIRS 

ELTON GALLEGLY, California, Chairman 

DON YOUNG, Alaska 

WAYNE T. GILCHREST, Maryland 

WALTER B. JONES, JR., North Carolina 

RICHARD (DOC) HASTINGS, Washington 

JACK METCALF, Washington 

JAMES B. LONGLEY, JR., Maine 

ENI F.H. FALEOMAVAEGA, American 

Samoa 

DALE E. KILDEE, Michigan 

PAT WILLIAMS, Montana 

TIM JOHNSON, South Dakota , 

CARLOS A. ROMERO-BARCELO, Puerto 

Rico 

ROBERT A. UNDERWOOD, Guam 

T.E. MANASE MANSUR, Professional Staff 

MARIE J. FABRIZIO-HOWARD, Minority Professional Staff 

(II) 
COMMITTEE ON INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS 

BENJAMIN A. GILMAN, New York, Chairman 

WILLIAM F. GOODLING, Pennsylvania LEE H. HAMILTON, Indiana 

JAMES A. LEACH, Iowa SAM GEJDENSON, Connecticut 

TOBY ROTH, Wieconsin TOM LANTOS, California 

HENRY J. HYDE, Dlinois ROBERT G. TORRICELLI, New Jersey 

DOUG BEREUTER, Nebraska HOWARD L. BERMAN, California 

CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH, New Jersey GARY L. ACKERMAN, New York 

DAN BURTON, Indiana HARRY JOHNSTON, Florida 

JAN MEYERS, Kansas ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York 

ELTON GALLEGLY, California ENI F.H. FALEOMAVAEGA, American 

ILEANA ROB-LEHTINEN, Florida Samoa 

CASS BALLENGER, North Carolina MATTHEW G. MARTINEZ, California 

DANA ROHRABACHER, California DONALD M. PAYNE, New Jersey 

DONALD A. MANZULLO, Dlinois ROBERT E. ANDREWS, New Jersey 

EDWARD R ROYCE, California ROBERT MENENDEZ, New Jersey 

PETER T. KING, New York SHERROD BROWN, Ohio 

JAY KIM, California CYNTHIA A. McKINNEY, Georgia 

SAM BROWNBACK, Kansas ALCEE L. HASTINGS, Florida 

DAVID FUNDERBURK, North Carolina ALBERT RUSSELL WYNN, Maryland 

STEVEN J. CHABOT, Ohio MICHAEL R. McNULTY, New York 

MARSHALL "MARK" SANFORD, South JAMES P. MORAN, Virginia 

Carolina VICTOR 0. FRAZER, Virgin Islands (Ind.) 

MATT SALMON, Arizona 

AMO HOUGHTON, New York 

RICHARD J. GARON, Chief of Staff 

MICHAEL H. VANDUSEN, Minority Chief of Staff 

SUBCOMMITI'EE ON THE WESTERN HEMISPHERE 

DAN BURTON, Indiana, Chai171Uln 

ILEANA ROB-LEHTINEN, Florida ROBERT G. TORRICELLI, New Jersey 

CASS BALLENGER, North Carolina ROBERT MENENDEZ, New Jersey 

CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH, New Jersey ALBERT RUSSELL WYNN, Maryland 

ELTON GALLEGLY, California TOM LANTOS, California 

PETER T. KING, New York MATTHEW G. MARTINEZ, California 

(Vacancy) 

GILEAD KAPEN, Subcommittee Staff Director 

8coTr WILSON, Democratic Professional Staff Member 

SCOTl' FEENEY, Professional Staff Member 

ANITA WINSOR, Staff Associate 

(III) 
CONTENTS 

Hearing held October 17, 1995 .............................................................................. . Statements of Members: 

Burton, lion. Dan, a U.S. Representative from Indiana, and Chairman, 

Subcommittee on the Western Hemisphere ............................................... . Faleomavaega, Hon. Eni, a U.S. Representative from American Samoa ... . Gallegly, Hon. Elton, a U.S. Representative from California, and Chairman, Subcommittee on Native American and Insular Affairs ................. . Gutierrez, Hon. Luis V., a U.S. Representative from Illinois ...................... . Joint statement ofHon. Don Young and Hon. Benjamin A. Gilman .......... . Kildee, Hon. Dale E., a U.S. Re2resentative from Michigan ....................... . 

Menendez, Ho~. Robert, a U.S. Representative fJ"?m New Jersey ... :··········· Romero-Barcelo, Hon. Carlos, a U.S. Representative from Puerto Rico ..... . Serrano, Hon. Jose E., a U.S. Representative from New York .................... . Torricelli, Hon. Robert G., a U.S. Representative from New Jersey ........... . Velazquez, Hon. Nydia M., a U.S. Representative from New York ............ . Statements of witnesses: 

Acevedo, Hon. Hector Luis, President of Popular Democratic Party and 

Mayor of San Juan ....................................................................................... . 

Ago;:,}:~~ ~~:~:~~d~~;·Mi;;~rit:Yi~~d~~·.··s~~~t;;-~ifu~~-ru~~-·: 

Berrlor:._}.f:~~!:~if::t ii~b~~:··~~id~-;;i··~;:·fu~rt;;··ru~~~··i";;d~·i;~-;;d~-;;~~ Party and ranking senator .......................................................................... . Prepared statement .................................................................................. . Casillas, Jose Antonio, Co-Chair, Cambio XXI ............................................. . Prepared statement .................................................................................. . Cintr6n-Garcia, Hon. Angel M., Majority Whip, Puerto Rico House of 

Rec::;:!~~~~~~~t·::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: Farrow, Hon. Jeffrey, co-chair, Clinton Administration Interagency Working Group on Puerto Rico ............................................................................ . 

Ferr~ell~~d L!i:eA~n}o~~;··a;,~~~;;;··~r· ·fu~rt;; .. ru~~·· ·;;;;d·. i~~~d·~~. -~f New Progressive Party ................................................................................ . Prepared statement .................................................................................. . Garffer, Arturo J., Jr. (prepared statement) ................................................. . Hills, Howard L., State Department .............................................................. . Prepared statement .................................................................................. . Irizarry, Hon. Carlos Vizcarrondo, Puerto Rico House of Representatives . Prepared statement .................................................................................. . Martin, Hon. Fernando, former senator, and vice president of Puerto 

Rican Independence Party .......................................................................... . Prepared statement .................................................................................. . McClintock, Hon. Kenneth, Senate of Puerto Rico ....................................... . Noriega-Rodri~ez, Hon. David, Minority Leader, Puerto Rico House of 

Representatives ............................................................................................ . Prepared statement .................................................................................. . Ramirez de Ferrer, Miriam, M.D., President of Puerto Ricans in Civic 

Action ............................................................................................................ . Prepared statement .................................................................................. . 

Rex!'hP~;:~~~ ~b'='F~~~~~id~~i:··s~~~~-·~r·~~rt~··ru~~-·(p~~i;;;~d statement) ..................................................................................................... . Rodriguez, Hon. Charles A., Majority Leader, Senate of Puerto Rico 

(IV) 

Page 

1 

3 

4 

1 

18 

342 

38 

29 

6 

10 

22 

14 

40 

118 

80 

162 

51 

125 

99 

230 

88 

169 

64 

141 

60 

133 

345 

76 

145 

91 

187 

82 

166 

78 

92 

192 

98 

196 

209 

158 

78 
v 

Statements of witnesses-Continued 

Rossello, Hon. Pedro, Governor of Puerto Rico ............................................ .. Prepared statement ..................... ............................................................. . Vega-Ramos, Luis, President ofPROELA .................................................... .. Prepared statement ...... ........... .... ............................................................. . Additional material supplied: Cambio xxi; Testimony before the co-coordinators of the Interagency 

Working Group on Puerto Rico on The Future of Puerto Rico, dated 

June 22, 1995 .............................................. : ................................................ . Cintron-Garda, Hon. Angel M.: Position statement .................................... .. ~:RoEfLX.~r articles .......................................................................................... . 

Article; "PDP drafts new definition of commonwealth for ballot" ........ . Resolution of the Popular Democratic Party General Council ............ .. Penchi, Luis: Support that the Commonwealth pay Federal taxes to U.S . . Romero-Barcello, Hon. Carlos: 

Article, "Absolute Majority Demanded" (translation) .......................... .. Article, "Exige la mayona absoluta" ...................................................... .. Communications submitted: Goitia Padilla, Francisco Javier: Letter of October 10, 1995, to Mr. Wil- liam Clinton .................................................................................................. . Granados, Hon. Jose: Letter of October 16, 1995, to Hon. Elton Gallegly .. Hudson, Emmett C.: Letter of October 18, 1995, to Hon. Elton Gallegly .. .. Ortiz, Rafael A.: Letter of October 13, 1995, to Rep. Elton Gallegly .......... . Roseborough, Teresa Wynn: Memorandum of July 28, 1994, to Special 

Representative for Guam Commonwealth on mutual consent provisions .............................................................................................................. . Valencia Aponte, Angel A.: Letter of October 16, 1995, to Hon. Elton 

Gallegly ......................................................................................................... . 

Page 

30 

109 

101 

235 

245 

327 

367 

341 

338 

365 

325 

324 

363 

354 

353 

356 

312 

358 

PUERTO RICO STATUS PLEBISCITE 

TUESDAY, OCTOBER 17, 1995 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIVE 

AMERICAN AND INSULAR AFFAIRS, COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES AND SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE WESTERN HEMISPHERE, COMMITTEE ON INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS, 

Washington, DC. 

The subcommittees met, pursuant to call, at 1:10 p.m., in room 

1334, Longworth House Office Building, Washington, DC, Ron. 

Elton Gallegly (Chairman of the Subcommittee on Native American 

and Insular Affairs) presiding. 

STATEMENT OF BON. ELTON GALLEGLY, A U.S. REPRESENTA· 

TIVE FROM CALIFORNIA, AND CHAIRMAN, SUBCOMMITTEE 

ON NATIVE AMERICAN AND INSULAR AFFAIRS 

Mr. GALLEGLY. If everyone would please try to take a seat, we 

have a very busy agenda this afternoon, and we have a lot of folks 

in the room. The Subcommittees on American and Insular Affairs 

and the Western Hemisphere will come to order. 

The subcommittees are meeting today to hear testimony on the 

November, 1993, Puerto Rico Status Plebiscite. Under Rule 6 of the 

Committee Rules, any oral opening statement at this hearing are 

limited to the Chairman and the Ranking Minority Member. This 

will allow us to hear from our witnesses sooner and help members 

to keep their schedules. Therefore, if other members have statements, they can be included in the hearing record. 

We will now begin the joint hearing on the 1993 Puerto Rican 

Status Plebiscite of the Subcommittee of Native American and Insular Affairs of the Committee on Resources, and the Subcommittee on Western Hemisphere of the Committee of International Relations. 

I want to begin by thanking my good friend, the Chairman of the 

Subcommittee on Western Hemisphere, Dan Burton, for his interest and willingness to examine this very important issue affecting 

close to 4,000,000 United States citizens in our Caribbean territory 

of Puerto Rico. 

A number of the members have indicated an interest in the subject of this hearing, Mr. Serrano, Ms. Velazquez, Mr. Gutierrez, 

and any written statement they wish to submit will be made a part 

of the record of the hearing. 

If time permits and after all the members of the two subcommittees ask questions, and at the discretion of the Chair, questions 

may be asked. 

(1) 
2 

The Puerto Rico legislature enacted Concurrent Resolution 62, 

which asked the 104th Congress to respond to the results of the 

1993 Puerto Rico plebiscite and to indicate the next steps necessary 

to resolve Puerto Rico's political status. 

We are here today to begin that process with an open and sincere 

discussion of the political status issues. This may well be the most 

important territorial matter in the 104th Congress. 

Let me assure the people of Puerto Rico that we will listen to the 

views of all sectors of Puerto Rico. You have a collective right to 

pursue full self-government whether under or outside the sovereignty of the United States and within or wholly without application of the Constitution. 

The Federal Government has an obligation to clarify which factors in a proposed political status are attainable, and what status 

directions are possible. 

I believe the testimony today can provide Congress with a basis 

to formulate a response to the voice of the people of Puerto Rico 

as expressed in the November 1993, plebiscite. 

A sincere welcome to the leaders of Puerto Rico, and thank you 

for traveling to Washington and sharing your views regarding 

Puerto Rico's political status. 

We are honored today to hear from Governor Pedro Rossell6 of 

Puerto Rico. Welcome, Governor. We also expect to hear from the 

presidents of the Popular Democrat Party and the Puerto Rico 

Independence Party, Hector Luis Acevedo and Ruben Berrios-Martinez. Also appearing today is the venerable Luis A. Ferre, the 

founder of the New Progressive Party, the current Puerto Rico Republican Party State Chairman, and former governor of Puerto 

Rico. We also expect to hear from the leaders of the Puerto Rican legislature who provided the legal authority for the plebiscite. Welcome 

to the majority leader of the Senate, Charlie Rodriguez; minority 

leader, Miguel Hernandez-Agosto; and former senator and VicePresident of the Puerto Rico Independence Party, Fernando Martin; 

and representing the Speaker of the House, Majority Whip Angel 

Cintron-Garda; and Carlos Vizcarrondo; and Minority Leader 

David Noriega-Rodriguez. We welcome the civic organizations present today which present 

a different perspective of the status issues. I especially want to acknowledge the participation of Dr. Miriam Ramirez de Ferrer, a 

friend of Bob Lagomarsino, who is a former colleague of mine and 

former ranking member of both subcommittees here today: Western 

Hemisphere and Insular Affairs. 

Let me remind all witnesses that due to members' many competing committees, the length of your statement should be limited to 

the amount specified. We are using a system of lights to help the 

witnesses adhere to the time constraints. The green light will turn 

to yellow when one minute remains, and the red light means time 

is up. 

At this point, I would like to recognize my good friend and colleague, the Chairman of the Subcommittee on the Western Hemisphere, Dan Burton. 
3 

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

FROM INDIANA 

Mr. BURTON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is a pleasure to share 

this joint meeting with you on this very, very important issue. 

I wish to extend a warm welcome to our witnesses today, many 

of whom have traveled a long way from Puerto Rico to share their 

views. I would especially like to thank my colleagues, Elton 

Gallegly, and Don Young, the chairman of the Subcommittee on 

Native American and Insular Affairs and the Resources Committee, 

respectively, for holding this joint hearing on the important issue 

of Puerto Rico's political status. 

As chairman of the Subcommittee oil the Western Hemisphere, 

I have a desire and responsibility to examine the political preferences of the U.S. citizens of Puerto Rico. This responsibility was 

spelled out in the Territorial Clause of the United States Constitution, which provides that Congress shall govern all U.S. territories, 

including Puerto Rico. Further, the future political status and economic well-being of the island has broad implications with respect 

to both national and international policy. 

This is particularly true in light of the North American Free 

Trade Agreement, NAFTA, and our efforts to bring democracy to 

Cuba, both critical elements of our Western Hemisphere policy. 

I look forward to reviewing the results of the 1993 plebiscite that 

took place in Puerto Rico. Today, we will hear testimony from all 

the parties involved to learn how the plebiscite was agreed upon, 

what took place during the campaign, and what the plebiscite results signify for the future of Puerto Rico. 

I am hopeful that this hearing will give the Congress guidance 

to determine what actions, if any, should be taken in response to 

the plebiscite. This hearing is particularly about timing, since it is 

becoming more and more likely that Section 936 will in time be 

eliminated. 

As I predicted six months ago during a speech in Puerto Rico, 

many in Congress want to eliminate Section 936 as part of the ongoing effort to cut welfare and balance the budget. Both the House 

Ways and Means Committee and the Senate Finance Committees 

have recommended a phaseout of Section 936. Like it or not, it appears very likely that Congress is going to end the 936 tax credit, 

and as a result, our subcommittees will have an obligation to examine the impact upon Puerto Rico's economic and political status 

that would result from the phaseout of 936. 

I would like to make it clear from the outset that this hearing 

is not an attempt to discredit or favor any of the political parties 

in Puerto Rico. Instead, it is being held in an effort to analyze the 

preferences of the U.S. citizens of Puerto Rico with regards to their 

political, economic, and cultural status with the United States of 

America. 

In particular, I would like to examine whether or not there are 

any common goals and desires among the people of Puerto Rico and 

their relationship with the mainland. This will involve a detailed 

analysis of each of the issues contained in the plebiscite ballot to 

determine just what the people were voting for when the plebiscite took place. 
4 

While it may be that a majority of the voters cannot agree on the 

island's future political status at this time, there may be some common issues or themes that a majority of people can support. If so, 

Congress can examine avenues in which to address these desires 

in a manner which is both politically and constitutionally feasible. 

It is important to point out that Congress does not desire to implement any new policies directly impacting Puerto Rico that are 

not supported by the majority of the island's residents. It is very 

important that that point be made. We want to do what the people 

of Puerto Rico want. 

Thus, there may well be a need for a future plebiscite. In this 

respect, I plan to introduce legislation with my colleague and good 

friend, Bob Torricelli, that would require all U.S. territories to hold 

regular plebiscites at least once every five years. This will allow 

Congress to continue to accurately gauge the desires of our U.S. 

citizens in the territories. I would be interested in hearing the 

views of our witnesses on this legislation today. 

On a final note, I would like to emphasize that continued uncertainty over Puerto Rico's political status does not serve the best interests of the U.S. mainland or Puerto Rico. We must take this opportunity to work together and forge a consensus relationship between the U.S. mainland and Puerto Rico that provides for mutual 

prosperity. 

In this respect, I look forward to hearing from the witnesses who 

traveled so far to be with us today, and welcome, all of you. Thank 

you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. GALLEGLY. Thank you, Chairman Burton. At this point, I 

will defer to the ranking member of the subcommittee on Native 

American and Insular Affairs for his opening statement, and that 

is my good friend, Eni Faleomavaega. 

STATEMENT OF HON. ENI FALEOMAVAEGA, A U.S. REP· 

RESENTATIVE FROM THE TERRITORY OF AMERICAN SAMOA 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Chairman, in the 15 years that I have served as a former 

staffer of the Committee on Resources and as a member of this 

committee, to my knowledge, this is probably the first time that we 

have ever held a joint hearing where we have the distinguished 

gentleman from Indiana as the chairman of the International Relations Subcommittee on the Western Hemisphere, and also our 

friend, Mr. Menendez from New Jersey to serve as a co-chair of 

this joint hearing which I think is very important. 

I think it is important in the fact that it brings into the national 

focus the importance of Puerto Rico and some 3,600,000 American 

citizens that live in that part of the world, and it is time, long overdue in my opinion, that Congress paid a little more attention to the 

needs and the interests of our American citizenry who live outside 

the continental United States. 

I would also like to offer my personal welcome to other distinguished Members of the House, not only as members of the Hispanic caucus, but specifically also those who are fellow Americans 

of Puerto Rican ancestry that now have the honor and privilege of 

serving as Members of Congress, and we are very happy and privi- leged to have them join us in this joint hearing. 
5 

Mr. Chairman, in November 1993, 1,700,000 Puerto Rican registered voters went to the polls and peacefully and orderly cast 

their votes for the political status options of their choice. Before we 

get into the meaning of the results of the plebiscite, I think we 

should pause for a moment to commend the people of Puerto Rico 

for holding such a successful vote. Nearly 75 percent of all registered voters took part in the plebiscite, and that is a feat that all 

other Americans should strive for. 

Above all, I believe in self-determination, be it for American 

Samoa, the Indian tribes, Puerto Rico, or for the French territories 

in French Polynesia. I believe Puerto Ricans should decide which 

course to take to lead themselves to prosperity and a better quality 

of life. 

Since the United States first raised its flag over Puerto Rico, the 

people of Puerto Rico have continued to express their views on 

their political status and continue to move forward. In many ways, 

Puerto Rico is the most developed of the insular areas under the 

control of the United States. Through its size and convenient location to the United States, Puerto Rico has developed a diverse 

economy that ranges from tourism to heavy and light manufacturing. 

These are the successes, but the unemployment rate of 14 percent is still excessive, and the per capita income of $6,600 is far 

too low. These are the problems we must address, and the issue is 

how best to do that. From my perspective, Congress should look to 

the people of Puerto Rico to lead the way. 

While Puerto Ricans may not speak with one voice, with such an 

enormous and impressive voter turnout, we in Congress do not 

have to wonder if too few people are involved in the process so as 

to cast a doubt on the validity of the results. 

I am here today to listen and to learn, not to judge. I, like many 

others, have hoped that the 1993 plebiscite would result in a clear 

majority choosing one status over the other two. This did not happen, and therefore, several interpretations exist over the results of 

that plebiscite. 

The plurality of voters chose commonwealth status as defined in 

the ballot over statehood or independence, but from my perspective, 

a plurality of voters is not sufficient grounds on which to change 

course. As I stated earlier, I will continue to look to the people of 

Puerto Rico for any changes in course, whether they are along one 

of the three roads currently being discussed or some new option 

which may develop during the public discourse. 

The debate in Puerto Rico over political status is always spirited 

and diverse. Unfortunately, it can also become divisive, thereby 

often clouding debate on important issues that should be rightfully 

handled in a nonpartisan fashion. 

President Clinton formed the interagency working group on 

Puerto Rico which we will hear from this afternoon. I believe it 

would be advantageous to all Puerto Ricans for this working group 

to facilitate discussions with the people of Puerto Rico and the Congress, using the plebiscite results as the starting point in developing legislation, if necessary, to address all the issues being discussed. 
6 

I look forward to hearing from all the witnesses. I offer my personal welcome to the Governor and the leaders of the Puerto Rican 

people here with us, and I look forward to hearing their testimony 

this afternoon. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. GALLEGLY. I thank the ranking member. The ranking minority member of the Western Hemisphere, Mr. Torricelli, will be testifying in a few minutes and will be making an opening statement 

in lieu of speaking at this time. 

At this particular point, I would like to defer to the gentleman 

from Puerto Rico, the Resident Commissioner of Puerto Rico, Carlos Romero-Barcelo, for an opening statement. 

STATEMENT OF BON. CARLOS ROMERO-BARCELO, A U.S. 

REPRESENTATIVE FROM THE TERRITORY OF PUERTO RICO 

Mr. ROMERO-BARCELO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like 

to welcome our Governor Rossello and his wife, Maya, and I would 

also like to welcome our former Governor, Luis Ferre, and his wife, 

Tiodi; and the presidents of the Popular Party and the Independence Party who are also here today; and my wife who is also among 

the people in the hearing; and all the other witnesses that are goin~ to be before us and our fellow Members, and particularly Mr. 

Torncelli, who will be testifying next. 

I would like to thank you both, Chairman Gallegly and Chairman Burton, for holding this hearing and for your continued interest in matters related to Puerto Rico. Your action must be commended, because while most have chosen to ignore this issue in the 

hopes that it will go away, you have opted to tackle the very sensitive matter of Puerto Rico's colonial relationship with the United 

States. 

Make no mistake about it, this is an issue that will not go away 

by i~oring it or trying to lay it on our lap. The issue of Puerto 

Rico s colonial status is an issue of disenfranchisement and denial 

of the right of representation, which makes it a national issue, not 

merely a Puerto Rican issue. But before we continue, let us put matters into historical perspective. Puerto Rico became a possession of the United States in 

1898. From 1898 through 1952, the United States exercised sovereignty over the island by virtue of conquest in accordance with 

the terms of the Treaty of Paris, in which Puerto Rico's previous colonial ruler, Spain, ceded the island to the United States as aresult of the Spanish-American War. 

In 1952, under pressure by the international community, the 

United States sought and succeeded in ''legitimizing'' the exercise 

of its sovereignty over Puerto Rico seeking the consent of the governed at the ballot box. In this vote, 82 percent of the electorate 

ratified the Constitution of Puerto Rico, giving birth to the so-called 

commonwealth, a new name for the still unincorporated territory. 

The truth of the matter is that the 1952 changes to the relationship between the United States and Puerto Rico were merely cosmetic in nature. Puerto Rico remained and still remains an unincorporated territory or a colony of the United States. Colonialism entails the existence of a clearly identifiable group of people whose economic, social, and political affairs are to a large 
7 

degree controlled and influenced by a government in which they exercise no control, and in which they do not participate. 

It is a system characterized by traits such as an absence of consent of the governedi· an inferior political status, whereby the peo- ple subject to the co onial rule are disenfranchised and denied the 

necessary tools to participate in the day-to-day decisionmaking 

process of the nation's governing bodies; and the discriminatory 

treatment accorded to its residents. 

In the specific cal!le of Puerto Rico, all the aforementioned traits 

and conditions have clearly existed and continue to exist today. A 

case in favor of the current colonial status could have been made, 

however, from 1952 to 1993, based on the argument that the majority of Puerto Ricans themselves continued to support the colonial 

relationship or the so-called commonwealth. 

It was argued that even if the U.S. citizens in Puerto Rico were 

denied the right to vote, even if they were denied participation in 

the decisionmaking process, and were discriminated against in the 

enactment of Federal programs, a majority had voted for that disenfranchisement and relationship, and therefore, the U.S. was exercising its sovereignty with the consent af the governed. 

Well, my friends, that assumption can no longer be made. On November 14, 1993, the people of Puerto Rico voted in a plebiscite on 

the island's political status, and none of the options on the ballot 

received the support of the electoral majority. The commonwealth 

status received 48.6 percent of the vote, statehood received 46.3 

percent of the vote, and independence received 4.4 percent of the 

vote. 

This result in no way represents an endorsement of the status 

quo. In fact, it clearly shows that for the first time since the establishment of the so-called commonwealth in 1952, that particular 

political relationship does not enjoy the support of the majority of 

Puerto Ricans any more . . Thus, on November 14, 1993, the United States lost the consent 

of the governed and is once again exercising its sovereignty over 

Puerto Rico by the sole virtue of the Treaty of Paris; 

As we further analyze this exercise of sovereignty without the 

consent of the governed, we must also consider who is being gov- erned without their consent. Are they foreigners or citizens? 

The answer to that question was given in 1917 when Puerto 

Ricans were granted American citizenship pursuant to the terms of 

the Jones Act. Since then, we have chenslied and valued that citizenship with our hearts and our minds and have defended it with 

our blood. 

Therefore, we must ask ourselves if it is consistent with the basic. 

tenets of democracy that its citizens be governed without their consent. In order to answer that questio~l we must consider that the 

concept of citizenship largely defines me relationship between the 

individual and the State. 

It is by virtue of his or her citizenship that the individual is a 

member of a political community, and it is by virtue of that citizenship that he or she has rights and responsibilities. Yet, the simple 

concept of citizenship becomes obscured and contradictory in the 

case of Puerto Rico. Why? Because here you have 3,700,000 

disenfranchised American citizens whose lives and well-being are 
8 

subject to the sovereignty and plenary powers of a United States 

Congress wherein they lack voting representation. Here, you have 

3,700,000 citizens without the right to vote for the nation's president, who has the power to send them, their sons and daughters 

to fight and die in times of war. Here, you have 3,700,000 citizens 

who are subject to the inherent inequalities and discriminatory 

treatment that surfaces from the colonial establishment. Here, you 

have 3,700,000 U.S. citizens engaged in a relationship that contradicts the basic tenets and principles of our democracy, which is 

acknowledged to be the example and inspiration of democracies 

throughout the world. 

Mr. Chairman, the Administration and Congress cannot continue 

to hide their heads in the s~d and keep 3,700,000 American citizens disenfranchised in an apartheid state. Not only must Congress 

act to respond to the Puerto Rican people's withdrawal of consent 

to the present colonial status, but Congress must also consider 

whether or not it will implement the immediate changes that were 

called for in the definition of commonwealth, which were presented 

by its supporters to the people of Puerto Rico; immediate changes 

that they characterized as the best of two worlds, alluding, of 

course, to granting Puerto Ricans all of the benefits of our fellow 

citizens on the mainland, but without having to share in the fmancial responsibilities. 

A quick review of these proposed changes as they appeared on 

the ballot will show that they are neither politically nor economically viable. But unless Congress pronounces itself on the feasibility or impossibility of implementing these changes, the people of 

Puerto Rico will continue to be told by the commonwealth leadership that they are achievable. 

I would like to take a minute at this time to list the changes 

promised to the electorate so that you can come to your own conclusion, and there is a chart there. You have copies of the ballot before 

you. First, I would like to mention that one of the things that was 

proposed by Congress was Congress' removal of Puerto Rico from 

1ts jurisdiction under the territory clause of the United States Constitution. It is not specifically spelled as such in the ballot, but as 

you will see when it defines commonwealth, it says guaranteeing 

our progress and security as well as that of our children within a 

status of equal political dignity. If it is a status of equal political 

dignity, obviously, they would have to renounce their jurisdiction 

under the Territorial Clause. Will Congress do that or will it not? 

Second, the establishment of a bilateral pact or treaty between 

the United States and Puerto Rico, which would guarantee the island's permanent union with the United States, irrevocable U.S. 

citizenship which can never be altered except by mutual consent. 

Third, they also offered the granting of fiscal autonomy to Puerto 

Rico in which Congress agreed to give up sovereign powe~s in all 

fiscal matters related to Puerto Rico, which of course would include 

the power to impose Federal personal income tax, corporate income 

taxes, excise taxes, inheritance taxes, and custom duties. Is Congress willing to do that? . Fourth, in addition to granting the exemption from Federal taxation which is also fiscal autonomy, they said that they would ob-
9 

tain the granting of equal treatment to Puerto Rico as if we were 

a State in the Supplemental Security Income. This represents approximately $900,000,000. 

Fifth, they also said that they would obtain the granting to Puerto Rico of equal treatment as if we were a State in the nutritional 

assistance program. The increase to that program would cost approximately $700,000,000 a year. 

Sixth, despite· Congress' 1993 imposition of Federal corporate income taxes through the amendments to 936, they also determined 

that they would seek Congress to review the Internal Revenue 

Code and scale back the 986 taxes again. 

Seventh, allow Puerto Rico to establish its own import tariffs for 

imported products, agricultural products, similar to the tariff already allowed for the importation of coffee and this after NAFrA 

had just been approved. 

The people of Puerto Rico deserve to know if each and every one 

of these changes is acceptable to Congress and the Administration 

or not. We are asking for answers. The time has come for Congress 

and the Administration to respond. The people of Puerto Rico are 

entitled to a complete and honest response. 

We are more than halfway through the 1990's, a decade that the 

United Nations General Assembly declared to be the international 

decade for the eradication of colonialism. Three years from now, 

Puerto Rico will commemorate its lOOth year as a U.S. colony. Should we celebrate or should we mourn? Will we see a silver lining in the sky by 1996 or will we be seeing and hearing more of 

the same? 

The United States cannot seek to promote, and at times enforce, 

democracy elsewhere in the world while it relegates more than 

3, 700,000 of its own citizens to an indefmite, second-class status, 

disenfranchised, discriminated against, and unable to exercise the 

most basic right in a democracy, the right to participate in this 

government. 

To ignore the situation in Puerto Rico is to betray the spirit of 

our democratic values and system. 

Mr. Chairman and fellow members, thank you very much for 

your interest and attention to this vitally important issue. I look 

forward to the testimony of our distinguished guests and to further 

congressional action on this subject. The 3,700,000 American citizens in Puerto Rico expect and deserve no less. Thank you. 

Mr. GALLEGLY. I thank the gentleman from Puerto Rico. Before 

we go to our first panel and hear from Mr. Torricelli, we have three 

distinguished Members of the House that have made a request of 

our subcommittee that they be allowed because of their true interest in this issue and focus on this issue for a long time, to be allowed to make a statement for the record, and rather than just a 

printed statement, I would be very happy, with the concurrence of 

the subcommittee, to allow them to verbally make an opening 

statement, if they would try to keep it to five minutes, and if they 

want to go beyond that, certainly, we would be happy to make that 

a :part of the record, so hearing no objection from my colleagues at 

this time, I would like to defer to the gentleman from New York, 

Mr. Serrano. 
10 

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

REPRESENTATIVE FROM NEW YORK 

Mr. SERRANO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have a statement for 

the record that I would like, without objection, to submit. 

Mr. GALLEGLY. Without objection. 

Mr. SERRANO [continuing]. Second, Mr. Chairman, as you know, 

we are both in a markup on the Judiciary Committee, so if I leave 

after my statement, it is not in any way disrespectful of the subcommittee, but rather for the work that we have to do in Judiciary. 

Mr. GALLEGLY. You may have to take me with you, though. 

Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, when I look at the audience today, 

I come to the conclusion that once again, this is a situation that 

I find myself in which is both full of joy and full of sadness. Joy, 

because it is always a joyous occasion when you see so many friends from the island, people that you consider your personal friends in many instances, and people who share your blood and 

your culture with you. Sadness, because I suspect that todats 

hearing may be just more of the same, that the issue of Puerto Rtco 

really will not be settled, not for a long time to come. 

I say that because I still don't see in Congress any true desire 

to deal with a very serious problem, which is our behavior in the 

world community and our relationship to the island of Puerto Rico 

since 1898. 

I use myself as an example of that relationship. I was born in 

Puerto Rico. I was raised in the South Bronx in New York. I am 

a Member of Congress. I don't deny the fact that that relationship 

which led to the migration of so many members of my community 

to New York eventually puts me on a road that allows me to be 

a Member of Congress, but I can't for the life of me continue to understand why, if tomorrow, I was to leave Congress and return to 

Puerto Rico, I would not be able any longer to vote for the President that I voted for in the last election or for any candidate for 

President; that if I chose to be involved in politics in Puerto Rico 

and became its representative to Congress, I would not have the 

same voting privileges, voting rights that I have now; or the fact 

that so many of my cousins on my father's side, who never arrived 

in New York, never had the same kind of citizenship that all my 

cousins on my mother's side who came to New York had. 

I am not going to be quoted here as saying that Puerto Rican 

citizenship in the U.S. isn't first class citizenship. We can discuss 

that in another committee at another time, but certainly, if it is a 

second class citizenship, it is a step ahead of people on the island, 

because they have no rights under their citizenship. 

So my fear continues to be that unless we decide here and now 

in this Congress, perhaps as part, Mr. Chairman, of your revolution, to in fact do something about the status of Puerto Rico, it will 

not happen during my lifetime, and I intend to take care of myself 

and live a long time. 

What we have is a situation where I find on so many occasions 

that half, if not more, Members of Congress have no understanding 

whatsoever of the relationship. I often tell the sad story and I do 

at every hearing of this nature, of a Member of Congress, a couple 

actually by now, asking me on my next trip to Puerto Rico to bring 

them back coins for their collection, stamps for their collection, and 
11 

I tell the sad story of my fathers funeral, where the Puerto Rican 

and the American flags were both on the casket and someone said 

to me, why is the American flag on your fathers casket. I said, he 

wanted it that way; he served in the Army. About half an hour 

later, he came back to me and said, you know, I had no idea that 

the Puerto Rican Army used the American flag. 

While we laugh at it and I do myself, that is an indication of the 

lack of understanding of a very serious problem, because it is a serious problem. I want to preface this next comment by saying that 

I don't ever mean any disrespect to feople who are supporters of 

the commonwealth, when I say that believe Puerto Rico is a colony. 

I don't say that as a _person who is Puerto Rican; I say it as a 

Member of the United States Congress, in how I, as a Member of 

Congress, treat the island legally, not emotionally, not from my 

heart, but legally. It is a colony. It cannot make its own deals with 

foreign countries; it cannot refuse to go to war; it cannot take care 

of its borders. That to me leaves no other alternative but to say that it is a colony. 

So then I ask myself, how can this, the greatest Nation on earth, 

the one who professes to tell the world how to behave and indeed 

uses all its might to do so, continue to hold a colony while, in fact, 

not far in an island in the Caribbean, it continues to tell people to 

hold election, the same kind of election it refuses to hold in Puerto 

Rico for the people to determine their future and their status. 

So I, finding myself, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, in this unique situation, continue to ask ourselves to deal with 

this issue, to solve the situation. Whatever the situation solving 

may be, and there are people here who will tell you that solving the situation is to change the current status. If that is the case, let 

it be a decision of the people in conjunction with the Congress, the 

same Congress that is the representative arm of a government that 

invaded the island in 1898 and hasn't left yet. Recently, the New York Times had a list of places that we had 

invaded or been involved in militarily, and it hated all the Caribbean islands and all the Latin American countries, and it dawned 

on me that one invasion was missing: Puerto Rico. It dawned on 

me that maybe the reason that invasion was not listed is because 

it is still in effect and hasn't ended, and therefore, it didn't need 

to be part of history. 

So, Mr. Chairman, I would suggest the following. If we are truly going to deal with this issue, here is what I suggest we do. Congress should, once and for all, approve a referendum for the people 

of Puerto Rico stating clearly the options for the status question, 

taking full responsibility for the implementation in conjunction 

with the people of Puerto Rico, and assuring in the enabling legislation that either a binding vote will be taken or that by a date certain, the results of that vote will be dealt with on the floor of the 

House and in the Senate. 

It can't be a vote sponsored by Congress that says, someday in 

the future, we will deal with it. It will have to be a vote that says 

on a date certain, we will deal with it. 

Granted that there is still the issue of what percentage of the 

vote what option should win by; granted that there is the question 
12 

of whether, say, for instance.z independence or statehood wins, 

which are the unique changes rrom the actual status; whether then 

a second vote on yes or no on that option would be required on the 

island, but either way, Mr. Chairman, I think it is the only way 

to go, and I want to just conclude by sa_ying that the saddest incident for Puerto Rico was perhaps, and · I know this is a dangerous 

statement, the end of the Cold War, because now we believe that 

we were right in everything we did, and there is nothing we have 

to straighten out in our international relationships. So when you 

think you won the Cold War, you think there is nothing you have 

to rrx:. 

There is something we have to rrx:. There are a few of them, and 

one of them is Puerto Rico. We should not let it go the w~y it is. 

We should deal with it and I hope that this committee will begin 

anew this discussion, but with the decision that something will 

happen and happen soon. 

Don't let my cousins on the island, simply because they chose not 

to leave, have a different citizenship th8.n I have. It is not right. 

Either give them their right to full independence; give them their 

right to be part of this Nation; or change their actual status to a 

certain autonomy which they don't enjoy now, but this colonial status cannot be. It is wrong, and it is un-American. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. GALLEGLY. I thank the gentleman from New York. 

[The prepared statement of Hon. Jose E. Serrano follows:] 

STATEMENT OF HON. JosE E. SERRANO, A U.S. REPREsENTATIVE PROM NEW YORK 

~you, Chairman Gallegly, Chairman Burton and memben of both BUbcommittees. I greatly appreciate your consideration of an iuue that ia of critical im- ~rtance to both of your subcommittees. It ia in~tably central to our national 

1dentity aa the world's leadiJur democracy. No one liere n8eda to be reminded that 

before there waa a United States of America, there were thirteen American colonies. 

Although we are overwhelmingly a Nation descended from ~ta. we identify collectively with "our forefathen" who fought 10 valiantly to free themselves from 

Ellldand'a colonial rule. 

rlom those porious days we have inherited a legacy of commitment to self-determination; a pnnciple moat eloquently espoused by President Woodrow Wilson at the 

conclusion of World War I, and moat forcefully advanced by United States leadership in establishing the United Nations at the conclusion of World War II. We con- aider it an article of faith that people held in colonial subjugation have the right 

to self-determination. 

Unfortunately, and ahamefullJ. we have not abided by it. Although we have deplored colonialism and paternalism by other nations, we continue to practice it our- selves in our treatment of Puerto Rico. ._ _ Senator Moynihan describes Puerto Rico as "a prize or-tolenial.~ar taken from 

Spain in 189S", and he is right. No one ever considered the views-of the PuertoRican people when the island was transferred to the victorious United States after 

the Spanish-American War. 

The people of Puerto Rico were not consulted under the Jones Act of 1917, when 

Congress unilaterally conferred United States citizenship upon them. And when in 

the early 1950's Congress decided that it might be advantageous to make Puerto 

Rico a commonwealth, it gave the Puerto Rican people just two options: take it or leave it. 

Never in the forty-three years since Puerto Rico waa given commonwealth status 

has the United States sought to know, much leu honor, the unfettered will of the 

people of Puerto Rico. 

Technically, Puerto Rico has been given the "right" to local self-government, but 

in realio/. Puerto Rico remains a colony of the United States. Ita laws are subject 

to the will of Congress, the authority of ita government is circumscribed. 

Article 73 of the United Nations charter, which the United Sates helped draft and 

to which it is a signatory, reads: 
13 

Members of the United Nations which have or assume responsibilities for the administration of territories whose peoples have not yet attained a full measure of 

self-government recognize the principle that the interests of the inhabitants of these 

territories are paramount, and accept as a sacred trust the obligation to promote 

to the utmost, within the system of mternational peace and security established by 

the present charter, the well being of t.lte inhabitants of these territories." 

Toward this end, article 73 further enjoins members "to take full account of the 

political aspirations" of the inhabitants of their territories and "to assist them in the 

progressive development of their free political institutions". The United States has 

not honored this obligation. It must be noted that a 1953 General Assembly resolution declared Puerto Rico a self-governing territory no longer subject to article 73 of the charter. 

But in 1973 the General Assembly approved a report, adopted by the United Nations committee responsible for guaranteeing self-determination, which regarded 

Puerto Rico as still a colonial and non-self-govern.ing territory. Typically, the United 

States has suspended cooperation with the so-called "committee of 24" which adopted this report. 

There may be some confusion internationally as to the official status of Puerto 

Rico. But there should be no doubt in our minds that Puerto Rico is-a colony. 

It is difficult for me to accept that as a Congressman, I am part of a government 

which promotes the right of people around the world to a full and free expression 

of their political aspirations, but blatantly denies it to the 3. 7 million United t;!tates 

citizens residing in our Puerto Rican colony. 

As a native Puerto Rican, I resent the fact that the United States-the greatest, 

most free Nation on earth-will not recognize my right to decide the future of my 

birth place. . I am ashamed that this Nation grants my brothers and sisters in Puerto Rico the 

right to fight and die for the United States but refuses them the basic human right 

to determine their political future. 

Article 21, paragraph III of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, adopted 

with United States support by the United Nations General Assembly in 1948, states 

that "the will of the people shall be the basis of the authority of the government; 

this shall be expressed in periodic and genuine elections which shall be by universal 

and equal suffrage." · The inhabitants of the colony of Puerto Rico have never participated in our "periodic and genuine" elections for the Presidency of the United States. Puerto Rico's 

delegate to the U.S. Congress does not have the same voting power as his colleagues 

from the 50 States. 

Clearly, the authority which the United States Government exercises over the 

people of Puerto Rico is not derived from their will. It is time for all of us to recog- nize the bond between Puerto Rico and the United States for the colonial relationship that it is. Without the clever rationalizations and embellishments we have applied for nearly a centurr,. this policy is clearly untenable. 

I urge these subcomnuttees to adhere to our commitments, to give meaning to our international pronoUncements, to reclaim our ri~tful place as a moral leader. 

We have no credibility in the world if we fail to practice what we preach, if we continue to bear the shame of denying a people the basic human right of political 

self-determination. 

Therefore, I applaud you all today because you are taking the issue of the status 

of Puerto Rico seriously, so the 3.7 million American citizens can fulfill their dream 

of obtaining self-determination. 

Even though there is no clear consensus as to their ultimate relationship with the 

United States, the message came loud and clear from the referendum-to change! 

The enhanced commonwealth obtained 48% of the vote; statehood; 46% and independence, 4%. In my view, that translates to real change, everyone wants to change. 

You are here today in this joint h~ to discuss the outcome of that referendum 

and together as the Congress of the Umted States, through future legislation give 

the Puerto Rican people the opportunity to obtain that change in a permanent way! 

I earnestly encourage you to forcefully seek to have the U.S. citizens of Puerto 

Rico pven their democratic right to meaninlri'ul self-expression, to rid them of their 

coloma! status, and to honor their choice of a future, within this Nation or among the nations of the world. 

Maybe the best way of resolving this could be thro~h a congressionally-sponsored referendum, that clearly outlines all the options available to the people of Puerto 

Rico. And, setting forth, if necessary, the rules to govern it. For example, what are the options and what percentage will be accepted for the winning formula. 
14 

The irijustice and betrayal of our cherished democratic princi:ples on this matter 

must stop. Out of self-respect, and out of respect for these princ1ples, we must give 

the people of Puerto Rico self-determination. Otherwise, the basic tenets of our Nation have lost all real meaning. 

Mr. GALLEGLY. The gentlelady from New York, Ms. Velazquez. 

STATEMENT OF HON. NYDIA M. VELAZQUEZ, A U.S. 

REPRESENTATIVE FROM NEW YORK 

Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Congressman 

Gutierrez and myself would like some clarification in terms of the 

agreement that we thought we reached yesterday to be allowed to 

submit for the record an opening statement and be allowed to ask 

questions of the witnesses. 

Mr. GALLEGLY. For the record, Ms. Velazquez, we had a discussion yesterday, and discussed several alternatives, and I mentioned 

to you that we did need to speak to the ch~an of the Western 

Hemisphere Committee who was having the joint hearing, Mr. Burton. Also, I wanted to discuss the procedures with the ranking 

member, Mr. Faleomavaega, and also the delegate from Puerto 

Rico. 

In discussing the issue with them this morning, there was a concurrence that because of the size of the hearing, because of the 

number of the two subcommittees combined, and because of the potential prececieD.Wetting matter that probably the most fair way to 

do this would be to allow you individually, not as sitting members 

of the subcommittee, to make an opening statement. My position 

was, let us allow them to make it verbal rather than just written, 

and I will see if we can't let them go ahead and still sit up here 

and listen to the proceedings. 

It is based on the concurrence of my colleagues up here at this 

point. If you want to call it a ruling of the chair, 80 be it, but the 

fact is, we do welcome you to make that statement for the record. 

We would hope that you would try to confine the verbal aspects of 

it to five minutes. If beyond that, you have more that you would 

like to add, we will certainly make it a part of the permanent record. 

Ms. VELAZQUEZ. I would like to loud and clear express my dissatisfaction. I know that you are in the freedom of expressing 

whatever rules are to be in this committee. 

I think that you were willing _yesterday to allow us to have a 

more active role, and because of Carlos Romero-Barcelo's refusal to 

allow us to participate, I am really sad. 

As Puerto Ricans and American citizens, Mr. Gutierrez, Mr. 

Serrano, and I represent almost 3. 7 million Puerto Ricans in the 

United States who are very concerned about this issue. The status 

question is an issue that is very important to us. 

It is a very emotional issue that keeps, as you can see today, the 

Puerto Rican family divided, and I resent that from my colleague, Carlos Romero-Barcelo. 

I think that as Puerto Ricans and Members of this Congress, we 

can make a great contribution to a debate that is 80 important for 

Puerto Ricans in Puerto Rico and Puerto Ricans in the United 

States. 
15 

I will submit an opening statement to the record, and I respectfull_}'_ excuse myself from this hearing. [The prepared statement of Hon. Nydia M. Vazquez follows:] 

STATEMENT OF HON. NYDIA M. VAZQUEZ, A U.S. REPRESENTATIVE FROM NEW YORK 

Mr. Chairman, I am both saddened and angered by today's committee actions to reverse the agreement we made just yeaterda:y, confirmed just two hours ago, and once again during your opening statement. It was our agreement that my Puerto 

Rican colleagues and I would be allowed to particip-ate in this hearing fully-that is, to submit O\)ening remarks for the record and, time permitting, have the opportunity to question today's witnesses at the end of each panel Instead, we are being asked to relegate ourselves to the role of observers. 

As you know, Puerto Rico's status and its economic future are clceely linked. Both 

these issues concern me ~tly. I am not oD11 proud to call this island my native 

land, but I represent a district whose population is largely Latino and of that, one half are Puerto Ricans. 

As we prepare to examine these matters, I want to make it very clear that I am outraged at the way Congress has continually mistreated Puerto Rico and its 3. 7 

million U.S. citizens. As we move forth with today's hearings on the \)lebiscite, which took place almost two years ago, we must make sure that the vo1ce of the 

people of Puerto Rico is heard clearly by Congress and specifically by these committees. 

The people of Puerto Rico have sent a message, that while they see themselves as American citizens, they are concerned about the current circumstances under 

which they now live. They are concerned because of the limited voice they have in 

major aspects of their island's existence. They voted to send a message to Congress, one that expresses their self~determination. 

My colleagues, we must pay close attention to the choices made by the Puerto 

Rican people to embrace an enhanced commonwealth. It is this direct expression of 

self-determination that deserves the complete and serious consideration of this Congress. . 

The most si~cant obstacle to a clear definition of Puerto Rican status has not 

been a peoples inability to express themselves b;r plebiscite, referendum, constitutional convention or other forms of consultation. In fact, on six different occasions, 

since 1967, Puerto Ricans have made their desire clear in regards to the island's 

future. 

The United States Government, especiall:y Congress-,-has been unwilling to accept and act on the choices made by Puerto Ricans. In the past1 congressional leaders 

have ouly given the status question lip service without rolling up their sleeves to 

work with the people of Puerto Rico on clearly defining the issues involved and 

working to ensure that both sides-the Puerto Rican people and the U.S. Government have a clear understanding of these issues and their ramification. 

I wonder, with the current fervor of EDflish-ouly on Capitol Hill, would Congress be willing to accept statehood as the cho1ce of Puerto Ricans with Spanish as the 

official language? Voters selected commonwealth status. Now, I ask you, what is an acceptable level of support for a proposal-plurality, majority, or some super maJority? Congress has failed to provide answers to basic questions like these. We would not place a question on any ballot across this country without making it clear to the people what their vote represented. That is exactly what we have 

done to Puerto Rico. My colleagues, why is it acceptable to allow one group of Americans to have a clear picture of what they are voting on, but not .extend the same right to the 3.7 million American citizens of Puerto Rico? Recently, Congress has 

cast votes to assist democracy in such far away places as Bosnia and Vietnam, but 

this Congress is denying 3. 7 million citizens basic democratic right to self-determination. 

Like it or not, Congress is a partner in this process. It is wrong for Congress to 

criticize the different status formulas, without providing a clear definition of where 

Puerto Rico stands in relations to the United States Congress. 

Let us take this opportunity today to begin a dialogue that will provide Puerto 

Rico with tools for self-determination. And once this is completed, COngress should 

show respect and honor the people's decisions. 

While we are here today, discussing the political future of the island, many 1>f our colleagues have already decided its econowc future. Contained in this year's Repub- lican bu~get are radical changes in Section 936 and its plan of incentives for busi- nesses. These actions speak louder than any rhetoric about how this Congress feels 

about the 3. 7 million American citizens in Puerto Rico. r understand Republicans 
16 

promise to lower the Nation's deficit in seven years, but it is unfair to do this on the backs of the Puerto Rican people. 

Attacks on economic prosperity are nothing new to the people of Puerto Rico. In 

1993 Congress enacted changes to Section 936. Little time has been allowed to ex- amine these effects. In the short term, we have seen the loss of 11,000 jobs. I can only speculate that with no compensatory measure or transition plan, a post-936 

economy will mean only more pain and economic hardship for the inhabitants of the 

island. 

In closing, I strongly urge this Congress and the Administration to move forward 

diligently on finding solutions that will help solve the political and economic questions the people of Puerto Rico have struggled with for decades. I am here today 

to help find answers to these difficult questions which have gone unaddressed for so long. It is said that the longest journey begins with one step. We have a long 

way to go to find a solution. It is my hope that this hearing is that first step which 

will help determine Puerto Rico's future. 

Mr. GALLEGLY. I express disappointment in the presentation that 

the gentlelady from New York just made, particularly in view of 

the fact that there was no attempt by the gentlelady to even contact the ranking member on this issue. In fact, when I talked to 

the ranking member, Mr. Faleomavaega, this morning, he had not 

heard that there had even been a request. 

I would think that if this issue was that important, that you 

would have at least made the request of the ranking member as 

well as myself and also of Mr. Burton, who shares the dais up here 

with me on an equal status. 

I would think that instead of protesting the parliamentary procedures we are trying to follow here, that if your interest is genuine 

and I believe it is, that it would certainly be appropriate that you 

make your opening statement, rather than protest and walk out. 

I think that the people of Puerto Rico deserve no less. 

Ms. VELAZQUEZ. I will submit an opening statement to the 

record, and Mr. Chairman, we dealt with the ranking member's. staff from the committee. We did that two weeks ago. 

We have been dealing with staff-who was the person, the staff 

person? 

Mr. GALLEGLY. Manase Mansur does not represent the minority 

ranking member, but the Chairman. 

At this time, I would like, since the ranking member has been 

mentioned several times, I would certainly like to defer to him for 

a response. 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Mr. Chairman, as you have stated earlier, 

when you called me this morning, it was the first time that I have 

ever learned that there was such a request by the distinguished 

lady from New York concerning the hearing. 

I think also, as a matter of protocol and as common courtesy, as 

the ranking member, I would think that at least some understanding or request through our side of the aisle, so to speak, in letting 

me know that this was a desire by my good friend and the 

gentlelady from New York to ask questions. 

The situation also, Mr. Chairman, is the fact that we only have 

one elected resident commissioner representing the people of Puerto Rico, whom I have to, on a daily basis, also consult closely with, 

and the fact that as a sitting member of the subcommittee, it is 

only fair on my part that I have to appreciate and understand the 

sentiments of his feelings. 
17 

Not necessarily going into the substance of the issues affecting 

this very important controversy that is currently still in the minds 

and the hearts of the people of Puerto Rico, I would respectfully 

say this to my good friend from New York, and Ms. Velazquez, as 

has been the understanding also of Mr. Serrano, that they cancertainly testify, and if they do have questions they would like to submit for the record for those who will be testifying, and given the 

fact that we do have a long list of witnesses, there will be other 

occasions certainly that if there are any concerns of any of the 

members on both sides of the aisle that they may want to raise 

with the members of the subcommittee, they can certainly have 

that opportunity to raise those concerns. 

I just am saddened that the gentlelady from New York feels otherwise and as I said, as a sitting member of the subcommittee, the 

gentleman from Puerto Rico and myself, as the ranking member, 

I certainly have to consult and to know clearly from his point of 

view, even though we don't agree on matters of principle that are 

affecting this very important issue, the gentleman from Puerto Rico 

knows that, but I think we ought not get into the partisanship aspects of this very important issue, and that we ought to clearly define the parameters of how we can operate, especially with the fact 

that we have a joint hearing, and we do have a lot of members that 

also want to testify. 

I just want to clarify that point for the record. I was never consulted; none of the staff members, both of the majority and the minority, have ever called me, and so this is the reason why in consultation with you and also in talking to the gentleman from Puerto Rico, Mr. Romero-Barcelo, I felt that his sentiments and desires 

certainly ought to be weighed very seriously as far as the procedural rules of our subcommittee, and that is the reason why I suggested and added my feelings that I support your decision and, 

after consulting with Mr. Romero-Barcelo, that we proceed in this 

fashion. 

Mr. GALLEGLY. I thank the gentleman, and I think just for the 

record, this is a very appropriate time to state that Mr. 

Faleomavaega and I try to run this committee fairly and give everyone an opportunity to be treated as fairly as possible, and probably the least partisan relationship of two members of different 

parties in this House, and this certainly is no exception. 

Without belaboring the subject, I would just like to ask the 

gentlelady at this time if she would like to make a verbal statement. If not, we would certainly be happy to accept your statement 

for the record. If you would like to submit questions in writing 

without objection, that will be the order. 

Ms. VELAZQUEZ. I will be submitting written testimony, opening 

statement, and I will be submitting some written questions that 

might shed some light in terms of the debate here. 

I think it is fair that some questions are asked based on the historical perspective of the political debate in Puerto Rico. Mr. GALLEGLY. We will be happy to see that those questions are 

asked on your behalf, and at this time, does the gentleman from 

Illinois, Mr. Gutierrez, wish to be heard? 
18 

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

REPRESENTATIVE FROM ILLINOIS 

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Thank you, Mr. Gallegly, and I would like to 

thank you and Mr. Burton and all of the members of the committee 

who saw fit to allow myself and Congresswoman Nydia Velazquez, 

Congressman Jose Serrano, as in your opening statement which is 

in the record that we would be allowed to present an opening statement; that if time permitted, we would be allowed to ask questions. 

That is part of the opening statement that you, Mr. Chairman, 

made and the rules and the conditions under which we were to proceed today. 

I think it is rather ironic as we deal with the issue of colonialism 

in Puerto Rico that Members of Congress with full voting privileges 

and rights here elected would not be allowed to ask questions, and 

yet I, and I know that Nydia and Jose have voted consistently in 

this Congress to allow both the Resident Commissioner and the 

gentleman from American Samoa to be able to participate in the 

proceedings in the Congress and indeed, to vote in the committee 

as a whole, and yet given our defense for the opportunity for both 

the Resident Commissioner of Puerto Rico to participate as well as 

the gentleman from American Samoa to participate, my good friend, that we would not be allowed to participate. 

I understand, Mr. Chairman, your statement very clearly. It is 

very difficult and indeed very painful for me. Had I known, I would 

have probably opted with the other option that you offered us, 

which was to testify at the beginning of the hearing and to submit 

ourselves for questions and answers and then to believe we thought 

we could sit back, listen to the debate, and be part of the debate 

and ask questions if time permitted, of course, at the discretion of 

the chair. 

Unfortunately, that was the understanding that I had. We talked 

with your staff and with the staff of the committee, and they told 

us there would be no problem with that agreement in terms of us. 

I understand that this morning things have changed, and that 

people have suggested-! hear pretty clearly that the gentleman 

from Puerto Rico, the Resident Commissioner, Carlos RomeroBarcelo, does not wish us, that it would set a bad precedent for us 

to participate in this, but I still want to say to the Chairman, 

thank you very much for attempting to allow us to participate in 

this hearing. 

I will submit an opening statement for the record, and I will submit questions. I think it is a rather sad day that my parents were 

born in Puerto Rico; they live on that island. Nydia was born there; 

Jose was born there; we would not be allowed as a courtesy. I sit 

on the Veterans Committee, I sit on the Banking Committee, and 

we allow this courtesy routinely to members of either party to come 

and participate and to ask questions knowing that they will be last, 

and that yet another Puerto Rican would not allow us and would 

object to our participating here. 

But thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, for your good intentions. 

[The prepared statement of Hon. Luis V. Gutierrez follows:] 
19 

Chairmen Gallegly and Burton, distiliguiehed colleagues, I would like, first of all, 

to thank the ~shed chairmen of the two subcommittees for the privilege ac- corded me to partiClpate in the hearing. 

I would also like to thank the distiniruished chairmen for their commitment to the cause of achi~ self-determination tor the people of Puerto Rico. 

Congress acqufred the sovereignty over Puerto Rico in 1898, by the ratification 

of the Treaty of Paris that transferred Puerto Rico to the United States as repara- tions, some may say "booty", for the war with Spain. 

The first half of the century was characterized both by naked colonialism and by the strulllde of the people of Puerto Rico for their democratic rights. In 1900:..1952 Congress ~ted Puerto Rico a greater measure of self-government, while retaining the sovermgnty accorded Congress under the Treaty of Paris and the 

Constitution's territorial clause. 

Our country, born of a revolutionary war of independence does not take too well 

to the role of colonial ruler. Moreover, our constitutional form of government rejects anything colonial, from the acquisition, to the administration, and more to the matter before us today, to the disposition of colonies. 

In 1989, the three presidents of the llllljor political parties on the island issued a joint letter that stated that Puerto Ricans had never been formally consulted by Congress on their destiny and that the time had finally come to do so. For a while, Congress finally seemed to have accepted the responsibility. The 

House approved H.R. 4765, "to enable the ~l?le of Puerto Rico to exercise self-determination", and the Senate considered, but flilled to approve, S. 712, in 1991. 

With Congress failin~ to act on the matter, in 1993, Governor Rosello presented 

to the Puerto Rican le~slature a bill to conduct a Puerto Rico-sponsored status con- sultation, or a "plebiSClte". 

The Commonwealth and Independence parties, both minority parties in the Puerto Rican legislature, had their amendment to the Governor's plebiscite bill defining 

the victor as the status formula that obtained 50% plus 1, defeated by the pro-state- hood new Progressive party'sleldslative llllljority. The numerical results o{ the Rovember vote are known by all. 

The simplest way to describe the results is: the Commonwealth won. But now we do not need congressional hearings to examine results in such a fashion. 

Anyone who followed closely the process of the status consultation knows there 

is much more behind simple numberS. 

What do the results mean? 

In my opinion, the high rate of voter participation indicates there is a desire by the people of Puerto Rico to resolve the status issue so that it can unite to work 

towards economic development and the solution of social ills. Clearly, Puerto Ricans 

of all political parties want this Congress to treat them with dignity and respect, 

and for Congress to face its moral, legal and historic obligation to the people of 

Puerto Rico. 

Second, Puerto Ricans voted to affirm their nationality, their distinct identity, lan- gu~ge and culture. 

Third the November 1993 vote indicates a desire to change the current arrangement of the Commonwealth in the direction of greater powers of self-government and autonomy. In other words, it could be stated that, although the current arrangement is still colonial, for it still falls under the unilateral )urisdiction of Congress and the Constitution's territorial clause, the promise contained in the concept of a bilateral pact between two sovereign peoples, of a real Cree and associated State, en- joys the support of a plurality of Puerto Ricans. 

Fourth, Puerto Ricans vafue their American citizenship, and secured ties to our Republic, which is another way of saying that Puerto Ricans voted for a true bilateral pact between two sovereign peoples that allows them to retain the hard-earned 

rights the;Y enjoy under the American Constitution, contained in the citizenship, while retaining their distinct Puerto Rican sovereignty, culture and identity. 

Fifth, Puerto Ricans rejected the pre-"Republican revolution", welfare-rich, Federal largesse, Spanish-speaking, "jibaro", "estadidad es para los pobres" (statehood 

is for the poor) statehood position. Sixth, there is a small minority that supports my own personal preference for 

Puerto Rico, the independence option. In my opinion, this is the only option which 

is truly guaranteed to the people of Puerto Rico, and to any people, under international law. 

As I stated before, Messrs. Chairmen, the people of Puerto Rico want to solve this 

terrible situation that binds the people down and prevents the Puerto Rican Nation 

from emerging as an economically strong, socially healthy, democratically advanced, friend of the United States in our western hemisphere. 
20 

What is expected from us by the people or the island, is that we take this responsibility seriously, and that we sto.P eq>reuing platitudes about our support for selfdetermination and other lofty goala, and to proceed to take action. 

Congress failed to act in 1991, and in 1993, the people of Puerto Rico took matters 

into their own banda and organized for themselvet1 a formal consultation on the status question. 

What are we going to do about the results? 

Are we going to analyze them to death while we find eiCUSes not to act on the 

express wishes of the people of Puerto Rico? 

Are there problems with the November, 1993, consultation? 

Sure there are. If you go back to the statements I m~de before the Insular Affairs Subcommittee 

in 1993, you will find that I am in favor of adhering to international law in solving our colonial problem in Puerto Rico. 

I also favor a process to solve this issue where the U.S. Government, and especially the Congress, recognizes its moral and legal responsibility towards Puerto 

Rican self-determination. 

The political victory of the Commonwealth in the 1993 referendum is a reality to 

which the Administration has responded with the creation of the interagency working group on Puerto Rico. 

This hearing today constitutes, I hope, the start of a process of Congress meeting 

its obligation of respon~ to an expression by the people of Puerto Rico. 

While studying liistory 111 always useful, it is, in my opinion; not constructiVe to 

the solution of Puerto Rico's status issue if Congress were to respond to the a- pressed desires of the ~ple of Puerto Rico merely with an historical analysis of 

the limitations of the aisting arranpments. The issue before us, in my opinion, is how we find a creative road to a consensus that builds upon the results of the November, 1993, referendum, and moves the 

process forward. 

Puerto Ricans are not only a bunch or people united by their common United 

States citizenship. · Puerto Ricans are a Nation, an historically constituted, stable entity, with their own Latin American, antilean culture, its own history,ianguap and identity. Puerto Rico is not a territory to be populated by immigrants on-their way to "E Pluribus 

Unum", on their wa1 to deVeloj)ing themaelves into a civilized unit, readying themselves to join the umon in the future. · I find it is irreeponsible of some of my colleagues to Coster the hope of statehood 

for Puerto Rico, when we know there has never been the sentiment in Congress to 

favor that option. To do ao, in my opinion, serves only to foeter division among Puerto Ricans. 

Puerto Rico only has the right to independence. Any other arrangement can only 

be arrived at by mutual consent with the United States. 

But in the spirit of reaching consensus and of moving the process of self-determination of Puerto Rico forward, I ask those of my colleagues who sincerely believe 

that statehood is the best alternative both for Puerto Rico and the United States, 

to make a self-enacting offer of statehood to the island. That is, make an offer of 

statehood that if accepted by a ms,jority of the people of Puerto Rico, a m~ority defined however CongreBB wishes to define it, be self-enacted as the entrance of Puerto 

Rico to the union. If no one in CongreBB is willing to do this, then it is clear there 

is no such a thing as an alternative to statehood. Let us then find a way, a creative way to move the process forward. 

I am in support of the Administration's proposal to look for a consensus formula 

to do just that. As we approach a century of United States sovereignty over Puerto Rico, it would 

be a grave crime against our democracy if our response to yet this latest expression of the will of the people of Puerto Rico were to be responded to by our CongreBB 

with platitudes about the right to self-determination, perhaps some non-constructive 

condemnation of the shortcomings of the current arrangement, and no action to move the proceBS forward. I ask all my colleagues to look behind the simple numbers and to hear the voices 

of millions of Puerto Ricans askin~ for dignity, for respect, for ~uality, and, more important, for true self-determination to enable them to put behind them this sad 

chapter of our history so they move forward to meet the economic and social chal- lenges of the 21st century. 

Mr. GALLEGLY. Before you leave, I really1 think in all fairness 

since his name has been mentioned several times that he have a 
21 

fair opportunity to respond to the gentleman from Illinois and the 

gentlelady from New York's comments. Mr. Romero-Barcelo. 

Mr. ROMERO-BARCELO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think that 

one of the things that everybody knows is that I never am one to 

shrink away from any responsibility of any act that I do or any- thing I do. I always accept what I do, but let us put it in proper 

perspective. 

When we came here to Congress, each one of us at the beginning 

of the term had the option to participate in the committees in 

which you wanted to participate, at least try to. As far as I know, 

neither Nydia Velazquez nor Luis Gutierrez made any attempt to 

participate at all in the Resources Committee where they know 

that the matters and the affairs of Puerto Rico are dealt with. 

Their interest in Puerto Rico was not that great that they were 

willing to participate in this committee instead of participating in 

the other committees. 

I would love to participate in the Commerce and Industry Committee or other committees. I would love to participate, but I have 

to make my choice, and I made my choice of the Education Committee · and the Resources Committee. But that is not the only reason. 

The other reason and the fundamental reason was that neither 

Nydia Velazquez nor Luis Gutierrez had the courtesy to even call 

me. I didn't know they wanted to testify. I found out they wanted 

to testify from the committee. They never called me; they never 

called anyone on my staff, and if they didn't call me, there was no 

reason why I should allow it. · , I think if I am to be consulted and they knew I would be consulted because I represent Puerto Rico in this committee, that they should have called me, for at least basic courtesy. I have made an 

attempt, and Mr. Serrano knows about this, to be friendly with 

Nydia and to be friendly with Luis, and this is the type of attitude 

that they take, and they keep going behind my back in interests 

and matters that pertain to Puerto Rico, and I resent that they go behind my back. All they have to do is come and ask. If they had 

sat with me and asked me about it, I doubt very much that I would 

have said no. 

Mr. GALLEGLY. I appreciate the gentleman's comments, and it is 

with sorrow that we open the meeting on that note, but nevertheless, we are here to address this issue. It is a very serious issue. 

I particularly want to thank the gentleman from New York, Mr. 

Serrano, for his professional and heartfelt opening statement, and 

I would welcome Mr. Gutierrez and Ms. Velazquez to continue to 

participate in this process, and . would hope that they will participate rather than boycott in the future. ·With that, I hope that the gentleman and ranking member, Mr. 

Torricelli, will not be offended that I have to leave. It isn't because 

I don't look forward to his statement, but we are in the middle of 

a mark-up on a very important bill in the Judiciary Committee, 

and at this time, I would like to welcome the ranking member of 

the Western Hemisphere subcommittee, Mr. Torricelli, for his testimony, and I will tum the gavel over to the gentleman from Indiana, Mr. Burton. _ 
22 

STATEMENT OF HON. ROBERT G. TORRICELLI, A U.S. 

REPRESI!:NTATIVE FROM NEW JERSEY 

Mr. TORRICELLI. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, very much for this 

opportunity. This is the first hearing in which I have ever participated where I thought there was a challenge to make the testimony as interesting as the opening statement from the members, 

but indeed, that is the challenge before me. 

I come before you, Mr. Chairman, today and I appreciate the opportunity, because for some years, the concern now before this committee has been of particular interest to me. 

In the years when I served as chairman of the Western Hemisphere Subcommittee preceding Mr. Burton's leadership, I tried 

vigorously to pursue the issues of human rights throughout Latin 

America. Whether _pursuing the cause of freedom in Cuba or peace in Nicaragua and El Salvador, I was continually reminded by those 

who would criticize our country of the political status of Puerto 

Rico, and I was determined in my time in this Congress that I 

might participate in establishing an orderly and a fair process, lest 

it never be contended the people of Puerto Rico were in anything 

but a free association with the United States with the full consent 

of the government. 

The result of those years of travel and that continuing concern, 

the legislation that Mr. Burton and I submitted in the last Congress, and will soon be submitted to you again, calls for a regular and orderly system of plebiscites, so that each generation of PUerto 

Ricans can be heard on the issue of their political status with the 

United States or another route that they may choose to follow. 

I understand, Mr. Chairman, that this is first and foremost an 

issue for the people of Puerto Rico themselves. We all have our own 

personal views as citizens of the United States, but I would suggest 

that those personal views be put aside, whatever differences we 

might have, in the common belief that all the world should understand the legitimacy of the relationship and how it was determined. 

Clearly on this question, we have common ground. But I would 

submit as well that while this is first and foremost a judgment for 

the people of Puerto Rico, as members of this institution, we are 

not without responsibility. The almost certain status of the Tu 

Code of 936, while in my judgment regrettable, ma! be inevitable. 

It changes the economic dynamics of the Puerto Rican economy 

profoundly, and certainly leads to some political ramifications. 

The extraordinarily close and in my judgment, inconclusive, vote 

of the last plebiscite in which a 50 percent mark was not reached 

by any of the alternatives certainly leaves a need for further judgment. 

Third, as I think Mr. Serrano suggested, the clear need for the 

United States Congress to be P.repared, determined, and absolute 

in reaching its own judgment if the people of Puerto Rico express 

a preference. 

I understand that there are many in this Congress who would 

simply like to not deal with this issue. They hope that Puerto Rico 

never holds a vote, or if it holds a vote, that it might be inconclusive. That is not meeting our own responsibilities. When the Puerto 

Rican people speak, we have a responsibility to ensure they are 
23 

heard, and if they express a willingness to join the union, that we ~prepared to deal with that question forthrightly. There are, therefore, several specific objectives I have, Mr. Chairman, in submitting the le~slation, which, since you are my co-author, I think will be relatively easy to persuade you of the merits 

of. 

First, and this one is immediate, I have a great personal determination. Let those who have no credibility on the Issue of human 

rights appear before the United Nations. In particular, I am speak- ing of Fidel Castro who will be here in only a matter of days. They have no right to question the relationshi}! between the people of 

Puerto Rico and the United States. I don t believe they have that 

right now, but with a system of regular plebiscites available for 

each generation on a set schedule with a clear determination for 

judgment before this Congress, he and all others who would attempt to do so would be denied the ri~ht to question the United 

States government on its relationship With anyone who has free association. 

Second, to establish under our resolution that when a vote is 

held, a report on that vote be transmitted to the Congress of the 

United Sta,tes forthrightly, with an orderly process for this Congress to take up the question. Finally, that when a choice is presented to the Puerto Rican peo- ple in each successive generation, that it be done fairly and honestly with real choices, that the people of Puerto Rico can make an 

honest judgment. 

Mr. Chairman, this much has been known to all those who have 

sought union with us for 200 years. A vote for statehood is irreversible. This is an indivisible union. If the people of Puerto Rico are 

to choose to join the United States, they make that choice but once. 

If, however, from the far reaches of the Pacific to the nearby islands of the Caribbean, the Puerto Rican people or any other peo- ple choose free association with the United States, they do that by their own choice in their own time, only so long as they choose to 

do so. 

That is the essence of the Burton-Torricelli resolution. I urge this 

committee to bring it for consideration. Lest we remove from the 

international scene those items that we might be criticized for and 

establish a fair process to the people of Puerto Rico and those others who chose association with us. · I believe this is a fair process, and an orderly way for this Congress to proceed in dealing with what might be foremostly an issue 

for the Puerto Rican people, but history has mandated that it is not 

exclusively an issue for the Puerto Rican people. · Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, thank you very much for this opportunity before you today. 

Mr. BURTON. Thank you, Representative Torricelli. Do any members of the committee have any questions for Congressman Torricelli? 

Mr. FALEOMA.VAEGA. Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. BURTON. Mr. Faleomavaega. 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. I just wanted to thank the distinguished ranking member of the Subcommittee on International Relations in 

the. Western Hemisphere for his very succinct and certainly very 
24 

specific statements concerning this very important issue, and I certainly want to commend him and yourself, Mr. Chairman, for this 

proposed resolution. Certainly, the subcommittee will look forward 

to working together with both of you and hopefully, we can work 

out the specifics of this concept. 

At the same time, I think the problem has always been, and this 

has been the issue that is always involved when dealing with territories is whether or not the Congress makes the mandate and the 

territory simply has to follow, or is it the other way around. When 

you start discussing the concepts of self-determination and where 

do you put the limits when you discuss free association, statehood, 

independence, the covenant relationship that CNMI have had, possibly even other options that we have not even explored. I just want to thank the gentleman from New Jersey for being 

very creative and certainly yourself, Mr. Chairman, and hopefully, 

we can resolve this very important issue. 

I thank, again, my friend from New Jersey for his testimony. 

Mr. TORRICELLI. Thank you very much. Mr. Chairman, if I could 

simply respond to that. 

It is, of course, for any peoples in any territory to express their 

own preference. That does not require the United States Congress 

to assent to it, but I think they would be free to make their own 

choice. 

On the question of whether or not the requir-ement of a plebiscite 

is a mandate upon any peoples in association with the United 

States, it is almost certainly a mandate, but I make no apologies 

for doing so. The full or limited sovereignty of any peoples extends 

only to the point of consent of the governed. 

We have every right, indeed, a responsibility, to require that any 

people who are in association with us on any basis to have free and 

fair elections, so it is a mandate, but I believe a justifiable one. 

Finally, Mr. Chairman, I want to note Mr. Serrano's-point that 

if a vote is held, it is on a regular basis and it is fair. Nevertheless, 

we have a responsibility to assure that the results of that vote 

come before this Congress on an orderly and a timely basis. That, 

of course, is not in the draft that we submitted last year, but I 

know I would be interested, and I won't speak for the Chairman, 

but I would assume he would be interested in working with Mr. 

Serrano, and that certainly is a fair point. If the people of Puerto 

Rico or other areas are going to be asked to vote, they have a right 

to know that that vote is going to be heard in this institution. 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. BURTON. Mr. Faleomavaega. 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. As I am certain the gentleman from New 

Jersey is very well aware, probably one of the most difficult issues 

has always been the question of status. 

Let's say, for example, and I take it hypothetically. Suppose the 

people of Puerto Rico vote by a vast majority they want statehood. 

Does that mean that the Congress then is mandated that they will 

grant them statehood? 

There are those of us, and I am not one of them, but I am just 

saying that there are Members in the Congress who have a very 

different view as far as the Constitution is concerned procedurally, 

and the point in fact, we have had two previous territories, Hawaii 
25 

and Alaska, and that several attempts have been made to grant 

statehood to these former territories and the Congress kept turning 

it down. 

I know that from previous hearings that we have held on this 

issue, some people take offense to that, and I just want to point out 

that these are some of the factors involved here. 

Because the Puerto Rican people may want statehood, does that 

mean that Congress has to grant them statehood? I think this is 

where the issue becomes very ticklish or you might say stickish, 

when it comes to say that whose will is really being proposed here, 

and I just want to share that concern. 

Mr. TORRICELLI. I think that is a fair point. Of course, Mr. Chairman, it is important to recognize that a vote by the Puerto Rican 

people for statehood is the beginning of a process, not the end of 

a process. 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Thank you. 

Mr. ToRRICELLI. It is a request for association. That request then 

is debated and voted upon in this institution. 

What I think is critical, that it be clear in Puerto Rico when this 

happens, however, that this Nation is indeed indivisible. A vote for 

statehood happens but once in all of history. The current changes 

in the Congress, those of us from New York and New Jersey are 

grateful for this, because we assume there are some people who 

would like to reverse our previous assent to the union. 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. I thank the gentleman. Thank you. 

Mr. BURTON. Thank you, Mr. Torricelli. These kinds of questions 

remind me of when we were trying to get all the 13 colonies to 

agree on one nation, and John Hancock mandated that it had to 

be a unanimous vote and they had a very contentious debate over 

that, so these kinds of questions go all the way back to the founding of the republic. 

Thank you, Mr. Torricelli. 

Mr. ROMERO-BARCELO. Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. BURTON. Excuse me. 

Mr. RoMERO-BARCELO. Mr. Torricelli, we have always been discussing the issue of Puerto Rico because of the status dilemma, the 

status issue, but I would like to discuss it from another point of 

view, the serious problem of disenfranchisement. 

We are 3,700,000 U.S. citizens and we are disenfranchised. Do 

you feel that we are participating in the democratic process in 

Puerto Rico or are we denied the participation in the democratic 

process? 

Mr. TORRICELLI. Well, this, of course, gets to the question of 

some of the desires of the Puerto Rican people. I am proud of my 

country, as indeed most people are. I would hope that if the Puerto 

Rican people were to choose statehood, it would be granted. I believe that it is not a proper relationship to be in political association with another people without them having a full set of political 

rights. 

I am personally uncomfortable with the relationship between the 

United States government and Puerto Rico because of the issue of 

full political rights. That is my personal view, but I also will say 

this in defense of our government. 
26 

If we set forth this process that Mr. Burton and I have outlined, 

and the Puerto Rican people choose not to pursue statehood, but 

vote for the status quo, I respect their judgment. I think that is a 

fair expression, but then I don't think we should be faulted again 

for whatever politic rights are or are not granted. 

Mr. RoMERO-BARCELO. Mr. Torricelli, in the south of this Nation, 

there was a majority of the people, most of the States, were keeping the minority disenfranchised, and the Federal Government decided to intervene to undo that injustice. 

Now, in Puerto Rico, if the majority of people have so far kept 

the others from voting, disenfranchised, does that make it any less 

valid because it is not racially motivated? Does that make it any 

more valid because it is not racially motivated, or are those people 

that are U.S. citizens and want to have the right to vote, are they 

entitled to it in a democracy? 

Mr. ToRRICELLI. They are certainly entitled to do it, although as 

your friend, I wouldn't want to leave you with the analogy of establishing voting rights by sending in United States government forces 

to do so. I know the politics of Puerto Rico. 

The analogy may not hold, but the point is certainly valid. If a 

vote is to be held, plebiscites are regularly scheduled, then while 

this is a question for the Puerto Rican people, it is a responsibility 

of the United States government to ensure that the vote is also 

free, fair, and open with full participation. 

Mr. RoMERO-BARCELO. But let me again go to the question of 

whether it is only the responsibility of the people of Puerto Rico. 

Are we, as a Nation, responsible for implementing democracy? 

Are we not telling other nations that they should implement democracy? Are we not telling Cuba that they should hold a plebiscite? Yet, we are telling the people of Puerto Rico, if you don't 

vote, that shouldn't matter. If you don't want to vote, that is all 

right. You can disenfranchise your minority. 

Mr. TORRICELLI. Of course, that is the very reason why Mr. Burton and I have offered this legislation. 

I defme it something like this. How the people of Puerto Rico 

vote is entirely their affair. Whether they have a right to vote is 

a basic human right, and it is everybody's affair. 

Mr. ROMERO-BARCELO. That is very important; that is what I am 

driving at. 

I think we as a Nation have to get involved in the disenfranchisement. Now, if we are disenfranchised, we obviously are not 

self-governing. Is that correct? Am I correct in saying that? 

Mr. TORRICELLI. I think that would be fair. 

Mr. RoMERo-BARCELO. So if we are not self-governing, that 

means that we are misrepresenting the position of Puerto Rico be~ 

fore the United Nations, because we say Puerto Rico is a self-governing commonwealth and we are not, because we are subject to all 

kinds of laws, immigration laws, tariff laws. We are subject to income tax laws. We are subject to immigration laws. We are subject 

to labor laws, minimum wages, the bankruptcy laws, all kinds of 

laws that are passed by this Congress where we lack full representation, so we are not self-governing. 
27 

Isn't it about time that we went to the United Nations and say, 

United Nations, it is not true. Puerto Rico is not self-governing. Let 

us do something about it. 

Mr. TORRICELLI. The something about it is to have a regular plebiscite and at the end of that process--

Mr. ROMERO-BARCELO. Is that enough? 

Mr. TORRICELLI. In my judgment, it is. At the end of a plebiscite, 

the people of Puerto Rico have either endorsed for the current status in which they are really ceding aspects of their sovereignty voluntarily, or they are seeking equal participation in the union and 

wanting full political rights, but I am not comfortable with it if 

that judgment has been made in history because of a military confrontation a century ago. 

I am comfortable with it if the judgment has been made by the 

people of Puerto Rico. 

Mr. ROMERO-BARCELO. So it is all right if they vote to be slaves 

or to vote to be a colony? 

Mr. TORRICELLI. They are not voting to be slaves. 

Mr. ROMERO-BARCELO. To be a colony. Mr. TORRICELLI. You vote for a political relationship. The State 

of New Jersey also does not have full sovereignty in all issues. We 

joined the union and ceded some powers to other States and to the 

larger union, retaining some for ourselves. We did so voluntarily. 

It is obviously my personal view that if I were a citizen of Puerto 

Rico, in that plebiscite, it is well-known, I would vote for statehood 

for manl of the reasons you were saying, full political rights. 

I don t understand people having a choice between full political 

rights and choosing a lesser status. I personally don't understand 

that. 

What I began my statement by saying is, that is not my decision 

at this point. That is a decision for the people of Puerto Rico. Whatever they decide is fine with me. 

Mr. BURTON. Congressman Romero-Barcelo, thank you very much. 

We need to stick to the five-minute rule, because we have a huge schedule ahead of us. 

Mr. UNDERWOOD. Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. BURTON. Congressman Underwood. 

Mr. UNDERWOOD. Thank you, and I don't want to prolong it, because I know a lot of people from Puerto Rico came to ask very important questions. 

My understanding of a plebiscite has always been that a plebiscite has consequences, and that the consequences must be real 

and immediate. One of the things that is regularly frustrating in 

representing a small territory is that if you hold a plebiscite, what 

is labelled a plebiscite, in actuality, you are just holding a public 

opinion poll, which really has no immediate consequences, and this 

separates the meaning of the term plebiscite as is practiced internationally in terms of effectuatin~ a political status change from 

those which have been employed m the territories by the Federal 

Government, and I am hopeful that your legislation and Mr. Burton's moves it in the direction, not obviously of making it totally 

binding, because we recognize that within the current framework, 

it doesn't make it so, but I wish that some statement to that effect 

20-766 - 96 - 2 
28 

could be made, so that we move on to a new plateau in the relationship between territories and the Federal Government that 

moves us beyond simply taking the polls every so often that makes 

it a question of really, in reality, a public opinion poll. 

In line with that, you are proposing running a "plebiscite" every 

five years, and you mention two status options, one is free association and the other is statehood. 

Now, in your conceptualization, do you see other statuses within 

that framework, and also, what happens if you vote for free association, under your assumption, it would be changeable every five 

years? 

Mr. TORRICELLI. First, I think the gentleman makes a very important point. 

The lrevious vote in Puerto Rico was a referendum. People expresse their views. In the months that followed, nothing hap- pened. There was no communication with this Congress or the 

White House. It was of absolutely no political consequence. That is why Mr. Burton and I . call our legislation a plebiscite. 

The people of Puerto Rico would choose what options to place on 

the ballot, but after they held the vote, the governor would be required to then transmit the results to this Congress and put the 

issue tben before the United States Congress. 

Mr. Serrano has made an interesting contribution by suggesting 

we go to a third step, communicate the results, and then the Congress bind itself to issue a judgment or a response on some date 

certain. I think that is an interesting su~estion how to go further. 

The gentleman makes a very interestmg point, the movement 

from referendum to realjlebiscite. We are attempting to go down 

that road. Mr. Burton an I would have to discuss how far we want 

to go. 

Mr. UNDERWOOD. Respectfully, in the case of Guam, I think we 

in a sense leap-frogged that by attempting to do locally what is 

being suggested there, and that is that we develop a referendum 

process which in effect binds whoever is governor to present a commonwealth draft act in the form of le~Iation to this Congress. I will readily admit that we haven t had much success with that. 

I am hopeful that under your legislation, we would have much 

more success. 

Mr. TORRICELLI. I would be glad to work with you. I think our 

intentions are similar. 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Would the gentleman yield? 

Mr. UNDERWOOD. Sure. 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Can you share with your friend how long it 

has taken Guam to have the Congress enact a commonwealth act? 

Mr. UNDERWOOD. Well, this would have been the fourth introduction of the commonwealth draft act. The actual referendum took 

place in 1986, and it began presentation in 1988. We would have 

far exceeded the five-year time line. 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. So it has been almost ten years. Mr. TORRICELLI. We have every right and power as Members of 

the United States Congress to not only require the governor of 

Puerto Rico to transmit the results by a date certain. We also have 

the powers to define a plebiscite that the Congress must consider 

the issue by a date certain. 
29 

That is within your power as Members of Congress. 

Mr. UNDERWOOD. Right, and one final comment, if I may, Mr. 

Chairman, and I very much appreciate that point, because somewhere along the line, there has been no mutuality in this process. 

There has been no willingness on Congress' part to make honest 

and direct its own obligations to the territories, and to the extent 

that your legislation moves it in that direction, I am very much interested in it. Thank you. 

Mr. BURTON. Thank you. Congressman Menendez. 

STATEMENT OF BON. ROBERT MENENDEZ, A U.S. 

REPRESEN11\.TIVE FROM NEW JERSEY 

Mr. MENENDEZ. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will be brief. I won't 

take the five minutes, but I do want to urge my distinguished 

friend and colleague from New Jersey and you, Mr. Chairman, as 

you consider this legislation. 

I want to echo some of the remarks I have heard from Mr. 

Faleomavaega and Mr. Underwood. I think the central question for 

the United States is, are we ready to honor the determination of 

the Puerto Rican people regardless of its outcome, and I have a 

real personal doubt about that. 

To the extent, and certainly, if we are going to deal with the people of Puerto Rico in an honest fashion, and if we are going to 

honor their many sacrifices to this country and contributions to 

this country, then to the extent that we can strengthen the response of the United States to a determination by the people of 

Puerto Rico, then I think we will be dealing honestly and forthrightly, and I think that I certainly, for one, ain ready to raise my 

voice and my vote on behalf of the determination of the people of 

Puerto Rico, but I would urge both the Chairman and you, as you 

pursue on this course and legislation, let us show the people of 

Puerto Rico that we sincerely, that we honestly and forthrightly, as 

you had suggested, will respond in a meaningful way, which 

means, in my view, ultimately accepting their determination of status, because if not, I think that we are unjust. 

As you and I know because of our work on other parts of the 

hemisphere and with the Chairman as well, I believe very, very 

strongly in self-determination, but self-determination without the 

appropriate response by the United States Government is a nullity, 

and I certainly don't want to be a part of that. 

Mr. BURTON. Thank you. 

Mr TORRICELLI. Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. BURTON. Do you have a response? 

Mr. TORRICELLI. I think Mr. Menendez was being generous to our 

colleagues in this institution. I suspect that in the recesses of his 

own mind, he doesn't really have some of the doubts he expressed. 

I think we all know that this Congress would like to not deal 

with this issue, and would prefer that the time would pass and 

that the issue never really arise. 

The value of having regular plebiscites and communications with 

this Congress and perhaps scheduling a congressional response is 

that the option of another century passing, with the United States 

bearing criticism and the people of Puerto Rico being uncertain 
30 

about their rights as American citizens is not an option that should 

be available. 

We have to force the issue. Mr. Menendez is certainly correct. 

Year is going to pass year, and this issue will never get resolved. 

Our legislation, Mr. Chairman, to me means one statement as an 

American citizen. My country has no colonies. We establish a process; we invite an expression by the Puerto Rican people for whatever choice they may choose, that no other conclusion can be 

reached by anyone on the globe. Our country has no colonies. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. BURTON. Mr. Torricelli. Thank you for those very pertinent 

remarks. We will now hear from the Honorable Pedro Rossell6, the 

Governor of Puerto Rico. Welcome. We are very happy that you and 

your bride were able to make it today, and we are anxious to hear 

your remarks, Governor. 

We are recognizing these next individuals, I think, for ten minutes because of their position on Puerto Rico. 

STATEMENT OF HONORABLE PEDRO ROSSELLO, GOVERNOR 

OF PUERTO RICO 

Mr. RossELLO. Thank you very much, Chairman Burton and 

members of the Subcommittee on the Western Hemisphere, on the 

Committee of International Relations; members of the Subcommittee of Native American and Insular Affairs of the Committee on 

Resources. 

My name is Pedro Rossell6. I am the Governor of Puerto Rico, 

a community that comprises 3,700,000 United States citizens; a 

community where immense pride in our Hispanic heritage coexists 

inseparably with intense allegiance to principles, values and a deep 

sense of common purpose that are cherished by our fellow citizens 

in the 50 States, and which-for more than two centuries-have 

constituted this Nation's foundation for greatness. 

In that spirit of unity and commonality of purpose, I should like 

to begin by expressing my gratitude for the interest you are taking 

in the civic and political destiny of your fellow American citizens 

who reside in Puerto Rico. 

Given the exceptionally heavy agenda of this Congress, it is indeed commendable that your two subcommittees are investing the 

time and energy necessary to evaluate a plebiscite process that was 

conceived and consummated more than a full year before the 104th 

Congress first assembled at the Capitol. 

The plebiscite process commenced with the New Progressive 

Party platform on which I sought election in 1992. Among the 

planks in that platform was a commitment to allow our voters to 

express themselves on the political status question through an exercise in self-determination. 

Because no such opportunity had been offered since 1967, most 

of our contemporary electorate had never been formally consulted 

on this most basic of issues. 

On November 3, 1992, my platform-including the political status plank-received a mandate for implementation as our party 

scored the most decisive victory in its 25 years of existence. Not 

only were New Progressives swept into office as Governor and Resident Commissioner, but we also elected 54 mayors, which is more 
31 

than two-thirds of the island's total of 78, and our party captured 

two-thirds of the seats in both chambers of our State legislature. 

Following my inauguration in January 1993, we set to work at 

once on drafting legislation for a political status plebiscite. In view 

of the magnitude of our recent general election triumph, many of 

my fellow advocates of having Puerto Rico become the 51st State 

strongly recommended that we play hardball with the plebiscite. 

I was urged to do the same thing that the pro-commonwealth 

Popular Party had done a quarter-century earlier, at a time when 

it was in full control of the machinery of government: that is, ram 

through the legislature a plebiscite bill under which the party in 

power would define all the options and structure the proceedings 

in whatever manner would be most conducive to guaranteeing success for the political status alternative that the party in power was 

supporting. 

This, after all, was the sole precedent we had, dating back to 

1967. From a purely cynical standpoint, those arguments certainly 

had merit. Nevertheless, I flatly rejected them. 

Instead, I insisted that the backers of each option be allowed to 

describe their respective political status alternative in whatever 

manner they deemed appropriate, with no substantive restrictions 

or interference of any kind either from the government or from the 

party in power. 

Furthermore, as additional measures to safeguard the principles 

of fairness and equity, I insisted that the plebiscite law allot to 

each of the three sides equal amounts of public funding for voter 

orientation and I likewise insisted that the law impose a freeze on 

media expenditures by government agencies and public corporations throughout the. 60-day period immediately prior to the voting 

date. 

All of those measures were duly incorporated into Law Number 

22, which I signed on the 4th of July, 1993. However, another 

measure that I proposed was omitted from Law 22, and in the light 

of what has failed to transpire since the plebiscite, that measure 

is worthy of mention. 

As submitted to the legislative assembly, our plebiscite bill included language providing for a gubernatorially-appointed commission that would be dispatched to Washington, DC following the 

plebiscite. That commission would have had the responsibility of 

negotiating with Congress on modifying Puerto Rico's political status in accordance with the ballot description of whichever status 

formula was endorsed by our electorate. The negotiating commission was to be composed of persons selected by the political party 

that had backed the winning formula. 

The members of my party had no problem with that idea, but 

both of the opposition parties were dead set against it. Consequently, in the interest of tri-partisan unity, that proposal was 

deleted from the final bill. 

This brings us to Sunday, November 14, 1993, when, faithful to 

Puerto Rico's profoundly democratic traditions, nearly the totality 

of our voting age population was duly registered and 74 percent of 

those who were registered went to the polls and cast their ballots. 
32 

Observers and journalists from around the world freely scrutinized the proceedings. They were unanimous in their praise of the 

integrity and efficiency with which the plebiscite was carried out. 

The results of that exercise in democratic self-expression confirmed a trend that had been gaining momentum throughout the 

preceding four decades of the Puerto Rican people's centuries-old 

peaceful struggle to forge a permanent, dignified political destiny. 

The Popular Party's definition of "commonwealth" (or "free associated State", as in Spanish they call it el Estado Libre Asociado), 

attracted 48.6 percent of the vot~own sharply from the 60 percent figure recorded in 1967. The statehood option attracted 46.3 

percent of the vote-well above the 39 percent figure recorded in 

1967. Independence was endorsed by 4.4 percent of the electorate. 

Blank or disqualified ballots accounted for less than one percent of 

the total number cast. 

In accordance with the plebiscite statute, I promptly certified the 

outcome by means of letters directed to the President of the United 

States, the Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives, and the 

President of the United States Senate. 

Now, as governor of Puerto Rico, I welcome this opportunity, on 

behalf of the people of Puerto Rico, to come before you personally 

for the purpose of extending a most cordial invitation, coupled with 

a request for action. 

I respectfully invite you to deliver a response-a clear and direct 

response-to the Popular Party's plebiscite propositions. I heartily 

endorse your decision to convoke this joint hearing, because I believe it is right, proper and extremely constructive that the Congress of the United States convey to the people of Puerto Rico its 

reaction to the proposals which a plurality of our voters endorsed 

in an act of democratic self expression on that Sunday, November 

14. 

I therefore invite you and urge you to examine those propositions 

carefully, and then to inform the people of Puerto Rico of your response to each and every item of the Popular Party's plebiscite 

menu-clearly and directly, one by one. 

We respectfully request of these subcommittees that they inform 

the Puerto Rican people by responding to the following questions 

raised by the Popular Party definition of "commonwealth": 

Is Congress willing to affirm that our United States citizenship, 

which was conferred upon Puerto Ricans by Congress in 1917, is 

and shall always be irrevocable (not only for today's generations, 

but for generations to come), regardless of the nature of any future 

changes in the island's political status and relationship with the 

United States? 

Will Congress affirm that, as a "free associated State", Puerto 

Rico possesses "fiscal autonomy", defined as our total exclusion 

from involuntary Federal taxation in any form and under any circumstances? 

Is Congress prepared to affirm that Section 936 will be "reformulated" back into what it was prior to 1993, when Congress enacted 

significant amendments to that highly controversial component of 

the United States Internal Revenue Code? 

Is Congress prepared to affirm that SSI (the supplemental security income program) will be extended to Puerto Rico on the same 
33 

tenns that apply to all of the States, without any corresponding 

participation by Puerto Rico in sharing the Federal tax burdens 

that are borne by the States? 

Is Congress prepared to affinn that Federal funding for nutritional assistance in Puerto Rico will be apportioned utilizing the 

same criteria that apply to States of the Union, again without 

Puerto Rico having to share any of the corresponding Federal tax 

burdens that are borne by the States? 

Is Congress prepared to affinn that, in addition to coffee, other 

Puerto Rican agricultural products will be afforded special protection from outside competition even in the context of the North 

American Free Trade Agreement? 

And finally, will Congress consent to the ratification of a "bilateral pact" between Puerto Rico and the United States that "cannot 

be altered except by mutual agreement" and which entails the abdication by Congress of the plenary powers over Puerto Rico that 

are explicitly invested in Congress by the territorial clause of the 

United States Constitution? (Article 4, section 3, paragraph 2). 

Each and every item on the preceding roster of requisites was 

presented to the Puerto Rican electorate by the Popular Party as 

an integral component of that party's commitment in the event 

that the "commonwealth" or "free associated State" alternative prevailed in the 1993 plebiscite. 

Well, albeit by a very narrow plurality, "commonwealth" did prevail. But the Popular Party did nothing about implementing its 

commitment so the ball has now been on your side of the court for 

23 months; 23 months during which the other side of the court has 

been vacant. You have exhibited extraordinary patience. 

At this point, my recommendation is that you wait no longer. Hit 

the ball back. Tell the proponents of "commonwealth"-the "free associated State"-exactly where they stand. 

They need to know; all of us need to know. Puerto Rico has grappled, generation after generation, with the shadowy specter of cosmetic compromise on the fundamental issue of self-determination. 

We know and you know that independence is an internationallyrecognized alternative that endows a people with authentic sovereignty as a separate country within a global community. 

We know and you know that full membership in the American 

family, as a state of the Union, is an internationally-recognized, 

dignified alternative that endows a people with shared Federal and 

State sovereignty under a banner of freedom and individual liberty: 

a banner of freedom and individual liberty that is the envy of the 

world, precisely because it symbolizes a society that for all of its 

history has been enriched and strengthened by the immense diversity of its people; people who, although they can trace their origins 

to every corner of our planet, are nevertheless proudly and gratefully united by the principles of true equality that were courageously embraced by the Founding Fathers of this precious land. 

There is nothing mysterious about independence and statehood. 

Only the so-called "commonwealth" inexorably plunges friend and 

foe alike into a bottomless quagmire of indefinition. Only the socalled "commonwealth" poses riddles within riddles, and asks how 

many special concessions can dance on the head of a pin. 
34 

If you are able to unscramble all the riddles into something that 

makes coherent sense, then you will be able to respond affirmatively to my seven questions, the seven questions that are raised 

by the Popular Party plebiscite definition of "commonwealth". 

If you believe, as I do, that 97 years of peaceful struggle and 78 

years of patriotic American citizenship are more than enough to 

prepare a United States territory for permanent self-definition, 

then by all means, tell us that. And if you do tell us that, may your 

words be accompanied by action; may you do one more thing, one 

very important thing. I urge you to reaffirm the long-standing commitment of the Congress of the United States to Puerto Rican selfdetermination; reaffirm that commitment by formally advocating 

that self-determination be exercised without delay in a permanently definitive manner. 

What I have in mind is a government-to-government dialog, initiated by Congress, to arrange for the holding of a federally mandated plebiscite which will offer reality-based self-determination 

options that are unquestionably and emphatically acceptable to 

both Congress and to the White House. 

As I conclude with that simple request which is eminently reasonable and firmly grounded in the democratic principles and values to which I alluded at the outset; as I conclude with that request, allow me also to express on behalf of the people of Puerto 

Rico my most sincere appreciation for your interest, your concern 

and your statesmanship. 

The people of Puerto Rico await your response. Thank you very 

much. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Rossell6 can be found at the end 

of the hearing.] 

Mr. BURTON. Thank you, Governor. Let me start off the comments and questioning by saying that we appreciate your very eloquent remarks. 

I was in San Juan about six months ago, and I gave a speech 

regarding this issue. We talked about a lot of other things, but 

statehood was one of the issues . . Section 936 was part of my discussion, and I said during the 

speech that 936 in all likelihood will be phased out by the Congress 

of the United States over a period of time, and we will try to do 

it in a manner that is as equitable as possible to make sure that 

companies that employ Puerto Rican Americans do not leave the island. 

However, since that speech was made, the fact is that the Senate 

Finance Committee and the House Ways and Means Committee 

have taken steps to phase out the 936 program, and so the questions that you raised during your remarks are very valid. 

The fact is that we have a huge budget deficit in the United 

States of America. If we don't get control of that budget deficit, in 

all likelihood, we are going to pass on to our children and our 

grandchildren and our posterity a debt so great that they will 

never be able to dig themselves out. 

So we have made a commitment to the American people and the 

people of Puerto Rico that we were going to balance the budget 

over a seven-year period, and that is one of the real bones of contention in this Congress during this debate that is taking place 
35 

right now. I believe that the American people want a balanced 

budget, so that commitment is one that I think will have to be 

kept. 

All the questions that you raised are very valid. The question of 

benefits without taxation and the question of tax credits to keep industry in Puerto Rico, are going to be addressed by the Congress, 

not because we want to put any pressure on Puerto Rico, but because of fiscal necessity. We have to take steps to get our fiscal 

house in order. 

I think your talk was very well thought-out. 

Let me just ask you if you could comment one more time before 

I yield the floor to my colleagues about the issues raised in the status definitions. I read these several times. One definition was the 

status of equal political dignity based upon the permanent union 

between Puerto Rico and the United States. That is kind of vague. 

Commonwealth guarantees irrevocable U.S. citizenship, common 

market, and common defense with the United States; and then the 

reformulation, which I don't understand, of Section 936 ensuring 

creation of more and better jobs; extending the Supplemental Security Insurance (SSI), to Puerto Rico; and obtaining nutritional assistance program allocations equal to those received by the States. 

All of those things you addressed in your speech, but if you 

would like to make any further comments during my time, I would 

appreciate it. 

Mr. RossELL6. I think what is important here is that Congress 

responds to that definition which again, I must emphasize, was totally, voluntarily adopted by each of the parties. 

I think it is important to know, for example, if Congress is willing to abdicate its powers over the territories, and in particular, 

over Puerto Rico, by renouncing the powers it obtains through the 

Territorial Clause. 

I think it is important also that Congress respond to what was 

presented to the people of Puerto Rico as an intention of going back 

to pre-1993 936 section dispositions; that is, a full, 100-percent income-based credit, which is essentially historically what 936 has 

been. 

Mr. Chairman, I think that I want to express that the people of 

Puerto Rico are totally in agreement with the very difficult effort 

that Congress is doing to try to balance the national budget. We 

also want to participate in that by affording our share. 

What we are saying in terms of the redefinition of mechanisms 

is that they should be directed at job creation and not necessarily 

an instrument which 936 has been which promotes more corporate 

earnings than it does job creation, and in that sense, if Congress 

is willing to go back to the era prior to 1993 and say that it is willing to respond positively to the Popular Party's commitment that 

a full 936 program be in place, if Congress is willing to do that, 

say so. 

My guess i& that Congress will be not willing to do that, and I 

think it is important for Congress to express whatever its position 

is clearly to each one of those points in the Popular Party's definition of what they told the people of Puerto Rico commonwealth 

would be. 
36 

Mr. BURTON. I believe that ,the current Congress is on a course 

toward making sure that benefits are paid for as much as possible 

by the recipients of the States or the territories in question, so I 

think there is going to be a change in attitude. 

At the same time, we are very much aware of the need for economic stimulus and economic growth. Free trade zones and things 

like that are ideas that I think that we would try to incorporate 

into our thinking to make sure that jobs stay in Puerto Rico, that 

the economy expands, and that there is economic growth. 

As for benefits without taxation and benefits without responsibil- ity for the territories, I think that you are going to see a change, 

simply because of the fiscal questions that we raised already. 

Mr. Faleomavaega. 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I certainly 

want to thank the Governor for his statement, which was very comprehensive. Governor, I am absolutely certain that )"OU are quite an astute 

observer of how Congress operates here in Washington, DC. 

Every two years, we have a new Congress, and as you well know, 

the current Con~ess is not bound by whatever the previous Congress has done. Every two years, one-third of the Members of the 

U.S. Senate are up for re-election. Every four years, we have a 

presidential election, and one of the complications, and I will be 

very blunt with you, Governor, on this very important issue, is the 

fact that over the years, whether it be Democratic or Republican, the fact of the matter is that presidential partisan elections have 

always been one of the most difficult situations in making a real 

firm determination of Puerto Rico's situation. 

I say this sincerely. Whether it was a Democratic or a Repub- lican president sitting in the White House, the fact of the matter 

is, there is the politics here in Washington. Whether or not the 

Puerto Rican people like it or not, the fact is that we have the poli- tics here in Washington to determine in a very partisan way how 

these new U.S. Senators and the six Members of Congress are 

going to relate. 

We don't know what is going to happen in the future, but I am 

saying that this is a matter of fact that has always been a very difficult situation for the Puerto Rican people, the fact that whatever 

determination you might come up with, whatever direction the 

wind blows, if I might suggest in this instance, this has been one 

of the very difficult situations for the people of Puerto Rico because 

of what happens here in Washington. I don't say that I accept this 

kind of thing, but this is the fact, and I wish that there was a solution to this. 

As you well know, now, one of the candidates running for president, wrote an article right on the eve of the presidential election 

very much contrary to the wishes of those who may want to pursue 

statehood, and I am not going to mention names, but the fact is 

that presidential elections do have a tremendous impact on deciding the fate of the Puerto Rican people, and that is sad. 

I just wanted to share that concern with you. Thank you, Mr. 

Chairman. 

Mr. RossELLO. I appreciate what you are saying. We are all very 

much aware that there are political factors and concerns involved. 
37 

Puerto Rico does not have the luxury that maybe Alaska and Hawaii did of neutralizing that political weight by saying that one 

State would come in as a democratic State; the other would come 

in as a Republican State, but I think that granted that is a consideration, that is a real consideration, we would hope that the basic 

question is responded to. 

If again-and some of our political adversaries in Puerto Rico say 

that statehood would not be granted-well, if that is so, again, say 

it. That is what we are here about. 

If Congress is willing to adopt that definition of commonwealth; 

say it. If it is not, also say it, so in a sense, if we can get back to 

fundamentals, to basics, so we can deal with the political implications. I think that is a minor problem. 

I don't know how we will resolve it, but it is a minor problem, 

and as a matter of fact, I think from a political point of view, if 

the parties are perceived as -being supportive of Puerto Rico's statehood, I think that will be a factor as to how Puerto Rico will be 

voting eventually as far as national parties are concerned, so those 

are all very iffy propositions, very real, but again, I would like to 

focus on what I think is fundamental, which are the rights of U.S. 

citizens, if they decide to join the union, whether this Congress is 

going to support that or not. 

Mr. BURTON. I don't think the answer to the political question 

would be three, three, and one and one. The delegate from Puerto 

Rico. 

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

congratulate the Governor on his very comprehensive statement, 

and I think it was very, very articulate and very well presented. 

I don't want to ask any questions, because if I do, they might 

seem to be self-serving questions, so I think I will let my other colleagues ask the questions. 

Mr. UNDERWOOD. Thank you. 

Mr. BURTON. Further questions? Mr. Underwood, I believe you 

were first. 

Mr. UNDERWOOD. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you very 

much, Governor, for an excellent presentation. 

I am struck a little bit by your remarks regarding the Territorial 

Clause, and in a sense indicating-and I don't want to get into the 

debate of whether Puerto Rico is covered by the Territorial Clause 

or not, but certainly, in the case of small territories, it is. 

I am concerned by why is it not possible or why would the people 

not think it , possible that under the current political climate here 

in Washington, DC, where we talk about that devolution and the 

reduction of Federal authority over areas, and talking about moving power away from Washington and back to local jurisdictions, that why couldn't the Territorial Clause, which has always been 

seen as a way to maintain Federal authority in Washington, if Congress uses the Territorial Clause for that purpose, it is not conceivable that Congress can use the Territorial Clause for other purposes such as instituting a regime of devolution in terms of Federal 

and territorial relations? 

Mr. RosSELLO. Of course. I agree totally with that, but it has to 

be an explicit decision and explicitly communicated. If we are here 
38 

under the concept that Congress has renounced or abdicated to 

that, please say so. 

I think that all the court decisions support what I think is the 

fact that Puerto Rico and all the territories are bound under the 

Territorial Clause. That is what I think. 

I also agree with you that if Congress voluntarily says we will 

renounce, abdicate to our plenary powers as the Constitution says 

over the territories, it can certainly do that, but it has to say it. 

It is not implicit, and I agree with you that out of that, many 

different alternatives can be valid, and if the United States Congress says OK, we will not exercise our plenary powers over X-territory, they can do that and they can get a free associated State 

which could be under a pact, but say it. 

Mr. UNDERWOOD. I don't think it would necessarily require a 

statement, and obviously, Members of Congress will disagree, and 

I don't think it would require a statement that Congress necessarily abdicate its authority, and I don't think it can abdicate it, 

but I think it can, through legislation, modify it, and certainly, that 

is part of the process that at least for the smaller territories, offers 

the best alternative in terms of dealing with Federal territorial relations. 

Mr. Chairman, I was touched also by the comment you made 

about benefits and taxation. I would submit that there is a triad 

there. It is not just benefits and taxation. There is also representation, so the three elements kind of all work together, and the representational angle, of course, is the precise nature of the government relationship. 

This is an issue, of course, that touches the territories very deeply. I don't want to have people leave the impression that somehow 

or other, we are acquiring benefits without taxation, because even 

the American Revolution wasn't fought over no benefits without 

taxation; it was fought over no taxation without representation, 

and so those three things kind of have to work in tandem. Thank 

you. 

Mr. BURTON. Your point is well made. Mr. Kildee. 

STATEMENT OF RON. DALE E. KILDEE, A U.S. 

REPRESENTATIVE FROM MICHIGAN 

Mr. KlLDEE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Governor, as Chairman 

of the House Subcommittee in K-12 Education, which I held prior 

to this Congress for a number of years, I always tried with great 

difficulty to make sure that my bills treated the Puerto Rican people very fairly, and Governor Romero-Barcelo here was always trying to get amendments on Title I of ESEA to achieve that. 

I am always concerned that when Congress considers legislation 

affecting Puerto Rico, it often does so without proper input from 

the Puerto Rican people, because as much as Governor RomeroBarcelo has tried, he doesn't have a vote here, and very often, we 

don't seek out as well as we should proper input from the Puerto 

Rican people. 

But I am also concerned about this whole issue of proper input 

from the Congress of the United States when we consider a plebiscite down there. It is very important to me that whatever the people of Puerto Rico decide, and I certainly would support enthu-
39 

siastically whatever the people would decide there in Puerto Rico, 

I want to make sure that they fully understand the effect and consequences of their choices. There are pluses-you can argue pluses 

or minuses for the various statuses. What role can Congress play to help bring about a better understanding of the consequences of those various choices? 

For example, can Congress be expected realistically to say that 

we may change the Jones Act, that we change or delete Section 

936, that we may change the law on SSI, or that we may change 

Title I of ESEA? 

Is there a role for Congress to play in helping the people of Puerto Rico understand the consequences of the three options that are 

generally presented? 

Mr. RosSELLO. I think that Congress could have a crucial role in 

defining the options. This is a decision that, as I see it, because 

Puerto Rico was ceded under the Treaty of Paris in 1898, because 

of the Territorial Clause that we have been talking about, that this 

is yes, a decision of the people of Puerto Rico, but it is also, yes, 

a decision of Congress. 

Congress has to direct what the acceptable alternatives are, and 

I must say that in the period of 1989 to 1991, Congress attempted 

to do that. Unfortunately, the end result was not forthcoming. But Congress can say within broad parameters what it is willing 

to accept as a reasonable alternative of status for Puerto Rico, be 

it under independence, be it under commonwealth or statehood or 

any other status option. 

I think instead of going through something that brings us to this 

day where each one of the parties can build its own definition, and, 

although I accept full responsibility for that decision, I think it was 

not the correct one. I assume full responsibility, but Congress can 

definitely be crucial in defining reality-based alternatives for the 

people of Puerto Rico so that when they are voting, they are not 

voting for some pie-in-the-sky solution that one of the parties created to its own liking, but it is voting on alternatives that Congress 

has set that are valid. 

These do not have to go down to the detail, but they are the general parameters for a process. As Congressman Torricelli said, this 

would begin a process where Congress says, choose between these 

alternatives. Generally, this is what they mean, and then come and 

let us sit down and let us go down to the specifics. I think the role of Congress can be crucial in really putting an 

end to what has been an almost century-old struggle in Puerto 

Rico. 

Mr. KILDEE. Maybe that is something we could work on before 

the next plebiscite or referendum, because with all due respect, in 

reading this, each party kind of campaigned in their presentation 

and explanation of the consequences, and I understand that. I 

think you were generous in letting each party explain on the ballot 

what they felt the consequences of the various choices were. But perhaps in some way, if Congress could, with the concurrence of the people and the government of Puerto Rico make it 

clearer what the consequences were, that might serve a useful purpose. 
40 

Mr. RossELL6. Yes, and I think that there has been, as I mentioned before, a historical precedent where the three political parties in Puerto Rico petitioned Congress to do that, and the Congress went to great lengths to try to come up with a response. 

It almost made it, almost. 

Mr. KILDEE. Almost. 

Mr. RosSELLO. Almost made it, and I think it would not be a 

worthless effort to try again. 

Mr. KILDEE. I look forward to working with you and those who 

represent the other positions in Puerto Rico in trying to achieve 

something like that. 

Mr. ROSSELLO. Thank you very much. 

Mr. KILDEE. I appreciate your testimony. 

[The prepared statement of Hon. Dale E. Kildee follows:] 

STATEMENT OF HON. DALE E. KiLDEE, A U.S. REPRESENTATIVE FROM MICHIGAN 

Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you for holding this hearing this afternoon on an 

issue that I have been deeply involved with for many, many years. It is an issue 

that is of great importance to our Nation as well as the Puerto Rican people. Mr. Chairman, let me start off by saying that whether any Member of Congress believes in statehood, or commonwealth or independence, I believe it is critical that 

every Member recognize the moral and fiscal obligation we have to the people of 

Puerto Rico. 

When I was chairman of the House Subcommittee on K-12 Education, I always tried, with great difficulty, to make sure my bills always treated the Puerto Rican 

people fairly. I am concerned that when Congress considers legislation affecting Puerto Rico, it oftentimes does so without the proper input from the Puerto Rican 

people. I have listened to this debate for well over forty years, dating back to my days 

as a politically-active young man. I believe now, as I did then, that this is an issue 

that must ultimately be resolved by the Puerto Rican people. The Congress must certainly play a role in helping facilitate the process on resolving this issue-a process that must be both fair and honest. But in the end, the status of Puerto Rico should, in my view, be left to the will of the Puerto Rican people. Mr. Chairman, I look forward to working with you and the people of Puerto Rico 

to that end. Thank you. 

Mr. BURTON. Thank you, Governor. I just have one more brief 

question, and we will let you yield the floor. 

I gather from your remarks that you believe that the opposition 

Commonwealth Party, in particular, misrepresented these options 

to the Puerto Rican people during the process of the balloting. 

Mr. ROSSELLO. That is correct. 

Mr. BURTON. That is all I wanted to get clear. 

Thank you very much, Governor. We appreciate your remarks. 

Mr. RossELLO. Thank you. 

Mr. BURTON. Our next witness will be the Honorable Hector Luis 

Acevedo, the President of the Popular Democratic Party, and the 

Mayor of San Juan, with whom I had a nice visit just recently. Mr. 

Mayor, it is nice having you with us. 

You are recognized for ten minutes. 

STATEMENT OF HON. HECTOR LUIS ACEVEDO, PRESIDENT OF 

THE POPULAR DEMOCRATIC PARTY AND MAYOR OF SAN 

JUAN 

Mr. ACEVEDO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of both 

committees. 
41 

I come here as President of the Popular Democratic Party, which 

represented the commonwealth option in the 1993 plebiscite. As you know, that option won. We come here as a people, a 

proud people with its own history, its own language, its own culture enhanced over the centuries. A people that has struggled for 

over 100 years for greater self-government, democracy, and the enhancement of the Puerto Rican culture and values. 

I come here well aware of my people's reality, their virtues and 

their problems. My people are resilient. They have overcome military and colonial regimes. They have survived the application of 

benevolent and forced assimilation. They are proud of their language, even though at one point in our history, our children were 

taught in a language that was not theirs. 

I must state that today in Puerto Rico, Spanish is the language 

of instruction in our schools by the unanimous vote of our legislature. Today, Spanish is the language of instruction in our school by 

unanimous vote of all the legislators of different parties in Puerto 

Rico, including statehooders. 

I come here as part of a people that have struggled with the prejudice of the colonial mentality that thought that democracy could 

not flourish in the tropics, that our language was a patois and that 

we were not prepared for the progress and respect of any free man. 

I come here grateful to men of vision from the United States. 

These men, who were friends of Puerto Rico, have included Henry 

Croll; Theodore Roosevelt, Jr.; Rexford Tugwell; Harry S. Truman; 

Dwight Eisenhower; and John Kennedy. These men understood 

that there were alternatives in Puerto Rico to hunger, humiliation, 

or assimilation. 

Puerto Rico came to be part of the United States at the end of 

the last century. Since that time, the forces of our culture, an economy in need of development tools, and the forces of stability and 

migration had prevailed over the decades. 

The quest for an elected Senate and House, the quest for an 

elected governor, the quest for the creation of our own constitution 

and our own autonomy have been the great political developments 

of this century. 

To my understanding, Mr. Chairman, the Puerto Rican people 

cherish some fundamental values. 

First, our distinct cultural identity, not as a minority, but as a 

homogeneous and proud people; the American citizenship, a bond 

that is very much esteemed by our people; the desire for social justice and economic development that provides decent jobs and looks 

out for the less fortunate; the freedom of movement to travel to and 

from the United States without limitations; loyalty to democracy 

and the principal of equality of the human being. 

The last 50 years, Mr. Chairman, have seen a rapid development 

in the political, social, and economic conditions of Puerto Rico. When I was born 47 years ago, the average life expectancy was 48 

years of age; today, it is 74. There were then 10,000 university students in Puerto Rico; today, there are more than 160,000. The per 

capita annual income was less than $500 per year; today it is more 

than $6,000 per year. Few people owned homes; today, there is a 

higher home ownership rate than in the United States. 
42 

At the same time, two-fifths of our population live in the United 

States, most of them in very poor conditions, including part of my 

family. Our economy is still developing, however. We have only 46 

percent participation rate in the work force, versus 66 in the United States, and unemployment is around 15 percent. 

Almost one-third of our jobs are related to a production program 

of industrial incentives of which the now-threatened Section 936 is 

a vital part. We value and treasure every job we have. We have 

worked very hard with the help of the United States to provide decent jobs for our people in our land, so that we will no longer be 

forced to migrate to the United States, and in this respect, Mr. 

Chairman, commonwealth has served Puerto Rico well, for only 

under commonwealth are certain economic tools available to us. 

We want a culture of work, not of welfare. That is why we cannot 

understand how it is possible that this Congress moved to cut welfare, and at the same time, cuts the program that is responsible 

for almost a third of our jobs. In sum, Mr. Chairman, commonwealth has served Puerto Rico well, and my people want work. 

I am introducing and presenting to you at this moment more 

than 200,000 signatures from Puerto Ricans requesting of this committee and this Congress to give them work and not welfare, to respect the opportunities to find work in Puerto Rico, and to not condemn our people to migrate and to work and be on welfare without 

wanting to do so. 

It is therefore troubling to the Puerto Rican people when the 

Congress attempts to tear down that which Puerto Ricans themselves have worked so hard to build. The only answer has to be improvisation. The lack of a consistent Federal policy regarding Puerto Rico and its economic development greatly harms our people. 

We formally request from you today a program for enhancing 

what we have accomplished so far, not for impoverishing our people. We do not wish to become the poorest State of the union, and 

we don't want to impose a moral of economic or political will 

against our votes in Puerto Rico. 

We look to Congress for an economic development plan for Puerto 

Rico that gives continuity and predictability to our economy. We 

need an act for the economic development of Puerto Rico that takes 

into account our special circumstances, our competitiveness, our 

production costs all in relation to other jurisdictions. We request 

that you take no action against our incentives until you have the 

whole picture of the consequences of your actions and the realities 

of the alternatives. 

To subject the jobs and the quality of life of my people to improvisations of the moment is a great injustice and a disservice to 

the United States. 

The left hand cannot destroy what the right hand is constructing. 

The promise of a society of workfare cannot be constructed with actions that destroy jobs and eliminate incentives for investment. The 

true test of politics is not the amount of words, but the improvement in the life of the people who hear those words. In terms of political development, our road has been a rocky one. The normal tension between the concentration of power in Washington and in the States or Puerto Rico has been a continuous presence in our history. We see with great hope, as one member of this 
43 

committee explained, the movement of block grants and the limits 

on unfunded mandate as a welcome initiative that takes into account local initiatives and will promote a better understanding of 

our requests for autonomy. 

Let us talk about the plebiscite. In 1950 and 1952, this Congress 

and the voters of Puerto Rico in two referendums approved a process to enhance self-government and to approve the Constitution of 

the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico in the nature of a compact. 

The United States Government with a congressional delegation 

asked the United Nations in 1953 to withdraw Puerto Rico from 

the list of colonial dependencies, based upon the exercise of the will 

of the people of Puerto Rico and upon the existence of a bilateral 

compact. 

In 1967 and in 1993, different governments have called for plebiscites; the commonwealth option won both. 

Through 1989 and 1991, the political leadership of Puerto Rico 

of different parties jointly requested from Congress a plebiscite in 

which there would be a commitment by Congress to implement its 

results. That effort failed to produce a law, because there was no 

consensus in Congress for its approval. 

In 1993, the Governor and the statehood New Progressive Party 

unilaterally called for a plebiscite. They even: changed the date for 

the most partisan consideration. They called for it, got it, and lost 

it, and then they sabotaged the implementation, did not assign a 

single cent, opposed the creation of a presidential task force, and 

continued to propose statehood against the will of our people. 

The agenda of the commonwealth in that option is one that unified the efforts of Puerto Ricans. Throughout the year, different 

governments, statehooders, pro-commonwealth, have tried and won 

parity in most Federal programs. Former Governor Ferre, who is 

with us today, and another sponsor, and his Resident Commissioner initiated the effort for parity in the food stamp program. 

Governor Hernandez Colon and Commissioner Benitez got the final 

approval for the appropriation. 

What we are asking today was exactly what we had until 1982. 

We are not asking anything that we have not had before. 

Regarding the SSI, first, I call your attention that in Puerto Rico, 

we pay all the taxes of the Social Security Administration. In fact, 

my wife used to work in that administration. 

I call your attention, Mr. Chairman, that the Northern Marianas 

is participating fully in SSI since 1976, so what we are missing is 

the political and economic will and the time to produce the same 

results. 

This committee has a singular opportunity. It can take sides in 

the controversy or become a beacon of understanding. Great friendships, Mr. Chairman, depend on the understanding of basic differences. Thank you very much. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Acevedo can be found at the end 

of the hearing.] 

Mr. BURTON. Thank you. Mr. Mayor, I was reading your campaign literature when the referendum took place, and your party 

said that you would reformulate Section 936 ensuring creation of 

more and better jobs, and would extend Supplemental Security In-
44 

surance (SSI), to Puerto Rico, and would obtain nutritional assistance program allocations equal to those received by the States. 

You just said that your wife worked for the Social Security Agency down there. 

Mr. ACEVEDO. Not down there. Here in Washington. 

Mr. BURTON. Here in Washington, I am sorry. There are twenty 

thousand U.S. citizens in Puerto Rico and probably only a few hundred get SSI benefits, and what you are talking about doing is extending those SSI benefits to the entire island. 

What I would like to know is what your party meant when you 

said you would reformulate Section 936 ensuring creation of more 

and better jobs, and how you would extend SSI to the residents of 

the island without the taxation that is necessary to sustain those 

benefits. 

Mr. ACEVEDO. Let me take the two parts of the question, if I 

may. 

Mr. BURTON. Sure. 

Mr. ACEVEDO. First, I would say the following: the 936 program 

is part of the industrial incentive programs that will have been 

working in Puerto Rico in the last 50 years and have created a 

work force that now surpasses more than 1,000,000 persons working in Puerto Rico. 

We think those incentives, and I think that was the intention of 

Congress in 1993, even though the result may be the opposite, 

must be used to create as many jobs for the economy as possible, 

so the expression that we are making in that statement is to use 

that tool to the greatest available extent to create more jobs in 

Puerto Rico. 

As I mentioned in my statement, we still have a 15-percent unemployment rate in Puerto Rico. 2, 700,000 Puerto Ricans migrated 

to the United States and the labor participation rate in Puerto Rico 

is 20 percent below the United States. So what we were recommending there and asking the people is to give us a mandate 

to promote more jobs through the tools we have, and we find at 

this moment ourselves in a position that is untenable, we think, 

from the part of the United States. At the same time that they are taking welfare benefits and putting people, saying that if you are on unemployment benefits, you 

have to find work in two years, we have to promote jobs in the private sector, and the push for promoting jobs in the private sector 

have not been considered here. 

That is my request to you, very respectfully but very firm, that 

no action should be taken in Puerto Rico without seeing and evaluating the whole picture, because if not, what the left hand is trying 

to construct can be destroyed by the right hand. At this moment, 

that situation with 936 in which we are having taken one of the 

tools that provides almost a third of the jobs in Puerto Rico without 

any other alternative to promote economic development requires 

from these committees the initiative to look at the economic development of Puerto Rico in a comprehensive way. 

Regarding SSI, I stated to you, first, we pay Social Security taxes 

in Puerto Rico, because that law was approved by the Puerto Rican 

people at the initiative of Congress. Second, that other jurisdictions, like Northern Marianas, who do not pay income taxes, have 
45 

already that right in their covenant since 1976, and it is one of the 

aspirations of Puerto Rico to participate in that program progressively, if we had the participation in more than 90 percent of the 

Federal programs that apply to Puerto Rico. 

Mr. BURTON. SSI comes out of the general revenues and not out 

of the Social Security trust fund. 

Let me just make a couple of observations that you might want 

to comment on. Since the 936 program was started, we have spent 

about $3,000,000,000 on that program, and the manufacturing sector in Puerto Rico is around 100,000 jobs, approximately the same 

number today as when 936 was created back in the 1970's. 

Today, the unemployment figure in Puerto Rico is pretty close to 

the same figure that it was when 936 tax credits started, and the 

tax credits have increased by over 200 percent in the last 15 years. 

The final thing is that the moneys that are paid to employees 

from the companies in Puerto Rico under the 936 program primarily go to the higher income people, and not the lower income 

people. Is it, in your opinion, cost-effective for the 936 program to 

be there, especially in view of the fact that there has not been an 

increase in employment among the 936 companies in the past 

seven or eight years, and the unemployment rate remains pretty 

constant? 

Mr. ACEVEDO. First, let me state that the jobs in the 936 sector 

and the income do not go to the higher income people. They are the 

middle class of Puerto Rico. Second, the manufacturing industry in 

Puerto Rico is exactly the most important factor in our private sector economy. 

For every job that we have in the manufacturing industry, what 

they call the reproductive factor of other jobs, the multiplier effect 

is around two other jobs for every job we have in the manufacturing industry. It is the highest participation in the economy, and I 

will say the following. 

About six months ago, President Clinton and seven other great 

leaders of big countries in the world met to specifically study the 

creation of jobs in the industrial society. What has happened in 

Puerto Rico through obligation of congressional mandates, the 

labor-intensive industry has been progressively corning out of the 

United States and Puerto Rico, and if you look at the statistics, the 

same number of jobs do not represent the same people. 

The increment, we lost about 12,000 jobs in the labor-intensive 

area, and we want those 12,000 jobs in the high tech area, which 

the number, what we have to think is what will happen if we 

would not have had that alternative to Puerto Rico. It is hot 

116,000 jobs. It is all the other jobs that are related to that type 

of manufacturing industry. 

So it is a multiplier effect. Forty percent, 42 percent of our gross 

national product comes from the manufacturing sector in Puerto 

Rico. Different in the United States, that is only 18 percent. So 

what happens to the manufacturing sector in Puerto Rico has more 

than twice the effect that it has in the United States. 

Here in the States and in Europe the manufacturing sector has 

stabilized itself because of mechanization, and that is why, if you 

maintain the same number of employment, it is because you have 
46 

invested more, because to maintain a manufacturing employment 

now is different from what has happened in the last 20 years. 

Mr. BURTON. Let me just make one real brief follow-up comment, 

with the consent of my colleagues. 

According to a study by the General Accounting Office, high income, not high employment and investment is what the current 

Section 936 tax credits rewards through tax exemptions; so we are 

talking about higher income, and it is not really helping with high 

employment. 

The study also showed that if 936 was phased out in an orderly 

way over a period between five and ten years, that the loss of jobs 

would be minimal, and that many of the companies (should a company choose to leave, which we think many companies would not, 

because they have infrastructure there), would be taken up by 

smaller companies that would end up being their subcontractors or 

subsidiaries. 

This is not just my opinion. This is a study that was done by 

GAO. 

Mr. ACEVEDO. Well, first, I would like to say that I would like 

to invite the Chairman while visiting Puerto Rico to visit the manufacturing industry and to see if the higher income people are the 

ones that benefit from those jobs. Anyone that has gone to Puerto 

Rico and not made a study just in Washington knows that the people that work in our manufacturing industry are not higher-income 

people. 

Second, I would like to say that in the studies that this Congress 

made for the plebiscite, the numbers of jobs lost because of statehood provided that 936 will be out was a great number. Some of 

our studies calculated from 90,000 jobs; others, 145,000 jobs. I don't 

know which numbers are accurate, because they are studies by a 

congressional research service and Gallup that are not my studies, 

and the numbers are quite different for obvious reasons. 

Mr. BURTON. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Mr. Faleomavaega. 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Mr. Mayor, I thank you for your statement. 

I just wanted to ask you as I know in the heat of the campaign 

or during the plebiscite, commentaries were made by the respective 

parties that were pursuing whatever status that they were pursuing, and I just wanted to ask for your response to the statement 

about the promises, if there were any, that were made by the commonwealth status, but can you respond to the Governor? 

Mr ACEVEDO. I don't think this is the forum for responding to the 

Governor or any statement. I will, for the record, say the following. 

Every one of those statements represents the position of the government in terms of Puerto Rico or a possibility that has been already implemented in another jurisdiction. 

How is it possible that today some people would criticize us requesting parity for SSI, where Northern Marianas already has it, 

how is someone questioning today that we have parity in the food 

stamp program when we had that program implemented from 1976 

until 1982 with full parity in Puerto Rico, so we are not asking 

anything new here. 

All those statements are the position of the U.S. Government or 

this Congress like approving the Constitution and the Public Law 

600 and Public Law 447 of 1952 which was related to the approval 
47 

of the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, as it 

comes between the Congress and the United States and the people 

of Puerto Rico. 

I will say the following, that when you hear those persons who 

in their right have said that there are plenary powers regarding 

Puerto Rico, I challenge them to amend the Puerto Rican Constitution here, and we will take them -to court, because you cannot 

amend unilaterally the Constitution of Puerto Rico. That is part of 

a compact that was the position of the United States at the United 

Nations, including a congressional delegation, and the law is clear. 

It says in the nature of a compact, Law 447 says it is a compact 

between the people of Puerto Rico and the United States. 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. I would like to offer this as a statement or 

question that one of my colleagues of the subcommittee has asked 

me to ask this of you, and I am sure that you have the appropriate 

response. This is from Congressman Tim Johnson, and I just wanted to share with you his concerns about Section 936 of the IRS 

Code. 

Mr. Johnson comes from an agricultural State, and many farmers in his district have been forced to absorb cutbacks in Federal 

services and tax preferences as part of the Federal Government's 

efforts to reduce the deficit. He believes that his constituents have 

been forced to bear a very unfair proportion of these cutbacks, and 

this is one of the reasons why he is supporting the phaseout of Section 936. 

He has nothing against the effort~ to encourage development in 

Puerto Rico and certainly nothing against the people of Puerto 

Rico, but the fiscal realities facing the Country are such that it is 

going to require significant cutbacks for everyone. 

He states that many of his colleagues on both sides of the aisle 

have been seriously considering the validity of Section 936. You 

know the current efforts by the Ways and Means Committee to 

phase out Section 936 and I would like to ask your opinion of an 

enhanced, comparable status, can you shed some light on this in 

terms of how the commonwealth party--

Mr. ACEVEDO. Thank you very much for that question, because 

I would like to say that in the cuts of Medicare (and we pay the 

full share of Medicare), we are going to be cut on jobs, employment 

training programs, which the city of San Juan administered. We 

are going to be cut in the same way, so we are having the same 

cuts but at the same time, the way all those social benefits go are 

going to hurt Puerto Rico, and hurt it more than many societi~s, 

because we have a higher poverty rate than most other societies 

that are affected by that law. - At the same time, the tool for not being on welfare, for not being 

a part of that program of welfare, is the tool of creating employment. There is not a single initiative to create employment for 

Puerto Rico in that legislation, and at the same time, they are taking the main tool for the manufacturing sector of Puerto Rico. Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Mr. Mayor, I hate to cut you short on this, 

but because of my time, let me just add this to your concern, that 

to my knowledge, I think my district is the only other one, other 

than Puerto Rico, that relies very, very heavily on Section 936, and 
48 

the bottom line, Mr. Mayor, what will be the results of the Puerto 

Rican economy without Section 936 right now? 

Mr. ACEVEDO. I think we will lose thousands and thousands of 

jobs. People will start collecting unemployment benefits, which will 

raise the amount of benefit you will have to pay, so they are not 

going to save that money. Companies will start making new products outside of U.S. jurisdiction. 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Mr. Chairman, if I may because of my time, 

can I ask if you could submit for the record, please? I would be very 

much interested as to the impact of the termination of Section 936 

to the Puerto Rican economy. 

In other words, if the Congress will do this, whether it be a 

phaseout or a complete rescission of Section 936, what impact will 

it have on the economy? 

Mr. ACEVEDO. I will do that. Thank you. 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, thank you. 

Mr. BURTON. Mr. Romero-Barcelo. 

Mr. ROMERO-BARCELO. Mr. Mayor, welcome. Mr. Mayor, first of 

all, I would like you to tell me, when you said in the plebescite ballot that guaranteeing our progress and security as well as that of 

our children within the status of equal political dignity based on 

the permanent unity between Puerto Rico and the United States 

encompassing a bilateral pact that cannot be altered except by mutual agreement, what did you mean by that? Does it mean the 

Commonwealth of Puerto Rico as it is now? 

Mr. ACEVEDO. Yes, sir. I believe that that would not be a selfserving question from the former Mayor of San Juan to the present 

Mayor. 

I would like to say the following. The process that has been established by Congress--

Mr. ROMERO-BARCELO. No, excuse me. I am not asking about the 

process. I am just saying, your meaning here, are you--

Mr. ACEVEDO. If I may answer the question, I will not interrupt 

any question, but I would like to give the answer, because if not, 

you can answer by yourself. 

Mr. ROMERO-BARCELO. No, all I want to do is guide the question 

so that you answer my question and not get on left field. You started by the process. 

Mr. ACEVEDO. I will answer the question the way I will answer 

my question. I respect that you make your question as the way you 

want to make your question. 

I will say that the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico was adopted in 

the nature of a compact between a status, what the law says that 

the United States and a congressional delegation went to the United Nations to say that this is--

Mr. ROMERO-BARCELO. Is 936 a part of that compact? 

Mr. ACEVEDO. Mr. Chairman, if he wants to answer for me, I 

don't have any problem, but I will not let anyone answer for me 

the questions that are asked for me, sir. 

You tell me if you want my answer or you want his answer. 

Mr. BURTON. Just let him answer the question, and then you can 

follow up with another question, Mr. Romero-Barcelo. 

Mr. ROMERO-BARCELO. Yes, I know that, but the only thing is 

that he is using the time. 
49 

Mr. BURTON. I will be lenient with you, Mr. Romero-Barcelo. 

Mr. ROMERo-BARCELO. OK 

Mr. ACEVEDO. It is not the first time that this has happened. 

I will say the following. The Commonwealth of Puerto Rico was 

done in the nature of a compact, voted by this Congress, subject to 

the approval of the Puerto Rican voters, and the United States 

went to the United Nations to request that we would be eliminated 

from the list of dependent territories, because we have acquired a 

new status based on a compact. That is the law of Congress and -haa-n~n re~aled at this time. 

I will say the following regarding the 936. The 936 law is a 1921 

law, as amended. That was before the Constitution of Puerto Rico 

and it was not, in fact, part of the compact in 1950 or 1952. It is 

a law by Congress that we have tried to use in the most productive 

way, and there are other laws that are approved by Congress without being part of the compact. 

Mr. RoMERo-BARCELO. So which is a fiscal autonoJl!y for Puerto 

Rico then? How can you have fiscal autonomy if the Congress has 

authority to tax the companies that do business in Puerto Rico? 

How can you offer fiscal autonomy, which fiscal autonomy means 

that the people of Puerto Rico have the authority and the sovereignty regarding their fiscal matters, which includes income tax? 

Now, the 936 you say is not part of the compact. That means 

that the government of the United States can tax those companies 

in Puerto Rico, doing business in Puerto Rico, receiving profits and 

revenues in Puerto Rico. 

How can there be any fiscal autonomy? How can you offer the 

people of Puerto Rico any fiscal autonomy when there is none? 

Mr. ACEVEDO. Well, if that is your conclusion, there is no question. 

I will say the following. We have the fiscal autonomy to tax in 

Puerto Rico and Federal income tax does not apply to Puerto Rico. 

I will answer the question, if I may, but if you are going to answer your own question, then I will not answer anyone, because 

that is losing--

Mr. ROMERO-BARCELO. The thing is that you are making statements that are not correct. 

Mr. ACEVEDO. If you want to have testimony, you can have your 

tum, but please don't interrupt my answer, because I have not interrupted your question. 

Mr. BURTON. Let him answer. Mr. Mayor, go ahead. 

Mr. ACEVEDO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will say the following. 

The fiscal autonomy of Puerto Rico is regarding the income and the 

taxing authority of Puerto Rico to tax the resources in Puerto Rico. 

The 936 program is a program by Congress, first, to promote investment in certain islands to promote development. Second, when 

they repatriate their income to the United States, then they tax 

them. To eliminate or to create that program was a decision taken 

in 1921 in order to promote development tools, and today, the fact 

that we have persons here trying to kill that program instead of 

defending that program is one of the ironies of history. 

Mr. ROMERO-BARCELO. But you still haven't answered the question. You went to left field, you went for a walk, and you took--

Mr. ACEVEDO. I used to be a preacher. 
50 

Mr. RoMERO-BARCELO. Now, tell me, where is the fiscal autonomy? If the United States can tax income from Puerto Rico, there 

is no fiscal autonomy. If you tell that to the people, you are misleading the people of Puerto Rico. 

Mr. ACEVEDO. Well, I will not answer in the same way the question is made. 

I will say the following. Section 9 of Federal Relations Act says 

that all income tax laws of the United States will not apply. Obviously, that is not an income tax. That is a program of 936. That 

is a different program, as you know that, because you were governor of Puerto Rico. 

Second, the fiscal autonomy of Puerto Rico is the authority we 

have, first, not to pay income taxes and to dispose of our income 

according to our priorities. That is the autonomy that we have in 

Puerto Rico and that we are not willing to relinquish. 

That was the mandate of our people, that beat statehood in 1993, 

that beat the amendments to the Constitution in 1994, and that 

beat your primary elections less than a month ago. 

Mr. ROMERO-BARCELO. I hope that if you have any income from 

the United States that you filed a Federal income tax return; otherwise, you might have a problem. 

Mr. ACEVEDO. As you may know, I serve in the U.S. armed 

forces. I have been for almost 30 years, and I do file my tax return 

on Federal income, which they return to Puerto Rico as a credit of 

the taxes that I pay to Puerto Rico, and I pay more taxes than any 

other candidate for Governor. 

Mr. ROMERO-BARCELO. You paid or you have paid and any other 

candidate for Governor, because I pay more than you do. I pay 

much more than you do. 

Mr. BURTON. I'll be the judge of that. Let me see your income tax 

returns. 

Mr. Kildee. 

Mr. KILDEE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, I have 

had as friends three mayors of San Juan, and I give all three my 

blessing. I want to make that clear. I won't get involved in the last 

debate on that. 

Mr. Mayor, the debate on this issue, the status of Puerto Rico, 

will continue for some time, and in the meantime, the one sure 

thing that does exist is the commonwealth. 

Pending the determination of status, could you summarize for us 

what we can do to help the people of Puerto Rico within the commonwealth? 

Mr. AcEVEDO. One thing that is of extreme importance; that Congress and the executive share a coherent view regarding Puerto 

Rico. We find the lack of a consistent policy from the Federal Government and at the same time, our people-what may be a minor 

item in a bill here, like what I saw in the budget is a line, can be 

of direct impact to one-third of Puerto Rican jobs, so I think these 

committees can help and the executive, in providing an economic 

development program or an economic development act that takes 

into account the special circumstances of promoting development in 

Puerto Rico, taking into account the realities. 

You cannot have a one-size-fits-all. There are shoes that will not 

fit in different shoe sizes in different economies, and I think it 
51 

would be of great help if this committee and the executive branch 

put a consistent, permanent, and credible policy for economic development for Puerto Rico. 

That would be of great help, Congressman. 

Mr. KILDEE. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. BURTON. Mr. Mayor, thank you very much. It has been very 

entertaining. I have enjoyed being with you, and we will go to our 

next panel now. 

Mr. ACEVEDO. Thank you. 

Mr. BURTON. The next person to address the committees will be 

the Honorable Ruben Berrios-Martinez, President of the Puerto 

Rican Independent Party, PIP, and ranking Senator. Welcome, 

Senator. 

STATEMENT OF HON. RUBEN BERRIOS-MARTINEZ, PRESIDENT 

OF THE PUERTO RICAN INDEPENDENCE PARTY AND RANKING SENATOR 

Mr. BERRIOS-MARTINEZ. Mr. Chairman, members of the subcommittee, in 1989, the presidents of the three Puerto Rican political parties petitioned the U.S. Congress for Federal legislation to 

solve Puerto Rico's political status. 

I can still vividly recall my first meeting with Senator Bennett 

Johnston, then-chairman of the Natural Resources Committee regarding this matter. I told him, the real issue before all of us is 

whether the Puerto Rican nationality, which I compared then to a 

ship adrift in mid-ocean, should be steered toward separate sovereignty or toward statehood. 

That was the issue then, and that is the issue now. Years later, 

and in light of the ensuing congressional paralysis, Puerto Rico 

took up the suggestion made by several U.S. senators and held the 

1993 status referendum under Puerto Rican law. In that referendum, the absolute majority of the Puerto Rican people, 53 percent 

rejected statehood and petitioned the United States for one form or 

another of sovereignty for Puerto Rico. 

Of that absolute majority, 4.5 percent voted for independence, 

and a plurality, 48.9 percent for a free associated State, based on 

a bilateral pact with the United States. That is to say a juridical 

relation that cannot be altered unilaterally by Congress in the exercise of its powers under the Territorial Clause, a juridical relation that presupposes the recognition by Congress of Puerto Rico's 

sovereignty. 

It should not come as a surprise that many in Congress were 

thankful that statehood was defeated. Some, as you have heard 

here today, would have you believe that Puerto Rico's problem is 

one of civil rights or disenfranchisement, like that of the District 

of Columbia, but it is not. 

It is a problem of a different nature, of a different species. To the 

United States, Puerto Rico poses a problem not of individual rights, 

but of the collective rights of a people, of a right of a distinct nationality to govern itself in its separate and distinct homeland. 

Puerto Rico's problem is colonialism, and integration as a State 

could generate an explosive conflict of nationalities within the 

United States. 
52 

The dawn of the 21st century hardly seems the appropriate time 

to bring back literally from the dead the question of secession into 

the American political scene. Quebec, Ireland, Lithuania, Bosnia, 

Chechnia serve to underline the often unpredictable, sometimes explosive but always disruptive nature of nationality conflicts. One 

should not underestimate the power of ideas such as federalism; 

but blood, language, and land are closer to home. Senator Dole and 

Speaker Gingrich, in proclaiming the primacy of the English language as an indispensable, cohesive force in U.S. federalism have 

shown that they are well aware of thesedroblems. The fundamental issue for the Unite States as regards Puerto 

Rico is what type of juridical and political relation,!>hip Congress is 

willing to establish with a people who constitute a distinct nationality, who inhabit a distinct and separate territory, who speak a 

different language as you have well noticed here today, and who 

unanimously aspire to maintain their own identity. 

By rejecting statehood and favoring some form of sovereignty 

separate and distinct from that of the United States, Puerto Ricans 

have answered that question for you in a manner consistent with 

your best interests. As regards statehood, Congress should take no 

for an answer. 

That separate sovereignty is the correct alternative becomes even 

more evident now that Congress is on the verge of drastically altering or eliminating Section 936 of the U.S. Internal Revenue Code. 

Imagine, just imagine the post-936 scenario, as one of you questioned one of the people who sat here this afternoon. The post-936 scenario with two senators and six or seven representatives; Puerto Rico, already heavily dependent on welfare, 

would become a chronically depressed ghetto State, and its congressional delegation a permanent lobby for increased welfare payments as the only alternative to massive migration. 

What Puerto Rico requires is not more welfare, but more economic power and flexibility to develop wage, labor, investment, tax, 

and commercial policies that respond to our needs and not to those 

of the vastly different U.S. economy. Statehood, which demands 

uniformity, would permanently impair such possibilities. Only separate sovereignty can provide for such alternatives. Congress should face the Puerto Rican problem now, not in a 

piecemeal basis responding from one crisis to another as it is now 

doing in 936, but through an integrated, coherent response that is 

mindful of the long-term consequences of any such decision. 

How should Congress respond or go about such a task? Congress 

should legislate to offer a choice between a sovereign, noncolonial, 

nonterritorial free associated State and independence, an inalienable right which therefore must always be present as an option. I 

remind Congress that only two years before the Declaration of 

Independence, George Washington was still saying that, "Independence is not desired by any thinking man in North America." That 

was in 1774. We propose the creation of a joint committee of the U.S. Congress to draft the terms and conditions both for independence and 

for a bilateral pact between the United States and the free associated State of Puerto Rico in accordance with applicable principles 

of international law and the. U.S. Constitution. Mter due consulta-
53 

tions, the legislature approval through a fast-track process, would 

constitute the U.S. offer. The people of Puerto Rico would then vote 

on the form of separate sovereignty of our choice not later than 

July 25, 1998. A full century of U.S. colonialism is more than 

enough, both for the colonizer and the colonized. 

I must also point out that the outcome of this proposal would 

constitute a very solid basis for the development of a policy for the 

U.S.-Caribbean relations, one of the principles of which should be 

that intimate economic relations must not imply cultural and political assimilation. 

Under statehood, Puerto Rico would never be seen as a bridge 

between the Americas. Puerto Rico would more likely be perceived 

as an American Trojan Horse in the midst of Latin America, a permanent extension of the U.S. border into the Caribbean. 

Finally, let me add that whatever specific course Congress may 

decide to take, above all, it should speak clearly to the Puerto 

Rican people regarding the status of Puerto Rico. As Patrick Moynihan said on the Senate floor a few years ago, "The fundamental 

issue is whether Puerto Ricans want to become Americans, or 

whether they want to retain their separate identity." 

In light of the Senator's most accurate description of reality, you 

should make clear the evident conclusion that as long as Puerto 

Ricans are Puerto Ricans with their distinct identity and language, 

Congress as a body cannot seriously consider statehood. 

Furthermore, Puerto Ricans should be told the truth concerning 

their present status, that commonwealth is a colonial status, an 

unincorporated territory, and that Congress could only enter into 

a bilateral pact with a separate sovereign body politic. 

If Congress fails to speak clearly, the result will be the continuation of colonialism by inertia, and tomorrow or the day after, you 

may have to face an embarrassing statehood petition, not because 

Puerto Ricans will want to become Americans, but because dependence and subordination will surely take its toll. 

The solution to the Puerto Rico status problem is within your 

grasp. There may be other procedural alternatives to the one we 

have proposed today, but in the long run, they will respond to the 

same interests and realities I have analyzed. 

The end result will undoubtedly be the same, an inevitable 

course toward separate sovereignty, but the process will surely be 

more painful and costly. 

Congress finally should do well to heed some very sound advice 

from William Shakespeare many centuries ago. He said, and I repeat today: _ 

There is a tide in the affairs of men Which taken at the flood leads on to fortune 

Omitted, all the voyage of their life 

Is bound in shallows and in miseries. 

On such a full sea are we now afloat 

And we must take the current when it serves, 

Or lose our ventures. 

Thank you very much. 

[The prepared statement of Senator Ruben Berrios Martinez can 

be found at the end of the hearing.] 
54 

Mr. BURTON. Thank you. I appreciate the Shakespearean quote 

there at the end. I haven't been reading Shakespeare for a while. 

I am a big fan of Henry V, and if you like, I will give the last soliloquy he gave before the battle with the French, but I won't get into 

that right now. 

Mr. BERRIOS-MARTINEZ. Go ahead. 

Mr. BURTON. It is a great soliloquy. It is one of the greatest in 

the English speaking language. I just thought I would throw that 

in as an aside. If you have a chance to read it sometime, I think 

you will appreciate it. 

Mr. BERRIOS-MARTINEZ. I have read it. 

Mr. BURTON. Let me ask you just three quick questions. Are you 

advocating that if Puerto Rico became independent, the Puerto 

Rican-American citizens should give up their citizenship? 

Mr. BERRIOS-MARTINEZ. No, I am not advocating that. If you 

want to know the opinion of my party regarding U.S. citizenship 

for Puerto Rico? 

Mr. BURTON. I don't understand. If they become an independent 

nation, how can they be citizens of the United States? 

Mr. BERRIOS-MARTINEZ. No, I am not the one advocating that. It 

is the U.S. Supreme Court. The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled on 

that matter, and those citizens who were born citizens before the 

republic comes into a practice if Puerto Ricans so decide would remain as American citizens, not because Puerto Ricans want or 

don't want, but because the U.S. Supreme Court has said so. 

Mr. BURTON. I see. So they would still be eligible for all American benefits but be members of an independent country. 

Mr. BERRIOS-MARTINEZ. Like today, there are American citizens 

in France, in Italy, in Colombia, and they are available for benefits 

from the United States. 

Mr. BURTON. I am not sure that is going to fly with the U.S. Congress, but that is an interesting concept. 

Now, regarding keeping the nationality, I don't think anybody in 

the Congress is advocating that people in Puerto Rico give up their 

heritage. I think English, though, is a required subject in all the 

schools. Am I correct? They have to have two years of English in 

addition to Spanish? 

Mr. BERRIOS-MARTINEZ. In Puerto Rico? 

Mr. BURTON. Yes. 

Mr. BERRIOS-MARTINEZ. I think more than two years of English. 

Mr. BURTON. So the fact of the matter is that English is a fluent 

language in Puerto Rico so that wouldn't be a problem. 

Mr. BERRIOS-MARTINEZ. No one in this Congress except ex-Governor Romero and the three congressmen could get elected in Puerto Rico without knowing Spanish. Seventy-five percent of the Puerto Ricans don't speak nor understand English. 

Mr. BURTON. Seventy-five percent of Puerto Ricans do not speak 

nor understand English? 

Mr. BERRIOS-MARTINEZ. After 100 years of colonialism by the 

U.S. 

Mr. BURTON. But it is a required subject in their education. 

Mr. BERRIOS-MARTINEZ. That is correct. You can imagine how 

they teach it and how they learn it. 
55 

Mr. BURTON. That is interesting, too. The Federal courts and all 

the Federal offices to which Puerto Ricans go when they have a 

problem are required to use English. 

Mr. BERRIOS-MARTINEZ. No, no. 

Mr. BURTON. They don't use English? 

Mr. BERRIOS-MARTINEZ. No, no. All the Federal offices in Puerto 

Rico except the Federal court use Spanish.-" 

Mr. BURTON. I am talking about U.S. Federal courts. 

Mr. BERRIOS-MARTINEZ. Yes, U.S. No, the U.S. Federal court 

aside, all the other, the Social Security office, for example---

Mr. BURTON. I know, but when they go to check on U.S. benefits 

in the U.S. offices in Puerto Rico, they all speak English there. 

Mr. BERRIOS-MARTINEZ. Oh, no. Everybody speaks in Spanish. 

Everybody speaks in Spanish everywhere in Puerto Rico. 

Mr. BURTON. That is not the information I received. In our offices 

down there, English is the language that is spoken. 

Mr. BERRIOS-MARTINEZ. You received incorrect information. 

Mr. BURTON. We are talking about in a court of record. 

Mr. BERRIOS-MARTINEZ. In the court of law, of course. There are 

translators when Puerto Ricans go there in the U.S. court. 

Mr. BURTON. Let me get back to one more thing. All students in 

all the schools are required to learn English, in addition to speaking Spanish as the main language 

Mr. BERRIOS-MARTINEZ. Spanish is not the main language; Spanish is the only language. 

Mr. BURTON. Yes, but they are required to learn English. 

Mr. BERRIOS-MARTINEZ. It is like bilingualism the other way 

around in Puerto Rico. 

Mr. BURTON. Axe they required to learn English in the educational system? 

Mr. BERRIOS-MARTINEZ. Oh, yes, they're required to teach English. That is correct. 

Mr. BURTON. Do you really believe that the Puerto Rican people 

would want to be independent if it involved the future generations 

not being U.S. citizens? 

Mr. BERRIOS-MARTINEZ. But of course. If I did not believe that, 

I wouldn't struggle for independence. 

I remind you of George Washington's quote. Fifty-three percent 

voted against statehood which is the only guarantee for that continued process. 

Mr. BURTON. I read those results, and I think I saw that 48 percent voted for commonwealth and 46 percent voted for statehood, 

and only four percent voted for independence. 

Mr. BERRIOS-MARTINEZ. That is correct. 

Mr. BURTON. I think you are adding some figures there that may 

not be clear. 

Mr. BERRIOS-MARTINEZ. What I am telling you, if I might comment, is that if people really believe that this statehood alternative 

were the correct alternative, they would have voted for statehood. 

The headline of the New York Times was statehood rejected, because it was rejected. 

Mr. BURTON. Mr. Faleomavaega. 
56 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to 

certainly say that Mr. Berrios-Martinez has not lessened his eloquence. 

Mr. BERRIOS-MARTINEZ. Thank you. 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Always. And I certainly appreciate your 

comments and the statement that you made this afternoon. 

Can you correct me for the record, if I understood your statement, in your honest opinion, both the options of statehood and 

commonwealth are colonial? 

Mr. BERRIOS-MARTINEZ. Excuse me, I couldn't get your question. 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. The two statuses, whether commonwealth 

or statehood, they are both colonial as far as you are concerned. 

Mr. BERRIOS-MARTINEZ. Present day commonwealth and statehood, yes. For me, they would be different variations in the theme 

of dependency. 

One would have Senate representatives, and the other one would 

not have Senate representatives. 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. What would be your best interpretation of 

the results of the 1993 plebiscite, Mr. Berrios-Martinez? 

Mr. BERRIOS-MARTINEZ. That is what my speech was about. My 

best interpretation would be that 53 percent rejected statehood, 

and the other two alternatives, one opted for independence, and 

one opted for a bilateral pact between the United States and Puerto Rico, and that presupposes a separate sovereignty, because if 

not, there couldn't be a bilateral pact. 

My best interpretation is that one form or another sovereignty 

triumphed in Puerto Rico by 53 percent of the vote. 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. So if I am correct in what you are saying, 

the options now before the Puerto Rico people should either be 

commonwealth or independence. Am I correct on that? 

Mr. BERRIOS-MARTINEZ. Commonwealth through a bilateral pact, 

not territorial, not the present day commonwealth, the commonwealth people voted for. 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. A more enhanced commonwealth, more 

independent. 

Mr. BERRIOS-MARTINEZ. A commonwealth with sovereignty and 

noncolonial, nonterritorial sovereignty. That is what the people 

voted for. That is not what Puerto Rico has now. That is what the 

Puerto Rican people voted for. 

Between that alternative and independence, after both have been 

offered and defined by the U.S. Congress, Puerto Ricans should 

vote, and I have said that if that doesn't happen now, it will happen tomorrow, because Congress will never accept statehood, because it is not convenient to the United States, so we might as well 

get the program out of the way now. 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Mr. Berrios-Martinez, I don't want to get 

into that. I just wanted to get your best opinion and judgment on 

this issue. 

Mr. BERRIOS-MARTINEZ. That is my opinion. 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. I like the way you have come up with the 

53 percent calculation, but I was just curious. In all honesty, we 

are very seriously trying to resolve this very difficult situation. I 

am sure that the proponents of both commonwealth and statehood 

would say otherwise, and the fact that your party received only 
57 

four percent independence, and if there is an option to be considered, then it should be between statehood and commonwealth, and 

that independence should be taken out. 

Mr. BERRIOS-MARTINEZ. I would just remind you that we have 

more votes than George Washington had two years before independence. 

Of course, because everyone was told for 100 years that independence would mean hunger, that it would mean enmity with the 

United States, where on the other hand, independence doesn't 

mean that. It means cordial relations between two sovereign nations. 

So we have more votes than we should have gotten after 100 

years of persecution and colonialism. 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. I am sure you will agree with me that there 

is no logic to plebiscites, but I just wanted to ask you, would it be 

most logical after the 1993 plebiscite that the decision that the 

Puerto Rican people should now make is either commonwealth or 

statehood? 

Mr. BERRIOS-MARTINEZ. Of course not, because people rejected statehood already. 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. But the fact of the matter is that your party 

received only four percent. I am just trying to see what would be 

the most reasonable option. 

Mr. BERRIOS-MARTINEZ. Yes, but the most reasonable option also 

says everywhere in the world, and international law is part of U.S. 

law, that independence is an inalienable right of a people, not of 

a group of individuals, but of a nation; of a people, and we are a 

nation, a people, like Chechnia, like Ireland, like Bosnia. 

We are a nation, and therefore, whenever you list the status, 

independence always has to be present according to international 

law, which is part of the supreme law of the land of the United 

States. 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Thank you, Mr. Berrios-Martinez. Mr. 

Chairman. 

Mr. BURTON. He is a heck of a debater, isn't he? Pretty good. Mr. 

Romero-Barcelo. 

Mr. ROMERO-BARCELO. Mr. Chairman, I want to correct the facts. 

I think more than 25 percent of the people in Puerto Rico speak English. 

I would say there are at least 40 percent that acknowledge that 

they speak English, say that they speak English, and there are 

about 25 percent more that speak English, but they are shy about 

speaking it, and they understand it. 

When we had the hearings in Puerto Rico for instance, the last 

hearings that we had, you would see just about eyerybody glued to 

the television, which was in English. 

Mr. BURTON. Would you yield on that point, briefly? 

Mr. ROMERO-BARCELO. Yes. 

Mr. BURTON. When I was down in Puerto Rico, I talked to some 

educators as well as some employees with the Chamber of Commerce, and they indicated that all the school students are required 

to learn English; and as time goes by, there will be a fluency in 

the vast majority of the population, although Spanish is the main 

langU.age. 
58 

Mr. RoMERO-BARCELO. As Mr. Berrios said, Spanish is our language; English is our second language. 

In the schools, English is required in every grade, not only for 

two years, but in every grade from first grade on. 

The problem was that we used to have an exchange program 

with teachers who used to come down to Puerto Rico. The generation before me, they all had a Mrs. Brown or a Mrs. Smith who was 

an English teacher. 

When the Popular Party won in 1940, they started doing away 

with this exchange program, and the teachers of English deteriorated in their capabilities. There were teachers who were teaching 

English that did not have the proper qualifications to teach English. They themselves did not know how to express themselves in 

English, and they carried that uncertainty to the students, and the 

English program suffered tremendously. 

We tried to strengthen it while I was governor, while Mr. Ferre 

who is here, while he was governor, he tried to strengthen the 

teaching of English, but then as administrations changed, things 

occur, then they change back. 

It is a game that has been played in the last decades, but there 

are more and more people speaking English, particularly in the 

commerce area and in business transactions, English is a language 

that is commonly used in Puerto Rico, and you find more and more 

of the professionals speaking English in Puerto Rico. 

Mr. BERRIOS-MARTlNEZ. Mr. Chairman, if I may comment a moment on this issue. I must say that Governor Romero-Barcelo refers to 40 percent, and I have referred to 25 percent or 30 percent. 

I must only point out that before I spoke here, the Mayor and 

President of the Popular Democratic Party, Hector Luis Acevedo, 

spent 30 years in the Army and belongs to the Puerto Rican educated elite. He is. a lawyer. He spoke English. You heard him. You 

have heard me. I have graduated from Georgetown, Yale, and Oxford, and I might say with quaint differences, we speak English 

particularly bad. 

That is the essence of English in Puerto Rico. 

Mr. ROMERO-BARCELO. I think that you speak English very well. 

You have construction and your grammar and everything is very 

good. You have an accent. So did Henry Kissinger, and people loved 

it. 

The fact that you have an accent doesn't make it any worse. 

Charles Boyer was famous because he had an accent, so there is 

no problem with having an accent. 

As a matter of fact, it can be attractive. Maybe you put some of 

it to work. 

Mr. BERRIOS-MARTINEZ. The thing is that Henry Kissinger came 

to the U.S. House. The Americans went to the Puerto Rican house. 

That is the difference. 

He came here, and the people here were home. 

Mr. RoMERO-BARCELO. I agree with that, but I think that when 

we come here, we should also learn English and try to be more proficient in English when we are here, because we are in their House, 

too. 

But just for the record, what was the result of the plebiscite in 

1967? I know it, but I just want it for the record. 
59 

Mr. BERRIOS-MARTINEZ. It was, I think, something like 60 percent for commonwealth. 

Mr. ROMERO-BARCELO. 39 percent for statehood? 

Mr. BERRIOS-MARTINEZ. That is right. 

Mr. ROMERO-BARCELO. And 1 percent for independence, but that 

is not fair, because independents boycotted the plebiscite. 

Mr. BERRIOS-MARTINEZ. Yes. 

Mr. ROMERO-BARCELO. And even though the statehood party boycotted, there was a substantial group of us that went out. 

Mr. BERRIOS-MARTINEZ. That is correct. 

Mr. ROMERO-BARCELO. And then in 1993, what was the result? 

Mr. BERRIOS-MARTINEZ. 48 point something. 

Mr. ROMERO-BARCELO. For commonwealth. 

MR. BERRIOS-MARTINEZ. 46 point something. 

Mr. ROMERO-BARCELO. For statehood, 46. 

Mr. BERRIOS-MARTINEZ. That is correct. 

Mr. ROMERO-BARCELO. And you would eliminate statehood as an 

option for the people of Puerto Rico. 

Mr. BERRIOS-MARTINEZ. I explained to you why I would eliminate 

it. That is my proposal, because the Puerto Rican people voted 

against statehood. 

There might be other procedural alternatives. I am proposing the 

procedural alternatives this Congress will come back to, because 

this Congress would never accept Puerto Rico as a State for the 

reasons I gave, so what I am--

Mr. ROMERO-BARCELO. Do you think we are less? 

Mr. BERRIOS-MARTINEZ. No, no. I think some Puerto Ricans 

think we are less, but I don't think we are less. 

Mr. RoMERO-BARCELO. Then why should they not accept us? 

Mr. BERRIOS-MARTINEZ. Because the United States has some national interests to look after, and they don't want to buy a national- ity's problem for themselves when they have been spared that problem. 

The United States has created out of many people one; the Puerto Rican people is a different people. It would be e pluribus doom 

not e pluribus unum, and that fight you fought more than 140 

years ago. That is why Puerto Rico will not be accepted as a State. 

But if Congress is willing to accept Puerto Rico as a State, they 

should say so. What I say is that I am convinced that whenever 

they are faced with the issue, they are going to say no for the same 

reasons I would say no, if I were American, but Congress should 

speak clearly before anything else, whatever the procedural alternatives, whether they include statehood or not, whether they in- clude commonwealth or not, Congress should speak clearly to the 

Puerto Rican people, and that, I think, we can agree on. 

Mr. BURTON. We are running way behind schedule, and the 

chairman has returned. I am going to turn the gavel back over to 

him for a while. 

Mr. GALLEGLY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Berrios-Martinez, 

I apologize for coming running in here at the 11th hour, and looking at the list we have remaining, the 11th hour is more like the 

first hour, so we appreciate you making the trek here to testify before the committee, and appreciate your patience, and we have sev2Q-766 - 96 - 3 
60 

eral other folks who we are going to be calling up now, so thank 

you very much. 

Mr. BERRIOS-MARTINEZ. I thank you very much for having listened with attention and respect, and I hope you attend to the advice of William Shakespeare before it is too late. 

Mr. GALLEGLY. The Honorable Luis Ferre, former governor and 

founder of the New Progressive Party. Welcome, Mr. Ferre. 

STATEMENT OF BON. LUIS A. FERRE, FORMER GOVERNOR 

AND FOUNDER OF NEW PROGRESSIVE PARTY 

Mr. FERRE. Good afternoon, Chairman Gallegly, Chairman Burton, and members of the committee. 

I am Luis A. Ferre, and may I offer a Solomonic answer to the 

question that has been hovering here just a short while ago about 

the percentage votes? Now, the statehood advocates, we had 46 

percent; the commonwealth had 48 percent; and the independent 

had 4 percent. But the commonwealth people want permanent 

union with the United States, so I think we should add them to the 

statehood group, because the only permanent union is statehood. 

I served as Governor of Puerto Rico from 1969 to 1973, and I appear before you on behalf of Puerto Rico's New Progressive Party 

which I founded in 1967. 

The quest for statehood has strong historical, political, and moral 

precedents. During the Spanish colonial regime, Puerto Rican patriots and citizens suffered great abuses and developed great enmity toward Spain. Coincidentally, Puerto Rico's trade with the 

United States, particularly sugar, was most important. As a result, 

Puerto Rican leaders became familiar with the democratic traditions of the United States and developed a great admiration for 

them, to the extent of even considering possible annexation. 

Cuba started its war of independence in 1895, and was joined by the United States when the latter declared war on Spain in 1898 

after the sinking of the Maine. The war was waged to gain independence for Cuba. 

The United States War Department considered it convenient to 

take advantage of the occasion to invade Puerto Rico and contrary 

to its intentions toward Cuba, to retain it because of its military 

significance to the defense of the United States interests in the 

Caribbean. It decided to do so, because it was well-informed of the 

favorable attitude of the Puerto Ricans toward the United States. 

American forces landed in Ponce on July 27, 1898, after the 

Spanish forces surrendered and retreated toward San Juan. American troops were welcomed enthusiastically by the citizens of 

Ponce, who lined the streets to cheer them, led by the Puerto Rican 

patriots who had suffered from the colonial abuses of Spain. Not 

a single shot was fired against the landing American troops. 

Upon landing, General Nelson Miles, who accepted the enthusiastic welcome published and distributed a proclamation which in 

part read, "Our military forces bring you the fostering arms of a 

free people, whose greatest power is justice and humanity to all living within their fold. They have not come to make war on the people of this country ... but on the countrary to bring protection, not 

only to yourselves, but for your property, promote your prosperity, 
61 

and bestow the immunities and blessings of our enlightenment and 

liberal institutions and government." 

This proclamation was considered by the political leaders and 

Puerto Rican people as a moral commitment by the United States 

that Puerto Rico would be accepted eventually as a State of the 

union, with the enjoyment of American citizenship. Accordingly, 

both the political parties that participated in the elections in 1900 

under the leadership of the two most important island leaders, 

Barbosa and Munoz Rivera, included statehood in their platforms. 

To the disappointment of the people of Puerto Rico, shortly afterwards, Congress enacted the Foraker Bill to establish the first civil 

government in Puerto Rico, which did not give U.S. citizenship to 

its inhabitants. It acted in contradiction to the established tradition 

of accepting territories only to become States, as per Judge Taney's 

dictU;m, keeping Puerto Rico in a political limbo. 

This unexpected action created great disappointment in the island; however the people of Puerto Rico did not lose confidence in 

the ultimate spirit of justice of the United States and persisted in 

what they believed was their right to become U.S. citizens, because 

of the moral commitment they understood which resulted from 

their acquiescence during the United States invasion and the promises made by General Miles on behalf of the United States. 

Congress finally approved the Jones Act of 1917, granting U.S. 

citizenship to the people of Puerto Rico. The people of Puerto · Rico 

considered this as a firm commitment to grant statehood as soon 

as a m~ority of its citizens should so request because statehood is 

a constitutional right of a U.S. citizen, and also a matter of civil 

rights. 

In what I consider was a mistaken effort to prevent Puerto Rico 

from paying Federal taxes and as a result of questionable constitutional considerations, the Supreme Court enunciated the theory of 

nonincorporated territory with respect to Puerto Rico, denying it 

the right of incorporation of acquired territories which had been 

traditionally established. 

This -distinction opened the way to the enjoyment of tax exemption which has determined the development of industry and business in Puerto Rico as a privileged location, based on advantages 

which could be arbitrarily altered or canceled by Congress. This 

condition of uncertainty has been a perpetual menace to our economic development as compared to the firm progress of State of the 

union, which is based on congressional legislation, common to all, 

on a sound basis of equal rights. 

This is why we have insisted in becoming a State to gain the stability that results from equal rights, with representation in Congress. We do not want privileges. We want equality, equality in our 

rights and equality in our duties. That is the way of American democracy in which we have been brought up to think and cherish. 

That is the only dignified position for an American citizen. 

Mr. Chairman, since I came back from college at M.I.T. to work 

in Puerto Rico in 1925, I have dedicated my life to the quest for 

statehood. 

In 1950, the U.S. Congress enacted Law 600 to authorize Puerto 

Rico to draft a constitution under the Territorial Clause in the 

manner of a compact. I was a member of the constitutional conven-
62 

tion. We drafted a constitution, which after approval by Congress 

and the President, went into effect in 1952. It clearly stated that 

Puerto Rico would be subject to the Federal Relations Act, which 

it was understood meant subject to the Territorial Clause of the 

constitution. 

But the leaders of the Popular Democratic Party began a series 

of moves to try to obtain a release from the Territorial Clause 

under a fait-accompli strategy, that tried to make Law 600 look 

like an irrevocable surrender of sovereignty by Congress and making the so-called Commonwealth of Puerto Rico a permanent status. As a result of these actions and the objections it raised, Congress decided to appoint a commission to look into the matter. We 

maintained the Popular Democratic Party was trying to deceive the 

electorate in Puerto Rico, claiming advantages for the commonwealth status over statehood that were clearly untrue and unconstitutional. It also affirmed that statehood would be economically 

catastrophic for Puerto Rico. 

These are the arguments and advantages that were incorporated 

by them in their definition of commonwealth in the ballot of the recent plebiscite, the subject of these hearings. 

In 1964, the United States-Puerto Rico Status Commission was 

created, and I had the privilege of being appointed on behalf of the 

statehood position. One of its conclusions reads, "Economic studies 

indicate that sustained economic growth under the present status 

and continuation of special economic arrangements will make 

statehood with adequate, but not extraordinary or unprecedented 

provisions for transition fully possible without severe risks." 

Following the recommendations of the Status Commission, a 

plebiscite was held in Puerto Rico in 1967 between independence, statehood, and enhanced commonwealth. The statehood forces rallied under my leadership and that of Mr. Romero-Barcelo, who is 

here with you today, and others, and we increased our voting 

strength in such a manner that four months after the plebiscite, we 

organized the New Progressive Party on the platform of statehood 

and won the 1968 election. As a result, I was elected Governor 

after 28 years of uninterrupted Popular Democratic control. 

The growth of the statehood forces have been overwhelming since 

1968. The PNP, the statehood party which I represent as its founder, has won three of the six elections since then. It is today in control, with Governor, Resident Commissioner, and two-thirds majority in both Senate and House of our legislature, elected by 938,969 

votes, which is 49.33 percent against 45.34 percent for the Popular 

Democratic Party. 

Wefeel that Puerto Rico is ripe to become a State after almost 

a hundred years of apprenticeship and to assume its full responsibilities and rights. During all this century, more than 200,000 

Puerto Ricans have served with distinction in all the wars that the 

United States has been involved, and in several cases, with higher 

casualties than some States. More than 2,000 Puerto Rican soldiers 

served in the recent Gulf War, among which was a grandson of 

mine in the First Armored Division. Several, such as Fernando 

Luis Garcia, who gave their lives heroically in the line of duty have 

been decorated with the Congressional Medal of Honor. 
63 

Among other distinguished leaders are Admiral Horacio Rivero, 

in 1968, Commander-in-Chief of NATO forces in southern Europe 

and later, ambassador to Spain; Admiral Diego Hernandez, who 

was in command of the Mediterranean Fleet; Major General Pedro 

del Valle, who commanded the U.S. Marine Corps First Division in 

the Pacific; General William A. Navas, Jr., who is Deputy in command of the National Guard; Dr. Antonia Novello who served as 

U.S. Surgeon General; and Dr. Enrique Mendez, Jr., who served as 

Deputy Surgeon General of the U.S. Army. 

Puerto Rico is participating successfully and with distinction in 

mainstream America to enrich its economy and its culture. There 

are about 2,000,000 Puerto Ricans living throughout the Nation, 

doing constructive and creative work as factory workers and as professionals in all fields of activity; thousands of physicians and engineers; thousands of teachers and professors in schools and universities, among which are two of my grandchildren, one in the University of Boston and one in Texas. 

In the arts and humanities, our rhythms and melodies have contributed to enrich American music; our great actors, like Jose 

Ferrer and Raul Julia have been American favorites. Justino Diaz 

and Pablo Elvira have been great voices at the Metropolitan. 

In the area of civil government, among many others, Judge Juan 

Torruellas, Chief Justice of the U.S. First Circuit Court of Appeals; 

Judge Jose Cabranes is a member of the U.S. Second Circuit Court 

of Appeals; and Maurice Ferre has served as Mayor of Miami. 

In the area of sports, we have contributed with many baseball 

players, among whom Roberto Clemente has been included in the 

Hall of Fame; Gigi Fernandez is a tennis champion; as well as 

Chichi Rodriguez in golf. 

As a personal note, I would mention that I have been awarded 

the Hoover Medal by my engineering peers and have been honored 

with the Presidential Medal of Freedom by President Bush, and 

last, but not least, to show how much Puerto Rico is imbedded in 

American life, it was the Puerto Rican judge of the District Court 

of New York, Sonia Sotomayor, who as a fearless jurist, decided a 

few months ago to issue an injunction that could break the deadlock in the baseball strike, and by doing so, sent the baseball players back to give Americans, after more than a year, the enjoyment 

of their favorite sport. Nobody could be part of America more than 

this fearless and competent jurist of 40 years of age. She was the 

true image of the freedom and respect of law America stands for. 

Mr. Chairman, I think the time has come for Congress to live up 

to the commitment of equality under which we were brought into 

its fold. It is time to do justice to more than 3,600,000" 

disenfranchised American citizens of Puerto Rico. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Ferre can be found at the end 

of the hearing.] 

Mr. GALLEGLY. Thank you very much, Governor. The gentleman 

from American Samoa. 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. I just wanted to thank Governor Don Luis 

for his very comprehensive statement. He is certainly one of the 

most outstanding leaders of the Puerto Rican people, and we honor 

him for being here before the subcommittee. 

Mr. FERRE. Thank vou. 
64 

Mr. GALLEGLY. Mr. Romero-Barcelo. 

Mr. ROMERO-BARCELO. Luis, I want to congratulate you for your 

testimony, and thank you for being here. 

I am not going to ask questions because I am in agreement with 

everything you said, so there is no need to ask questions. 

Thank you very much. 

Mr. GALLEGLY. The gentleman from Indiana. 

Mr. BURTON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would just like to say 

that you mentioned some very great celebrities from your country. 

I have only had the pleasure of meeting one, and that is Chichi 

Rodriguez, and I will tell you that he is a great ambassador for 

Puerto Rico. 

Mr. GALLEGLY. Not a bad golfer, either. 

Mr. BURTON. Not bad. 

Mr. GALLEGLY. Thank you very much, Governor. Thank you for 

your patience this afternoon. I know it has been a long afternoon, 

and we appreciate your patience. 

Mr. FERRE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. GALLEGLY. Jeff Farrow. It is good to see you back, Jeff. 

Mr. FARROW. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is good to be back. 

Mr. GALLEGLY. I know that this has been a long afternoon for 

you and everyone else, and I would really appreciate if all of the 

folks that have remaining testimony that they will restrict their 

comments to five minutes, and if you can't summarize in that period of time, then we will, of course, be happy to make the balance 

of the testimony a part of the record. 

Mr. FARROW. Part of the record, sir? 

Mr. GALLEGLY. A part of the record, yes. 

STATEMENT OF JEFFREY FARROW, CO-CHAIR, CLINTON ADMINISTRATION INTERAGENCY WORKING GROUP ON PUERTO RICO 

Mr. FARROW. Chairmen Gallegly and Burton and distinguished 

members, let me begin by saying that it is a special honor to appear before this subcommittee since I assisted the committee for 

over 12 years. 

I left a year ago only because the issues that are the subject of 

this hearing prompted President Clinton to have policy concerning 

the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico developed and coordinated, 

which was a step that Members of both Houses had long advocated. 

President Clinton is deeply committed to supporting the people 

of Puerto Rico's decision of what their island's status should be. His 

own vision of how the status dilemma should be solved was laid out 

in the Democratic platform. 

It pledged support for a choice made by the people acting in concert with the Congress. The President hoped that the plebiscite 

would conclude the debate. He said that he would back statehood 

or independence if the people voted for either one, but try to make 

the current relationship work better for them if they did not. 

He supported their decision and has worked since then to make 

the current relationship work better as he pledged before the plebiscite. He directed the formation of the group of senior officials of 

the White House and all of the departments of the executive 

branch that I co-chair to ensure serious attention to Puerto Rico's 
65 

circumstances, needs, and proposals, and to assist him in working 

with the island's leaders and the Congress on them. 

This policy level network is the practical fulfillment of the assignment of Puerto Rico matters to the Office of the President 

through the White House Office of Intergovernmental Affairs. 

While we have heard disagreements about the plebiscite results, 

areas of consensus were reflected and continue today. For example, 

Puerto Ricans clearly want to retain U.S. citizenship; to preserve 

their cultural identity, including use of the Spanish language; and 

to obtain assistance for those most disadvantaged. Many favor tax 

incentives to encourage job-creating investments and measures to 

make the island more self-sufficient. 

Since human concerns are at the root of many of these expressions, and the problems in Puerto Rico are substantial, President 

Clinton has placed an emphasis on helping the islands to grow economically. He also recognizes, though, that the fundamental status 

debate still rages, unfortunately. 

Further, the frustrating stalemate is likely to continue until the 

Federal Government meets its responsibilities in this matter. This 

is because the status problem involves not only a choice by the people of the island, but decisions by the United States as well, as is 

clear from all of the parties' plebiscite proposals. And the fact is that the decisions have not been made by our government, Congress and the President, and cannot be presumed. As 

Senator Johnston who has done so much to try to resolve this matter has said, "These are not extraneous details; they are the core 

issues which dictate the choice [open to Puerto Ricans]. No one can 

know what the answer of Congress will be until these questions are 

presented." 

The President believes that the answers need to be developed together with the people of Puerto Rico. The Administration is therefore willing to work with the island's leaders and the Congress to 

develop a process that would enable the expressed self-determination aspirations of Puerto Ricans to be fulfilled. 

Such a process would build upon their expressions in the 1993 

plebiscite and resolve what the options can be. It would seriously 

address the complexities of the situation, including the realities of 

both Puerto Rico and the United States. 

Finally, it would commit both governments to act in response to 

the will of a majority of the island's people. Chairman Gallegly and members, the outcome of the 1993 plebiscite should be an effort to finally resolve the issue that divides 

Puerto Ricans and impedes their progress. We look forward to 

working with their various elected leaders and with you for the 

consensus process that is needed. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Farrow can be found at the end 

of the hearing.] 

Mr. GALLEGLY. Thank you very much, and a special thanks to 

you for summarizing your statement. We will make sure that the 

statement will be a part of the record in its entirety, and with that, 

I would yield to the gentleman from American Samoa. 

Mr. FARROW. I appreciate that. 
66 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Thank you, Mr. Chainnan. I certainly would 

like to commend Mr. Farrow for his statement, and also, as the Administration's representative here before the subcommittee. 

Mr. Farrow, could you comment, and I don't know if you are in 

a position to do it right now, but does the Administration have a 

position now as to the results of the 1993 plebiscite? 

Mr. FARROW. The position is the one I have just outlined, Mr. 

Faleomavaega, that there are obviously disagreements in Puerto 

Rico about the plebiscite. 

There was a consensus that was reflected in a number of aspects, 

that we need to develop a process to implement the obvious expressions of the people of Puerto Rico. That process needs to include 

both Congress and the executive branch. It also needs to work directly with the various elected leaders of Puerto Rico. 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Would you please comment as to the Administration's views on the current efforts by the Ways and Means 

Committee to cut to pieces Section 936 of the IRS Code in the tenyear period? Would you care to comment on that? 

Mr. FARROW. Yes. In 1993, the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation 

Act reformulated Section 936 to create a tax credit for U.S. companies based on economic activity in the islands, Puerto Rico, American Samoa, etc. 

Economic activity is defined as wages and local taxes paid and 

capital investments made. At the same time, the act gradually reduced the fonner credit, which was based merely on profits attributed to the islands, and not specifically related to local economic 

activity through 1998. 

The goal of the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act in 1993 was 

to fine tune Section 936 for accomplishing its original purpose, 

stimulating job-creating investments in the islands. 

The Administration's preference has been to let the substantial 

changes to Section 936 made in 1993 take full effect. This would 

pennit their impact to be evaluated before any further consideration of the law, and it is one of the reasons that the Administration has initiated no proposals to further cut Section 936, even in 

proposing to balance the Federal budget. 

Another reason is the importance of the incentives for economic 

activity in the islands. The Ways and Means Committee's bill 

would repeal Section 936, immediately ending the primary Federal 

incentive for new investment, eventually ending the primary Federal tax incentive for the existing operations to remain there. The 

Senate Finance Committee majority's balanced budget bill would 

end the incentive for the existing operations to remain in Puerto 

Rico even sooner. 

As I said earlier, the President does not support these actions. 

The Administration believes that the Congress should instead continue to ensure the existence of effective measures to assist the islands in their development, encouraging further investment, securing jobs and creating new ones, providing benefits for economic activity, and hopefully, promoting self-reliance as well as a stable environment for growth and meeting other goals. 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. One more question, Mr. Farrow. As you and 

I probably know, the reason and probably the only real reason why 

the people of NMI receive Supplemental Security Income is because 
67 

of the weight and the might of the late Congressman Phil Burton's 

activities, and if I might say it casually, but I just wanted to ask 

your comment, because you are talking about 20,000 people there 

as opposed to 3,700,000 U.S. citizens in Puerto Rico, and I wanted 

to ask your comment on the SSI issue affecting the people of Puerto Rico, and the fact of the matter is, NMI is the only U.S. territory 

that currently receives SSI benefits. 

Mr. FARROW. Well, I think, Congressman, you have pointed to 

the answer to that question. 

This is really an issue of determining the funding for the program in the context of the total and fiscal intergovernmental arrangement and relationship between the Federal Government and 

Puerto Rico. 

Fully extending SSI to Puerto Rico would have a five-year program cost of nearly $5,000,000,000, and an estimated administrative cost of $225,000,000. That is a major increase over the current 

levels of assistance. 

In 1990, the Senate Finance Committee approved an extension 

of SSI to Puerto Rico under the commonwealth arrangement in a 

status bill on a phased-in basis over a period of years at lower benefit levels that they felt were appropriate in light of Puerto Rico's 

income levels. That approach also included shared costs between 

the Federal and commonwealth governments. 

The Administration is willing to explore such options for providing increased aid to the aged, blind, and disabled in Puerto Rico 

with the Congress and the government of Puerto Rico, particularly 

in the context of a comprehensive look at Puerto Rico's status and 

the benefits it receives from other programs. It should be noted 

that the Administration's Welfare Reform Bill would have increased the current block grant for aid to the aged, blind, and disabled in Puerto Rico, as well as to families with dependent children, by 25 percent, with further increases for inflation, in contrast 

to bills that are before the Congress that would only increase the 

grant by half that amount, and would do so with no provision for 

increased costs. 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Mr. 

Farrow. 

Mr. FARROW. Thank you, Congressman. 

Mr. GALLEGLY. Mr. Romero-Barcelo. 

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

Farrow, and I appreciate your statement from the President's Office. 

Mr. FARROW. Thank you. 

Mr. ROMERO-BARCELO. Mr. Farrow, there is an acknowledgement 

that there is a status problem in Puerto Rico. Is that correct? 

Mr. FARROW. Yes, in my statement, there is a status issue, clearly from what we have heard today, a status debate in Puerto Rico. 

Mr. ROMERO-BARCELO. And it is a status problem dilemma. Is 

that correct? 

Mr. FARROW. There is a dilemma. 

Mr. RoMERO-BARCELO. And how does the President feel about 

disenfranchisement of the 3,700,000 U.S. citizens in Puerto Rico? 

Does he feel that that is a problem or not? 
68 

Mr. FARROW. The Administration recognizes the status debate 

and also recognizes that the current political status arrangement 

between Puerto Rico was freely adopted by the people of Puerto 

Rico. There have been two votes on the issue since the status arrangement was entered into, in 1967 and the 1993 plebiscite that we are 

discussing. 

The Administration's testimony which I presented offers to work 

with the committee and with Puerto Rico's leaders to address this 

issue. . Mr. RoMERO-BARCELO. Mr. Farrow, I appreciate your interest 

and the many years that you have been involved in this, and because you have been involved in this for so many years, in 1993, 

we attempted to tackle this issue, this hearing in 1993, and the 

White House did not testify and asked instead for time, and as a 

result of that, the group that you were co-chair of was started. 

Now, we are here two years after that, more than two years after 

that; I think it was before this month in 1993, and we are still at 

the same place. You are still saying that we should get together 

and discuss it. That is the same thing that has been said since 

1967, get together and discuss it, but there is a national issue, Mr. 

Farrow. 

Are you aware of the basic document on human rights to which 

the United States is a signatory? 

Mr. FARROW. Yes, sir. 

Mr. ROMERo-BARCELO. And in that statement, in that document, 

it says that the parties to the present covenant, recognizing that 

in accordance with the universal declaration of human rights, the 

ideal of free human beings can only be achieved if conditions are 

created whereby everyone may enjoy his civil and political rights. And they agree upon the following articles. Article three, the State 

parties undertake to ensure the equal right of men and women to 

the enjoyment of all civil and political rights set forth in the 

present covenant. And it says in Article 25, every citizen shall have 

the right without unreasonable restrictions to vote and to be elected at genuine, periodic elections which shall be by universal and 

equal suffrage, and shall be held by secret ballot, guaranteeing the 

free expression of the will of the electorate. 

Now, the U.S. is signatory to this statement, yet in Puerto Rico, 

would you accept that we do not vote in the elections of our Nation, 

nor do we participate in those elections, nor do we participate in 

the governing of Puerto Rico from the Federal point of view. Is that 

correct? Do you accept that? 

Mr. FARROW. That is correct. 

Mr. RoMERO-BARCELO. And that is disenfranchisement, is that 

not? Is that not disenfranchisement, Mr. Farrow? 

Mr. FARROW. The political arrangement between Puerto Rico and 

the United States has been freely entered into. This Administration 

is willing to work with this committee, with Puerto Rico's leaders 

on a consensus basis to address the different perspectives on the 

issue. 

There is obviously a debate in Puerto Rico about what the appropriate political status is. 
69 

Mr. ROMERo-BARCELO. Mr. Farrow, my point is the debate will 

continue forever and ever unless the basic problem is addressed, 

and the basic problem is not really status. The basic problem is 

civil rights. The basic problem is disenfranchisement of 3, 700,000 

U.S. citizens who are not only disenfranchised, Mr. Farrow, but 

they are deprived and they are denied equal benefits under the 

law. 

Now, take a look at the Medicaid program. In Medicaid, Puerto 

Rico gets only about $122,000,000. If we are to be treated as a 

State, as all the other citizens in the Nation, we would get over 

$1,000,000,000 for Medicaid. 

Now, what does that indicate? It indicates that the Congress and 

the Administration are not as concerned about the health and the 

lives of 3,700,000 U.S. citizens in Puerto Rico as they are about the 

health and lives of the citizens in the 50 States of the union. 

Now, I am asking, Mr. Farrow, is that not a concern for the 

White House? Is not disenfranchisement of 3,700,000 citizens concern to the White House? 

Mr. FARROW. Commissioner, I need to respond to what you said 

about the concern of the Administration with respect to the health 

and security of the people of Puerto Rico, and as you know very 

well, you worked with the Administration as some of your colleagues, Congressman Faleomavaega among them, did to enable 

Puerto Rico and the other insular areas to participate equally in 

health care reform with the States under the President's Health 

Care Reform Bill. They would receive new Federal payments to 

support individual employer discount for alliance-based health coverage and maintenance-of-effort payments equally as in the States, 

so this Administration has been willing to work to improve the 

health care assistance provided to the people of Puerto Rico. 

Mr. ROMERO-BARCELO. In the proposal that was never enacted, 

but in the amendments that are now in their place, we have not 

had any effort whatsoever to try to make sure that whatever happens now, at this point in time, when the changes are occurring, that Puerto Rico be treated the same as the States. There has been 

no effort whatsoever, and I have been beating my head against a 

wall. 

What we are hearing here today, and we appreciate it, and we 

would like to get on with it, is more or less the same thing in a 

different way, but more or less the same as we have been hearing 

forever, that this is a Puerto Rican issue. 

Unless it becomes a national issue, unless the disenfranchisement and the denial of civil rights and the denial of equality is accepted as a national problem, a national issue, we will never solve 

it. We just keep on delaying it and delaying it. 

That is why I hope that you carry back this message loud and 

clear, because otherwise, we will have more committee meetings, 

more hearings, and more meetings between the parties and the Administration and Congress, and ten years from now, we will all be 

at the same place we are at now. Thank you, Mr. Farrow. 

Mr. FARROW. Commissioner, I hope we are not in the same place 

ten years from now, and I don't think what we are saying is what 

I am aware of for se_veral years now, and I would just reiterate, \Ve 
70 

are willing to work with the committee and the other committees 

of the Congress, with the leaders of Puerto Rico, the range of the 

leaders, to provide a process that will resolve this debate. 

I don't think we have ever gotten that process agreed to before, 

and I believe that is why we are in the situation we are now, because we don't have a clear process for resolving the questions that 

involve both Federal actions and Federal decisions as well as decisions by the people. 

Mr. ROMERO-BARCELO. I would hate to go through the same process that we did in 1989, 1990, and 1991, the same futile process. 

Mr. FARROW. I hope that we bring a process to fruition, if there 

is a consensus that can be developed in Puerto Rico for doing so, 

and between the Congress and the President. 

Mr. ROMERO-BARCELO. Mr. Chairman, I ran out of time, but I 

think it would be important to take a look at the ballot and see 

those commitments that were made on the ballot, what the White 

House thinks about them. 

Mr. GALLEGLY. If there is no objection, do you think we could 

probably get through that in about five minutes? 

Mr. ROMERO-BARCELO. I will try. 

Mr. Farrow, in the ballot in 1993, the commonwealth supporters 

guaranteed irrevocable U.S. citizenship and common market and 

common currency and common defense with the United States. 

That means that they guaranteed the irrevocability; it means that 

Congress cannot revoke U.S. citizenship for those still unborn in 

Puerto Rico, constitutionally. 

Mr. FARROW. I can't foresee any basis for revoking the citizenship 

of Puerto Ricans under the current political status arrangement. 

Mr. ROMERO-BARCELO. You cannot see any basis for revoking it, 

but I am saying constitutionally, can Congress revoke it for those 

that are not born? 

Mr. FARROW. I don't know that the Supreme Court has made 

clear the state of the law in that. 

If you would like, we can respond to you in writing. 

Mr. ROMERO-BARCELO. What did the opinion that was asked before say? 

Mr. FARROW. I am sorry? 

Mr. ROMERO-BARCELO. The opinion that was asked before of the 

Justice Department, what did it say? 

Mr. FARROW. Which oyinion is that? 

Mr. ROMERO-BARCELO. At the last hearing. 

Mr. FARROW. I am not aware of the opinion. 

Mr. ROMERO-BARCELO. Of the Justice Department? 

Mr. FARROW. Yes. 

Mr. ROMERO-BARCELO. No, that was CRS. You are correct. The 

Justice did not make it; it was CRS. 

So you don't know whether there can be a guarantee of irrevocable citizenship? 

Mr. FARROW. It is inconceivable that Puerto Ricans who have 

been citizens since 1917 would not continue to be citizens. It is inconceivable to me. 

If you want us to look into a question, we will do so for you. 
71 

Mr. ROMERO-BARCELO. If Puerto Rico opts for independence, they 

can revoke the citizenship of those that are not born. In other 

words, they can say--

Mr. FARROW. I think those are questions that need to be resolved 

by the Congress and the President, working with the people of 

Puerto Rico, in addressing the political --status aspirations of the 

people of Puerto Rico. 

Mr. ROMERO-BARCELO. Does the White House feel that they can 

reformulate Section 936 to what it was before and give 100 percent 

tax exemption at this point in time? 

Mr. FARROW. That is a proposal that I haven't heard of before, 

Congressman. We do think the Administration would be willing to 

support a reformulation of Section 936 as it exists right now. The reformulation that the Administration would be willing to 

support would involve the current incentive for economic activity in 

Puerto Rico, and we would support this so long as it was incor- porated in a bill that did not add to the deficit. The reformulation would permit the amount of the economic activity-based credit, that a company does not need to reduce tax liability in one year to be carried over and used in a succeeding year. 

This reformulation should provide an even greater incentive for 

job-creating investments than current law provides. We would be 

willing to support that reformulation. 

Mr. ROMERO-BARCELO. And you would be willing to scale back 

the income tax base credit to what it was before, to 100 percent? 

Mr. FARROW. That is a question that I will take back to the 

Treasury Department for you. 

Mr. ROMERO-BARCELO. You don't know the answer to that? 

Mr. FARROW. I will ask the Treasury Department to respond. Mr. ROMERO-BARCELO. Did anybody give an answer to the supporters of commonwealth that they would be willing to do that? 

Mr. FARROW. That th~ would be willing to do what? 

Mr. ROMERO-BARCELO. In 1993, when they formulated that in 

their proposal, did anybody in the White House or the Treasury 

Department tell the commonwealth supporters that they would be 

willing to reformulate the 936 back to what it was before? 

Mr. FARROW. No, but that is not what their ballot option said, 

so that is not something that we have discussed. 

Mr. ROMERO-BARCELO. Is it not discussed in reformulation of 

936? 

Mr. FARROW. No, we have discussed the reformulation of Section 

936, but the proposition that was transmitted by the legislative as~ 

sembly of Puerto Rico did not refer to reformulating Section 936 

back to the formulation that existed before 1993. 

Mr. ROMERO-BARCELO. What did it refer to? 

Mr. FARROW. It said reformulate Section 936 to create more and 

better jobs in Puerto Rico. I have just outlined for you the reformulation that the Administration would be willing to support. Mr. ROMERO-BARCELO. And you are willing to support the granting of Supplemental Security Income to the people of Puerto Rico 

without paying any taxes? 

Mr. FARROW. The Administration is willing to work with the gov- ernment of Puerto Rico and the Congress to address the issue of 
72 

the cost of SSI and how to provide increased aid to the aged, blind, 

and disabled in Puerto Rico. 

Mr. ROMERO-BARCELO. No, I am asking specifically, Supplemental Security Income. Are they willing to extend it to Puerto 

Rico? 

Mr. FARROW. And our answer is, Congressman, that we would be 

wiling to work with the appropriate committees of the Congress 

and the government of Puerto Rico to address the issue of cost of 

providing increased aid to the aged, blind, and disabled in Puerto 

Rico. 

As you know, Supplemental Security Income applies to the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands and there have been 

proposals in the Senate Finance Committee--

Mr. ROMERO-BARCELO [continuing]. You and I have discussed 

that the Commonwealth of Northern Marianas is very small, and 

that the cost is insignificant, but that the cost for Puerto Rico 

would be so great, and in light of the present deficit situation, it 

would be inconceivable that this would happen. 

That is what we have discussed, you and I. 

Mr. FARROW. What we have discussed is that cost is the main 

impediment, and so therefore, because of our concern about the 

current situation, we are willing to address the cost issue cooperatively with the government of Puerto Rico and the appropriate committees of the Congress. 

Mr. ROMERO-BARCELO. You have recognized to me personally 

that the cost of SSI would be too great to consider at this point in 

time, and that the mood in Congress is not to grant any SSI for 

Puerto Rico, and that it has not been considered. 

Is that correct, what I am saying, or is it not? 

Mr. FARROW. I would speak to the Administration's position, not 

the Congress' position, and the position of the Administration is 

that we are willing to work to increase aid to the aged, blind, and 

disabled in Puerto Rico, addressing the cost issues with the government and with the committees of the Congress of jurisdiction. 

Mr. ROMERO-BARCELO. When you say addressing the cost, where 

is the money coming from? 

Mr. FARROW. How to pay for the increased aid. 

Mr. ROMERO-BARCELO. And that includes Puerto Rico? 

Mr. FARROW. For Puerto Rico. 

Mr. ROMERO-BARCELO. How Puerto Rico would pay for it. 

Mr. FARROW. We would discuss it with the government of Puerto 

Rico and the committees. 

Mr. ROMERO-BARCELO. And about the protection of other products for agriculture, did you discuss that also to extend protection 

to other products in agriculture? 

Mr. FARROW. Yes. 

Mr. ROMERO-BARCELO. In addition to coffee? Do you know how 

coffee is protected? 

Mr. FARROW. Yes. 

Mr. ROMERO-BARCELO. To give Puerto Rico the authority to impose tariffs on other agricultural products in view of NAFTA? 

Mr. FARROW. Congressman, as I have talked to Puerto Rican 

leaders of both parties, it has been clear that there is a desire for 

measures to reinvigorate the agricultural sector in Puerto Rico as 
73 

a viable enterprise, and to ensure markets for local farm products, 

and that is our understanding of the proposal that was on the ballot, was protecting Puerto Rican agricultural products in addition 

to coffee. 

Because of this, the Administration has had a task force at work 

within the Agriculture Department, focusing on ways of assisting 

the island's agricultural sector. This task force has been working 

with producers and officials of the government of Puerto Rico, and 

is concentrating on measures to help farmers and the local food industry to be more productive, efficient, and competitive, as well as 

to help them seek new markets. 

The Administration's officials of the U.S. Department of Agriculture are in the final states of 'preparing an action strategy that 

includes five basic elements. 

Number one, measures to get products to markets on a timely 

basis; number two, technical assistance for improving water quality 

and providing crop insurance; number three, streamlining Federal 

program applications and improving credit availability; number 

four, enhancing communications among Puerto Rican producers, 

processors, retailers, and the Department of Agriculture; number 

five, education and career development for both people in rural and 

urban areas. 

Some elements of the action strategy are already being implemented, even before the plan is finalized. For example, the agricultural marketing service recently led an interagency team to Puerto 

Rico to meet with the Puerto Rican Department of Agriculture, the 

University of Puerto Rico, and other Federal agencies to identify 

ar.I develop additional research, technical assistance, and outreach 

initiatives for new marketing opportunities and approved marketing systems. 

The agricultural marketing service was also recently awarded 

the second of two matching grants under the Federal-State marketing improvement program to the Puerto Rico Department of Agriculture. The purpose of the project which is supported by this grant is to evaluate possible producer self-help initiatives for fresh fruits 

and vegetables in Puerto Rico with regard to competitiveness, profitability, price stability, and quality assurance. 

We have also worked with the government of Puerto Rico to expand the market for the island's products abroad by eliminating 

barriers to exports and otherwise increasing exports. 

For example, Ambassador Tanner, of the Office of the U.S. Trade 

Representative, persuaded the United Kingdom in a precedent, we 

believe, for the European union, to admit Puerto Rican products 

into the United Kingdom as if they were U.S.-made. 

Mr. ROMERO-BARCELO. Mr. Farrow, you are talking about things 

that we have been working, that I have been working, that the government of Puerto Rico has been working, but you have not in any 

way whatsoever answered the question whether the Administration 

is willing to support the protection by import duties of other products, such as they have done with coffee, in lieu of the NAFTA. 

I understand everything, what you have said up to now, Mr. Farrow. This confirms what I said before. 

You are giving us generalities, but you are not answering the 

questions on the issues, and I •was afraid that this is what was 
74 

going to happen. If we get into another study, unless the issue is 

addressed, unless we tackle the problem and recognize the problem, that we are disenfranchised, that we are deprived of our right 

to vote and our right to representation, and that there is inequality 

in the programs and discrimination against the citizens of Puerto 

Rico. 

Unless those things are accepted and addressed and a solution 

for those things sought forcefully, then I believe that we are going 

to be going through the same process and talking about the same, 

studying and researching and studying again and researching, and 

we are not going to get anywhere. 

Thank you very much for your testimony. 

Mr. FARROW. Mr. Romero-Barcelo, if I may, there are two points 

that I want to make. 

What we have responded to on the issue of protection for agricultural products are a couple of items. 

One is the plebiscite proposal, which was for protection for agricultural products. The plebiscite proposal did not talk about import 

duties. That has not been a factor. 

Mr. ROMERO-BARCELO. Well, in addition to coffee. That is what 

it means. 

Mr. FARROW. We have responded to the plebiscite proposal. We 

have also responded to the government of Puerto Rico in its efforts 

abroad. 

Second, we have not proposed any studies of the matter of the 

relationship. We have said that we are willing to work on developing a process for solution with the committee and with the various 

leaders of Puerto Rico; a process that would enable the self-determination aspirations of the people of Puerto Rico to be fulfilled; a 

process that would result in action, if there is a majority in Puerto 

Rico; a process that would clarify and define the options based on 

the expressed aspirations of the people of Puerto Rico. 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Thank you. Mr. Farrow, just one additional 

question, and maybe you can help me clear up an issue here. For 

the record, I am very happy certainly with your involvement with 

the White House Intergovernmental Council, involvement with the 

affairs of Puerto Rico, but I wanted to know and am somewhat still 

puzzled by the White House decision that other territories of the 

other region under the same country are under the Domestic Council. 

If you are not able to comment on that, I certainly would appreciate your submitting for the record a response from the White 

House why we have such an inconsistency here on the part of the 

Administration, putting Puerto Rico under the Intergovernmental 

Council, and the rest of the territories under the Domestic Council. 

If perhaps because of regional basis, we call a hurricane in the east 

a typhoon, and yet they are basically the same thing. I would appreciate if you could give us some answer to that question. 

Mr. FARROW. Congressman, I think that the full answer, I will 

have to submit in writing, because I have enough to do with the 

issues involving Puerto Rico that I haven't had a lot of time to even 

watch what is happening with respect to the other territories, including my home territory of the Virgin Islands. 
75 

I would explain, though, that what the President has done with 

respect to Puerto Rico, and that is that he set up an interagency 

framework that includes several offices within the White House 

and all of the departments, so the Domestic Council is represented 

on our interagency group by the Deputy Director of the Domestic 

Council; the National Security Council is represented by the Senior 

Director for Inter-American Affairs; the National Economic Council 

is represented. Those are the three policy councils in the executive 

office of the President. 

The Office of Management and Budget is represented. It is cochaired by myself and by Marsha Hale, who is the President's Assistant for Intergovernmental Affairs and Director of Intergovernmental Affairs, but it is an interagency effort that involves several 

White House offices and departments, as opposed to being an element of just one White House or executive office or departmental 

office. 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Would it be fair for me to say that if this 

committee were to have any dialog or any official discussions as far 

as the Administration's official position in dealing with the concerns and the needs of Puerto Rico, that your interagency council 

is the lead group as far as Administration position dealing with the 

affairs of Puerto Rico? 

Mr. FARROW. The President formed the interagency group to deal 

with a range of issues that involved Puerto Rico. In addition to myself and Marsha Hale, we have senior level officials in all departments, so there is a primary contact person in every department 

for Puerto Rican matters. 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. But for a comprehensive response, Mr. Farrow, you would be the person that would speak officially on behalf 

of the Administration as far as Puerto Rico is concerned. 

Mr. FARROW. Yes, sir, and we would coordinate the responsibilities and the response of all of the individual agencies. 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. On the eve of a presidential election, to say 

it mildly, can you give us some kind of a time schedule of whatever 

future plans the Administration has in mind in terms of the issues 

affecting Puerto Rico, one being the status issue? Can you give us 

an idea of what the Administration has in mind between now and 

next November? 

Mr. FARROW. We are working on a range of issues. Obviously, 

just personally, the Section 936 amendments that have been proposed by the Ways and Means Committee and the Senate and Finance Committee have occupied a lot of my time recently, and also 

the time of our representatives of the Department of the Treasury, 

who include the assistant secretary for tax policy and the deputy 

international tax counsel. 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. So basically the bottom line, the Administration's position on Section 936 is in basic opposition to the Ways 

and Means current efforts to gut it? 

Mr. FARROW. We do not favor those proposals. 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Thank you. Thank you very much, Mr. Farrow. 

Mr. FARROW. Thank you, Congressman. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Farrow can be found at the end 

of the hearing.] 
76 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. We have next on our list of witnesses Mr. 

Howard Hills, and the Chairman has asked me to conduct the 

hearing for now because of the votes that are pending on the floor. 

Mr. Hills has been allotted three minutes to comment on the 

hearing this afternoon. Mr. Hills, you are commenting as a private 

citizen. Are you here in the capacity as an official of former President Bush or Reagan? 

Mr. HILLS. Yes, sir. I am here as a private citizen, although I do 

hope to bring to bear some of the experience I had working for 

President Reagan and President Bush for the benefit of the committee, if I can proceed. 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Please proceed. 

STATEMENT OF HOWARD L. Hll..LS 

Mr. HILLS. First of all, I would like to say, in the interest of time, 

that I am not going to summarize my written statement. I would 

like to request that my written statement be included in the record, 

and then I would like to just get on with a few comments. 

The Resident Commissioner has indicated that he was tired of 

hearing the same old thing, and I hope to say a few things that 

are new, that haven't been heard before, and to see if I can assist 

the committee in this way. 

I served in the State Department and National Security Council 

working on decolonization issues in the Pacific, and I represented 

the United States before the United Nations Trusteeship Council 

and the Security Council on approval of the Micronesian Treaties 

of Free Association. Since the admission of Hawaii and Alaska, the 

only successful model that we have for a change of status for a territory, or for areas under U.S. administration, is the Micronesian 

Treaties. Again, I hope to bring some of that experience to bear and 

help give some practical advice. 

Since just about everything that could be said about Puerto 

Rican political status already has been said today, I would like, in 

a very workmanlike way, to address some of the legal issues that 

I think need to be addressed. 

First of all, I was a State Department escort officer for the U.N. 

mission that observed the plebiscites and the self-determination 

process in Micronesia in 1983. Based on that experience, and on 

having worked in the Trusteeship council and the Security Council 

on behalf of the Reagan Administration, I think that if the plebiscite on November 14, 1993, had been observed by the United Na- tions, they might very well have questioned whether or not there 

was adequate voter information. The reason I say that is because 

I believe that the ballot option for commonwealth was misleading. There was a lack of objective and accurate information about the 

commonwealth ballot option, to the point where, if there had been 

United Nations supervision and observation, I think that a visiting 

mission might have reported back to the United Nations that there 

was an issue of whether or not the voters had been misled on the 

commonwealth option. 

I say this because, at this point, in my opinion-! am again just 

stating my opinion, I don't even think that it can be argued: as 

long as Puerto Rico remains in its current impermanent status as 

an unincorporated territory, which is what it is, then you cannot 
77 

have permanent union, you can't have guaranteed equal right to 

citizenship, and you can't have full self-government as an unincorporated territory. 

I think that one of the most cruel things about colonialism, and 

one of the most cruel events or incidents in the decolonization process for the United States territories, is the situation in Puerto Rico. 

In essence, in 1953, the United States told the United Nations, and 

more particularly, the United States and Puerto Rico's political 

leaders told the people of Puerto Rico, that they had been 

decolonized. What could be more cruel to do to a group of people 

than to tell them that they have been decolonized, when they really 

haven't been decolonized? We could talk for a long time about how 

it happened, why it happened. Resident Commissioner, you have 

talked about going back to the United Nations. I think the point 

is this: getting off the U.N. list doesn't decolonize a territory. It is 

having the U.S. Congress either bring you into the union as a 

State, or it is having a treaty-based relationship that gives you 

independence, that decolonizes an area. 

The United Nations cannot decolonize an unincorporated territory. Only the Congress of the United States can decolonize an unincorporated territory. 

Now, recognizing that the light is on, I just have a couple more 

comments I want to make. One is this. I am really concerned about 

the testimony that we have heard today. I am thinking, what if you 

were a person sitting back in Puerto Rico watching this on TV, and 

you get all these credible, distinguished people up here, and they 

all have completely incompatible and mutually exclusive theories of 

reality. What must it be like to be the average person in Puerto 

Rico and to listen to this? That is really a pathological situation for 

a political status process to be in, where you have these distinguished people presenting completely incompatible theories of reality. What are you to think if you are down in Puerto Rico? 

I will tell you what happens when this kind of pathology sets in 

to a self-determination process. The people don't ultimately get individually to exercise their right of self-determination. They end up 

voting along party lines, because that is the only reference point 

they have. 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Mr. Hills, I am sorry, I have to cut you off. 

Mr. HILLS. Mr. Chairman, could I just make one submission for 

the record? 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. You certainly will have your statement 

made part of the record. 

Mr. HILLS. I just wanted to offer to submit to the record, if I 

could, just describe the submission very briefly, sir. 

I think that what I can do to help the committee more than anything else today is to just say that given the issue of the commonwealth option on the ballot, and the problems with it, the theological, ideological, legal, political problems with it, neutrality 

about that option is not a position that Congress should adopt, because neutrality on an option that is misleading and inaccurate 

constitutes taking sides in favor of that option. 

Once the commonwealth option is presented to the people in a 

form that makes it clear that there is no permanent union, no 
78 

guarantee of equal citizenship, then the Congress can be neutral 

about that option. 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Mr. Hills, I have to cut you off. 

Mr. HILLS. OK. 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Thank you. 

Mr. HILLS. I would be glad to answer any questions, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. I really would like to proceed with the gentlemen from Puerto Rico. Mr. Hills is testifying in a private capacity, and we do have other officials from Puerto Rico that really 

need to provide their testimony here this afternoon. 

Mr. HILLS. Mr. Chairman, I would just like to offer to submit and 

I will submit a memorandum of July 28, 1994, from the U.S. Department of Justice prepared eight months after the plebiscite in 

Puerto Rico. 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Mr. Hills, I will permit you to submit for the 

record all documents that you want to be made part of the record. 

Thank you. 

Mr. HILLS. Thank you very much. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Hills can be found at the end of 

the hearing.] 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. For our witness list, we have also the Honorable Charlie Rodriguez, the Majority Leader of the Senate of 

Puerto Rico; the Honorable Miguel Agosto, the Minority Leader of 

the Senate of Puerto Rico; and also the Honorable Fernando Martin, the former Senator and Vice President of the PIP. 

Gentleman, I am sorry to restrict you, but in the interest of time, 

we have to ask you to summarize your statements in five minutes, 

and we will proceed accordingly. Thank you. Mr. Rodriguez. 

STATEMENT OF BON. CHARLES A. RODRIGUEZ, SENATE MAJORITY LEADER, FOR SENATE PRESIDENT, ROBERTO 

REXACH BENITEZ; AND SENATOR KENNETH MCCLINTOCK 

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Good afternoon. My name is Charles A. Rodriguez. I am the Senate Majority Leader in Puerto Rico, and I am accompanied by Senator Kenneth McClintock, who is the Chairman of the Senate Federal and Economic Affairs Committee. 

This testimony, which I am presenting on behalf of Senate President Roberto Rexach Benitez, makes the following points: 

Enhanced commonwealth has been presented now for the sixth 

time to Congress, and each time, it has been rejected for the obvious reason that it is unconstitutional. 

It is also obvious that under the United States Constitution, 

there is room only for States, territories, and the recognition of republics. 

It is your duty to make this clear to the 3,700,000 American citizens living in Puerto Rico so that they can finally determine their 

future relationship with the United States, a relationship that Congress must grant. 

In this context, I would like to relate a story that aptly describes 

the dilemma facing Puerto Rico. A large corporation with significant operations on the island recently determined that to remain 

in Puerto Rico, they must have stability, not whether or not Section 
79 

936 remains and income credit is eliminated or moved to a wage 

credit, but the political and economic stability. 

This means that Congress should free us from its control. We can 

no longer remain a colony. We must become a State or an independent nation. In the end, our status, not Section 936, will determine our economic and political future, and as an ardent statehood 

supporter, my feelings are clear. Give us the opportunity to prosper 

by becoming part of this great Nation. 

Less than a year before the first anniversary of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, its founder, Governor Luis Munoz-Marin realized that the new status would require clarification, and clarifications have been badly needed and have been repeatedly asked from 

Congress 43 years ago. 

When the first three attempts to clarify the nature of the commonwealth failed in 1953, 1959, and 1961, Governor Munoz-Marin 

gave it a fourth try, in a letter to President Kennedy in 1962. Although viewed with a good eye by President Kennedy, this fourth 

attempt at clarification also failed, and the fifth one, lead by Governor Rafael Hernandez Colon through the so-called "New Compact 

Bill" struck out in 1976. 

These five major efforts to clarify the nature of our relation with 

the United States failed, because since its conception in 1950, Congress and the commonwealth supporters have entertained totally 

different ideas as to the meaning of Public Law 600 enacted in the 

nature of a compact. 

Is the "compact" the basis of congressional authority in Puerto 

Rico or is that authority still based on the Territorial Clause of the 

Constitution? 

The commonwealthers, who comprised almost three-quarters of 

our people back in 1952 believed that under Law 600, Puerto Rico's 

relationship with the United States is based on a binding compact, 

which Congress cannot change or cancel without the explicit consent of the people of Puerto Rico. 

On the other hand, while claiming the benefits derived from permanent union with the United States and swearing for it, the 

commonwealthers also ask for complete autonomy for Puerto Rico 

and would limit the powers of Congress to those that are, "an indispensable part of the arrangement for permanent association." 

It is no easy task to convince Congress that this was what its 

Members had in mind in 1950 when they enacted Public Law 600. 

Very often, congressmen ask where in the Constitution one might 

find the Congress authority to enter into a binding compact with 

American citizens in a territory granting them in perpetuity powers traditionally exercised by Congress under the Territorial 

Clause. 

Now, here we are again for the sixth time asking for clarifications as to the meaning of the "compact" and the legal or illegal 

nature of the commonwealth. We certainly are where we started 45 

years ago. 

Four percent of Puerto Ricans would welcome independence, and 

94 percent would rather be permanently united or associated with 

the United States. That 94 percent of us are almost evenly divided. 

Half of us favor statehood, while the other half would rather step 

again in the batter's box with unending pleas for clarification; 
80 

It is up to you to break this deadlock, and you can break it either 

of two ways, by granting the status changes favored by the 48 percent of the voters that supported commonwealth in the 1993 plebiscite, thus validating the commonwealth's interpretation of Public 

Law 600 and the nature of the commonwealth, or by telling the 

people in Puerto Rico in unambiguous terms what Congress has 

apparently implied each time, it has failed on proposals to enhance 

the commonwealth; that is, there is no place for enhanced commonwealth in the Federal system. There are only States, territories and 

the recognition of republics, no more and no less. 

In the event that the commonwealth voted upon in 1993 is not 

an option, I suggest that you create a congressional commission to 

clearly define feasible status alternatives that could take us to the 

end of the line and the up-to-now, never-ending status debate. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

[Mr. Rodriguez submitted a statement written by Senate President, Roberto Rexach Benitez which can be found at the end of the 

hearing.] 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Thank you, Senator. Senator Agosto. 

STATEMENT OF HON. MIGUEL HERNANDEZ AGOSTO, 

MINORITY LEADER, SENATE OF PUERTO RICO 

Mr. AGOSTO. Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, I appear 

before these subcommittees as the Senate Minority Leader representing the Popular Democratic Party. I was the president of the 

party at the time of the 1993 plebiscite. 

The history of the Puerto Rico-United States relationship is one 

of frustrated Puerto Rican attempts to attain political progress. It 

was not until 1950 that significant progress was achieved. 

Public Law 600 provided for the organization of a constitutional 

government by the people of Puerto Rico, because operative upon 

its approval in a referendum by the people of Puerto Rico. That law 

was adopted by the Congress as a compact with the people of Puerto Rico. 

As a result of this initiative, Puerto Rico adopted its own constitution and the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico was created as a 

body politic, not subject any longer to the plenary powers of the 

Congress. 

At the time, it was understood both by leaders in Puerto Rico 

and in the United States that the Commonwealth had the possibility of further development within the basic relationship established 

within the compact. Many efforts have been made to that effect, 

but to no avail. . On the other hand, while the United States has been reluctant 

to consent to further political development of the commonwealth, 

we must admit that it has been more generous as far as providing 

tools for our economic and social development. The unique relationship between Puerto Rico and the United States has made it possible for Puerto Rico to obtain parity with the States in most social 

programs, and has allowed the United States Congress to legislate 

to complement our economic development efforts, mainly Section 

936, which has been pivotal in furthering significant economic 

growth in Puerto Rico. 
81 

With such history as a background, we participated in the 1993 

plebiscite defining commonwealth as it is, a status based on a bilateral compact, with irrevocable United States citizenship, fiscal autonomy, international sports representation and cultural identity. 

In other words, we described the uniqueness of Puerto Rico and of 

its relations with the United States. Those are unquestionable 

facts. 

Based on them, we presented four proposals to further our economic and social development. These are reformulation of Section 

936; parity in SSI and the food stamp program; and tariff protection for our agriculture. 

All of these proposals are within the legal and constitutional 

framework within which Congress can act. In other words, there 

are no legal nor constitutional impediments to the adoption of 

these proposals. 

We are aware of budgetary constraints. We are also aware of 

international trade agreements which may reduce the possibilities 

within which tariff protection may operate. 

But if there is the political will and the budgetary constraints 

were not present, all of these proposals are viable under the commonwealth status. 

We are conscious that in the same manner that you may propose 

amendments to our Constitution and it is within our prerogatives 

to accept or reject them, it is within your prerogatives to accept or 

reject our proposals. 

We acknowledge that some people believe that a new plebiscite 

is the answer to the 1993 plebiscite. Some leaders in Puerto Rico 

think that we should have plebiscite after plebiscite until their status preference wins, and only when that happens, then they will 

accept that there has been an act of self-determination. 

They are wrong. The people of Puerto Rico already went through 

an act of self-determination, and in a democracy, the only response 

is to abide by the will of the people. 

Other leaders, mostly in the States, in good faith believe in another plebiscite. I must again state that the answer to the plebiscite is not another plebiscite. Whether the Congress reacts favorably or not to the 1993 plebiscite is not the end of the commonwealth status. 

We may have to continue our long journey, but our will to remain a Nation with its own cultural identity and language, proud 

of its heritage, will not diminish nor fail. We will follow our quest 

for further political and economic development. We will face with 

courage and determination the rocks in our path with our deep conviction that we shall prevail. Long after all of us have vanished 

from the public scene, Puerto Rico will still be Puerto Rico, proud 

of its own cultural identity, loyal to the principles of democracy and 

to its American citizenship. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Agosto can be found at the end 

of the hearing.] 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Thank you, Senator. Senator Martin. 
82 

STATEMENT OF BON. FERNANDO MARTIN, FORMER SENATOR 

AND VICE PRESIDENT OF PUERTO RICAN INDEPENDENCE 

PARTY 

Mr. MARTIN. Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, 

the crisis provoked by the amendments proposed in Congress to 

Section 936 of the Internal Revenue Code may well have a saving 

grace. 

It serves to highlight in an illuminating and dramatic manner 

two crucial issues that by far transcend the particular merits of the 

proposed amendments. Both have a profound bearing on the matter 

before this committee today. In the first place, it clearly shows that policy regarding Puerto 

Rico is being made, or what is the same, that congressional action 

is taking place that deeply affects the political relationship between 

Puerto Rico and the United States and the economic development 

perspectives in Puerto Rico in the short and in the long run. 

That these congressional initiatives will have concrete policy consequences is not open to question, although today is not the occasion to debate them or their merits. It seems to me more important 

to raise the issue of whether the decisionmaking process leading to 

these initiatives is the appropriate mechanism to decide the future 

of Puerto Rico. 

The question of what should be the fiscal relationship between 

the United States and Puerto Rico is not one that should be focused solely on budget-balancing considerations as if 936 were 

merely another tax break among so many for the Fortune 500. It 

may well be, but that should be the conclusion as opposed to the 

premises, and a conclusion arrived at only after having determined 

that the consequences of such treatment promote larger objectives 

regarding territorial policy. I submit that the question at issue, U.S. tax policy toward Puerto 

Rico, cannot be responsibly addressed except as a cornerstone of 

the overarching question of what should be the relationship between the United States and Puerto Rico as we stand in the 

threshold of the 21st century. If it is otherwise, it will then be the 

classical case of the tail wagging the dog, of policy by default, surely not an auspicious beginning for the exercise in constitutional jurisdiction concerning Puerto Rico in which you embark upon today. 

The second issue pushed to the fore by the crisis relating to Section 936, and which should serve as food for thought for those in 

Congress who have primary jurisdiction over Puerto Rico's political 

status is that the reaction of the Puerto Ricans has been so homogeneous. It is not the differences that stand out, but the common 

denominator. 

The Populares, like some Soviet scientists after the Chernobyl 

meltdown, are surprised that everyone isn't willing to go back to 

business as usual. The statehooders, like Governor Rossell6, have 

found religion in a special enterprise zone with a 60-percent wage 

credit, for which only Puerto Rico could qualify, convinced that at 

long last, they have found a loophole to the tax uniformity clause 

that will make statehood constitutionally incompatible with pref- erential tax treatment for Puerto Rico, a somewhat adolescent version of the perfect fiscal crime. 
83 

We independentistas, realists if nothing else, prefer to put our 

faith in the time-honored tax arrangements, improved upon if possible, that have worked excellently for our principal competitors 

such as Ireland and Singapore, in spite of these being higher wage 

economies than Puerto Rico. 

The common denominator is the recognition that Puerto Rico 

needs to be treated as an economy, at a different level of development than that of the United States, and that the uniform rules 

that apply here in the United States cannot apply in Puerto Rico 

without disastrous consequences. 

Let this spontaneous and revealing consensus serve as a starting 

point as far as economics is concerned for your deliberations in this 

process of responding to the 1993 plebiscite. As to other aspects of 

the issue, do be sure to have your response translated into Spanish, 

because most Puerto Ricans don't understand English. As the longtime President of the Puerto Rican Republicans told Senator Robert 

Dole recently, if you can't live with that, don't even count on their 

support. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Martin can be found at the end 

of the hearing.] 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. I want to thank all of you for your statements. As you can well see, over the years in dealing with issues 

not only for the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico but other territories, 

I have always had concerns about the fact that even the Members 

of Congress couldn't agree among themselves as to how to proceed 

in the most appropriate way to find solutions to the problems affecting Puerto Rico. 

Senator Agosto, I wanted to ask a question. In your honest opinion and in terms of what is happening now, your feeling is that you 

don't need to hold another plebiscite, that you think there should 

be an ongoing process of negotiating with the Puerto Rican leaders 

that the government had previously addressed the U.S. Government to fulfill as part of its responsibility. 

Am I correct? 

Mr. AGOSTO. That is correct, sir. This would be a never-ending 

process if we answer a plebiscite with another plebiscite. 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. And you don't give any weight to the results 

of the 1993 plebiscite in that effect? 

Mr. AGOSTO. I gave full weight to those results. We won that 

plebiscite under the most adverse circumstances. The party defeated the year before, disorganized in that and in leadership transition and with a proposal for statehood, it is being said by Governor Rossell6, that he would negotiate international sport representation, the use of Spanish as the official language, and things 

like that, ignoring what your colleagues today have sent to you, 

Members of Congress, Toby Roth and Mr. Solomon. 

Statehood means one national language, mandatory Federal tax 

collection, one single U.S. Olympic Committee, one U.S. flag flying 

over all others, and one American national anthem. This is the reality and even the pride of being a State, and this reality is permanent. This was not presented to the people of Puerto Rico in this 

way. 
84 

So even under those circumstances, we prevailed. This is not a 

change of a status. This is the continuation of the same status and 

the further development of that status within the framework of the 

basic relationship established in 1952. 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Despite the fact that it was by a plurality 

vote that the pro-commonwealth proponents won in the result of 

the plebiscite. 

Mr. AGOSTO. That is correct. 

Senator Rodriguez, would you like to comment on that? 

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Yes. Thank you. The answer that Senator Hernandez Agosto just gave indicates why you have to express the 

opinion of Congress or at least of this committee on the four proposals that were made to the people of Puerto Rico, because if you 

do not react and you express your opinion on them, whether they 

are achievable or not, then we will have the never-ending story. 

What we are trying to do is, the people voted in a majority for 

commonwealth, with four proposals. 

Now, we want you to say whether or not you can reformulate 

936. I want you to say to the people of Puerto Rico whether or not 

you will be willing to give protective tariffs for our agricultural 

goods. I want you to say whether or not you see the relation between Puerto Rico and the United States, not by the Territorial 

Clause, but by a compact, whatever that may mean. 

Third or fourth, I would like to see whether or not you are willing to give parity in Federal social programs without Puerto Rico 

paying Federal taxes. Now, we want you to tell us whether you are 

willing to grant that. 

If you are not wiling to grant that, then we still have to go back 

and decolonize Puerto Rico and we would have to have another 

plebiscite, but with the difference that they cannot come back to 

this, what we call "quincalla", you know, all these offerings to the 

people of Puerto Rico when they have no basis of reality here in 

Congress. • 

We don't want the people of Puerto Rico to be deceived by the 

commonwealthers. We want the people of Puerto Rico to know 

what Congress would be willing to give in terms of these four proposals, and if you are not willing to give it in the next plebiscite, 

don't come back with that same thing to the people of Puerto Rico. 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Senator Martin. 

Mr. MARTIN. Well, I think it is evident and from the testimony 

here today, I think uncontested testimony, that the United States 

Congress as an institution was negligent and remiss in the 1989 

to 1991 process in formulating a structure that would really move 

this problem ahead in a significant manner. 

I think that the difficulties relating to the definitions in the case 

of the commonwealth option are simply a manifestation of the fact 

that that was left to the particular parties in Puerto Rico to decide 

according to their own criteria, precisely because Congress had 

shied away from making mandatory definitions that would in effect 

imply what Congress was willing to offer. 

But I think there has been a vote, and either it will be taken seriously or it will not be taken seriously. I think that Congress has 

an obligation to take it seriously, and the way to take it seriously 

is to respond to it. Of course, respond doesn't mean a telegram 
85 

from the chairman of a subcommittee. Respond means in an institutional manner. Legislation must be presented; it must be pushed 

forward. It must have promoters and sponsors, and there is where 

we are going to really find out if Congress is serious about this 

process or whether it is not. 

It is my hope, hoping against hope perhaps, that we will see 

some serious initiatives taking place on this matter. Certainly, the 

basis for the initiatives are there. 

Whether or not the Congress acts, I think it is time that we 

Puerto Ricans can say to the Congress, it is time that you get your 

act together. 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Thank you very much, Senators. The gentleman from Puerto Rico. 

Mr. ROMERO-BARCELO. Mr. Hernandez, what has been done by 

the Popular Democratic Party in Congress after the 1993 plebiscite? 

Mr. AGOSTO. As you know, Mr. Resident Commissioner, there 

were some hearings which were postponed, and in the meantime, 

the president appointed a committee to study these proposals, and 

we considered that given the fact that you and the governor have 

been working against the express will of the people of Puerto Rico, 

we thought it to be prudent to wait until the government, the executive branch was ready to come with us before Congress to present 

these proposals. . Mr. ROMERO-BARCELO. So you have done nothing since the plebiscite as far as Congress is concerned? 

Mr. AGOSTO. We have done just exactly what I told you. 

Mr. ROMERO-BARCELO. And that is nothing. 

Mr. AGOSTO. Well, that is in your opinion. 

Mr. ROMERO-BARCELO. Isn't that what you said? Maybe I had it 

wrong. If I had it wrong, please correct me. 

Mr. AGOSTO. It wouldn't be the first time. 

Mr. ROMERO-BARCELO. Then please indicate. Repeat again then, 

because I understood that you said nothing was done. You didn't 

use the word nothing but you said you were in the administration, 

and that you were waiting until the administration proposed--

Mr. AGOSTO. And here we are today. 

Mr. ROMERO-BARCELO. So up to this time, you have not been 

here to Congress. 

Mr. AGOSTO. It is what I told you before. 

Mr. ROMERO-BARCELO. And I am asking you up to now, you have 

not been up to Congress with any proposal or any--

Mr. AGOSTO. When we were coming to Congress, the hearings 

were postponed. 

Mr. ROMERO-BARCELO. And after that? 

Mr. AGOSTO. These are the first hearings. 

Mr. ROMERO-BARCELO. These are the first hearings, and you did 

nothing in between. 

Mr. AGOSTO. No, you have come to Congress to fight the will of 

the people of Puerto Rico. 

Mr. ROMERO-BARCELO. What is the will? 

Mr. AGOSTO. That ex~ressed in November 14, 1993. 

Mr. ROMERO-BARCELO. And what was that? 
86 

Mr. AGOSTO. Well, for example, 936, we proposed a reformulation--

Mr. ROMERO-BARCELO. No, I mean what was the percentage of 

the vote? 

Mr. AGOSTO. You know the percentages. 

Mr. ROMERO-BARCELO. What is it? 

Mr. AGOSTO. For the record, your question is--

Mr. ROMERO-BARCELO. What is the percentage of the vote in 

1993? 

Mr. AGOSTO. Let me answer your first question, if I understood 

you right. 

Mr. ROMERO-BARCELO. Forget my first question. Answer my second question. Mr. AGOSTO. No, I want to answer it. 

Mr. ROMERO-BARCELO. We will get to that. 

Mr. AGOSTO. I want to answer your question. 

Mr. ROMERO-BARCELO. We will get to that one. 

Mr. AGOSTO. I want to answer your first question. 

Mr. ROMERO-BARCELO. We will get to the first one. 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Gentlemen, please. Could we have some 

order here? I would like to ask the gentleman from Puerto Rico if 

you could just state the question and allow the Senator to respond. 

Mr. ROMERO-BARCELO. All right. The question is, what was the 

result in numbers of the plebiscite in 1993? 

Mr. AGOSTO. 48.6 percent. Mr. ROMERO-BARCELO. All right. And that is the will, 48.6 percent? 

Mr. AGOSTO. Yes, that is the will. You mean that if you don't get 

over 50 percent of the vote, you have to have another election to 

be elected Commissioner? 

Mr. ROMERO-BARCELO. Not in the elections. In personal elections, 

it is quite different, but I have here a statement by you in the El 

Nuevo Dia in May 27, 1993, where you say that in order for there 

to be a decision in the plebiscite, you need an absolute majority, 

more than 50. That was your statement to the press, and that was 

also your statement in the hearings that were held in the legislature in Puerto Rico. 

Mr. AGOSTO. You rejected that, your party. It was your choice, 

not mine. It was your choice. 

Mr. ROMERO-BARCELO. But you still maintain the same statement? 

Mr. AGOSTO. Yes, because that was your choice, so sure. 

Mr. ROMERO-BARCELO. If the statehood had gotten 48 percent 

and you got 46, you would have said that that was not a majority . . But you got 48 and you say that that is a majority. 

Mr. AGOSTO. I am sure you would say that that was a majority, 

if you had gotten 48 percent. 

Mr. ROMERO-BARCELO. No. No, we wouldn't because a majority 

is 50 plus one. I would never lie about that. 

Mr. AGOSTO. I don't think there is any use in--

Mr. ROMERO-BARCELO. If 50 plus one is a majority, there is no 

other majority. 

Mr. AGOSTO. Well, you were elected governor by 3,000 votes. 

Mr. ROMERO-BARCELO. Right. That is correct. 
87 

Mr. AGOSTO. We didn't have another election. 

Mr. ROMERO-BARCELO. No, but that is again, different. Elections 

are won by plurality, but as you well stated in your statement to 

the press and as you well stated in the hearings in the legislature, 

you needed a majority for anything to affect status. 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. If the gentleman from Puerto Rico would 

like to have that document submitted Jmd made part of the record. 

Mr. ROMERO-BARCELO. Submitted, yes. 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. And certainly, I would like to ask Senator 

Agosto to provide for the record his response to the article. 

Mr. AGOSTO. Of course. 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Thank you. 

Mr. ROMERO-BARCELO. Now, Mr. Rodriguez, during the campaign 

in the plebiscite in Puerto Rico, those things that appear on the 

ballot, how were they presented to the people of Puerto Rico? Were 

they presented as something that would be discussed, analyzed and 

studied, or were they told to the people of Puerto Rico saying that 

these were things that they would guarantee? 

Mr. RoDRiGUEZ. No, they were not, and by looking at the chart, 

you can see that. It says there that the commonwealth has said 

that they would "immediately propose the following'', so immediately is immediately. It is not two years and now come here, but 

I would like to yield to Senator McClintock who made a study on 

this matter after the plebiscite was held. 

Mr. ROMERO-BARCELO. Fine. 

Mr. McCLINTOCK. Commissio~er, the fact is they were very dramatic in their campaign. They said, we are going to propose these 

things. We are going to propose it immediately. We are going to 

propose it before the U.S. Congress. 

They did not talk about study groups in the White House or anything like that, and it says it right there in the definition. I mean, 

when the letter of the law is clear, you don't have to go to interpretations. It says, we will develop commonwealth through specific 

proposals to be brought before the U.S. Congress. We will immediately propose, and then the four different items, so it was clear 

that it was before the U.S. Congress, that it would be immediate, 

and the truth of the matter is, that it is 23 months later that they 

are now appearing, and you do not require the holding of a congressional hearing in order for you to propose. things before the 

United States Congress, and had it not been for the resolution that 

the majority in the legislature presented to bring the matter before 

the Congress of the United States, no other specific action was 

taken before the U.S. Congress, and they were very categorical in 

the campaign. They did not leave any area of doubt, and they did 

not say what they are now saying in the present Puerto Rico, that 

they would wait until they were in power in Puerto Rico to then 

start proposing changes to commonwealth status. 

They said that we will propose immediately, knowing that it was 

November 1993, and that the NPP would continue in power for at 

least the following three years and two months. 

Mr. ROMERO-BARCELO. One question for the record, Mr. McClintock. The administration in Puerto Rico, was there any change in 

the administration before the plebiscite and after the plebiscite or 
88 

was the administration in Puerto Rico, the government, the same 

before the plebiscite and after the plebiscite? 

Mr. McCLINTOCK. In fact, it was known during the campaign 

that at the time the plebiscite was held, the new administration 

would be 12 months old, and it would have 36 months more to go, 

or actually, 38 months more, three years and two months more to 

go before there could conceivably be a change in administration, 

which we hope will not happen, but that conceivably, that could 

happen. 

It was clear that when they say that immediately, they are going 

to propose things, it is not three years and two months down the 

road; it is immediate. It did not require an administration change 

for them to make their proposals. 

Mr. ROMERO-BARCELO. The fact that I was here in Congress and 

the governor was in Puerto Rico, they knew that? 

Mr. McCLINTOCK. They were very aware of that when they drafted the proposal, and that is their language. 

I was a member of the joint committee. Senator Rodriguez was 

the co-chair of that joint committee, and we left entirely in the 

hands of the Popular Democratic Party leadership the drafting of 

that proposal. Those are their words, and we did not commit them 

to anything; they committed themselves. 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Thank you. Gentlemen, thank you very 

much for your appearance. 

Our next panel is the Honorable Angel Cintr6n-Garcia, the Majority Whip of the Puerto Rico House of Representatives; also, the 

Honorable Carlos Vizcarrondo Irizarry, of the Puerto Rico House of 

Representatives; and the Honorable David Hernandez, the Minority Leader of the Puerto Rico House of Representatives. Gentlemen, I want to apologize for the lateness of the hour and 

the times that we have tried to proceed in getting your statements 

and testimonies for the record, but I would like to begin with Mr. 

Cintr6n-Garcia. 

Please proceed. 

STATEMENT OF HON. ANGEL M. CINTRON-GARCiA, MAJORITY 

WHIP, PUERTO RICO HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

Mr. CINTRON-GARCIA. We apologize, too, for being here today. I 

am going to summarize my written presentation that I already 

gave to the committee yesterday. 

Members of the Committee on Western Hemisphere and the 

Committee on Native American and Insular Affairs, my name is 

Angel Cintr6n-Garcia. It has been my privilege to serve the people 

of Puerto Rico in our House of Representatives for the past seven 

years, the last three as Majority Whip of our delegation. 

Today, I appear on behalf of the Speaker of the House of Representatives, the Honorable Zaida Hernandez-Torres, in order to 

present her views regarding the results of the plebiscite on political 

status held on November 14, 1993, in Puerto Rico. 

Regretfully, she cannot be present here today due to prior com- mitments that she was not able to postpone. Nonetheless, she wishes to convey her full support to this effort, as it will provide an excellent opportunity to dispel any doubts whatsoever about a lack of 
89 

resolve on the part of Congress to finally address and bring to an 

end the issue of Puerto Rico's self-determination. 

In order to succeed in the task that you have undertaken, it is 

absolutely necessary that you be fully abreast on a variety of issues 

such as the constitutional context of the relationship between Puerto Rico and the United States; the guidelines provided by international law as to what may allow for any status plebiscite to be 

considered a true exercise of self-determination; the apparent failure of every previous attempt to settle this century-old problem 

once and for all. Such background information will provide a more 

appropriate setting for you to better comprehend the issue and the 

results of the status plebiscite of 1993. 

On the other hand, failure to do so will allow for distorted and 

unsubstantiated facts to dominate any discussion, further confusing and misinforming all the parties involved in this process. 

The role that you play in this process is essential in order for the 

people of Puerto Rico to know the viability of the commonwealth 

formula that garnered a plurality of the votes in the aforementioned plebiscite. If you decide that such a definition of commonwealth is not attainable, then all of us have a right to know what 

are the real options that would be available. 

On May 20, 1993, the Governor of Puerto Rico submitted an enabling bill to the Legislature to be considered by the joint special 

committee constituted for that purpose only. As in every legislative process, there were a few objections concerning some provisions of the bill. This meant that a good number 

of amendments were proposed, some of which were incorporated 

into the fmal draft of the bill. 

On July 4, 1993, Governor Rossell6 signed the plebiscite bill into 

law, which then came to be known as Act Number 22. It is important to recognize that this act maintained the element of fairness 

that former Secretary of Sta~ Corrada referred to in his testimony 

before the Joint Commission of the Puerto Rico Legislature on 

House Bill 694. 

The most clear example of our good intentions to have a process charaeterized by fair play, and I may add, not only in reality but 

also in appearance, was the hands-off approach regarding the definitions that would be presented to the electorate on the day of the 

plebiscite. The second paragraph of Section 1 of this Act reads as 

follows, ''The principal political parties or any group, organization, 

or entity certified or selected to defend any of the three status formulas shall state in writing the definition of the status formula 

each is proclaiming and defending during the plebiscitary process 

authorized herein." 

This meant that each party or organization with the responsibility of presenting the definition on behalf of any of the three status 

alternatives had absolute control over what was included in its contents. 

Why did we do it this way? First, in order to preserve the element and the appearance of fairness, you cannot be part player 

and part umpire. Second, in order to maintain the process fair and 

simple, and avoid heated debates and possibly numerous challenges in court, it seemed more appropriate to allow each side to 

define their given status formula. Third, and most important of all, 
90 

only Congress is able to speak for itself, and in a case like this, indicate what is viable in the definition of a status formula and what 

is not. 

Only Congress might be able to even go as far as saying that a 

given status alternative is not viable, because they so see fit. Because of our current territorial relationship with the United States, 

the rest of us, especially those in Puerto Rico, can only have wellfounded opinions but nothing more. 

It was our naive belief that public debate was going to be able 

to neutralize any attempt of misinforming voters by the inclusion 

of false and unrealistic elements in any given definition for a status 

formula. We were wrong. 

As Congressman Don Young later said on the House floor, ''The 

law's genuine intent to be fair unintentionally fostered a weakness 

by permitting historically unprecedented hypothetical status definitions on the ballot." 

The campaign that followed the enactment of the law in July was 

very inspiring and educational, yet tough and disheartening in 

other ways. To no one's surprise, the campaign aroused much enthusiasm in our electorate, regardless of ideology. 

On the other hand, on most occasions, it did not provide good opportunities for serious debates between the advocates of the three 

status formulas. Sadly, many issues and facts were distorted or 

simply made up, as misinformation was the rule of the day. 

On November 14, 1993, the plebiscite was held amid high expectations among supporters of the three ideologies that this vote 

moved us right on the track toward a final resolution of our centuries-old status dilemma. The specific results of the vote have already been mentioned, so I will continue. 

For us, these results were quite disheartening. Nonetheless, 

something quite significant had also happened. 

Twenty-eight years ago, on July 23, 1967, a plebiscite of local initiative, very similar to the one in 1993, was held in Puerto Rico so 

that our people could express their preference as to the three status options. The results for that event showed commonwealth with 

60.41 percent support among those who voted. Based on those results, advocates of commonwealth alw_ays claimed--

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Mr. Majority Whip, I am sorry. I hate to interrupt and I was trying to give you a little more leeway, but can 

you summarize it, please? 

Mr. CINTRON-GARCIA. We are quite concerned that such lack of 

action by the PDP may provide a further lease on life for our current status relationship with the United States, which as of November 14, 1993, is devoid of any possible consent on our part. 

Nonetheless, this lack of action on their part gives the impression 

that they are trying to avoid any congressional expression or action 

into this matter at all costs. 

I have no further time, so I am able to answer questions later. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Cintron-Garda can be found at 

the end of the hearing.] 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Your statement will be made part of the 

record. 

Mr. CINTRON-GARCIA. Thank you, sir. 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Representative Irizarry, please proceed. 
91 

STATEMENT OF HON. CARLOS VIZCARRONDO IRIZARRY, 

PUERTO RICO HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

Mr. IRIZARRY. Good afternoon, Mr. Chainnan, and distinguished 

members of this committee. 

My name is Carlos Vizcarrondo Irizarry. I am an at-large member of the Puerto Rico House of Representatives for the Popular 

Democratic Party. 

I am here today substituting for Mr. Severo Colberg, the House 

Minority Leader, who could not appear today. On behalf of the minority delegation in the Puerto Rico House of Representatives, I 

would like to thank you for the opportunity to arpear before you. 

We appear before you to fully support the wil of the people of 

Puerto Rico, expressed democratically in the plebiscite that took 

place in the island on November 14, 1993, which favored the commonwealth fonnula. This option of political association was defined in the ballot as 

a bilateral pact between Puerto Rico and the United States that 

could only be amended by common consent of both parties in the 

association. The people of Puerto Rico reaffinn its support of the 

political relationship that was established in 1952, the so-called 

commonwealth status. 

The will of the people was also expressed in a 1967 plebiscite 

held in Puerto Rico in which 60.44 percent of the voters that participated favored the commonwealth status over statehood or independence. 

The 1993 plebiscite in favor of commonwealth reaffinns the establishment of a common agreement under the tenns of Law 600 

of 1950, and the joint resolution of Congress Number 447 of 1952, 

establishing an autonomous entity pennanently associated with the 

United States. The four pillars of that association are common citizenship, common currency, common defense, and a common market. 

The position of the United States for the United Nations has consistently been that Puerto Rico is no longer a colony, and that in 

1952, a compact was created between the people of Puerto Rico and 

the United States. This sentiment was articulated in Resolution 

748-VIII of 1953 before the General Assembly, which the United 

States itself was a part of. 

Thus, Mr. Chainnan, from the very beginning, it was clear to the 

United States, to the United Nations, and to the people of Puerto 

Rico that Puerto Rico ceased being a territory after the 1952 Com- pact of Association between Puerto Rico and the United States. 

Mt. Chainnan, once the people expressed themselves in the 1993 

plebiscite, now the time has come for the leadership of the commonwealth fonnula of which I am part to come before you and find 

common ways to put forth ideas expressed by the people of Puerto 

Rico and favored by the voters in 1993. Along with the reaffinnation of the bilateral nature of the compact within the people of 

Puerto Rico and the United States, there were four economic requests made by the Puerto Rican voters in 1993. 

These have been widely discussed today; however, I would like 

to stress one of those, because I believe strongly in the significance 

for the people of Puerto Rico and for the future economic development of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico. 

2Q-766 - 96 - 4 
92 

The first item was that Puerto Rico wishes to maintain Section 

936 of the Internal Revenue Code because of the many thousands 

of jobs that it creates for Puerto Rico, and because it has generated 

an economic climate favorable for investors in Puerto Rico. I am 

well aware of the changes being made and the unfortunate consequences that these changes being made in the Congress could 

have for the economy of Puerto Rico. 

I want to state in no uncertain terms that I favor the permanence of Section 936 in Puerto Rico, because it has been an agent 

of growth and development over the last few decades. However, 

given the nature of the political and economic climate in Washington, DC, today, in which the people of Puerto Rico are not fully informed or participants on their future economic development, I 

would like to bring to your attention one additional policy recommendation that could have a favorable impact on the economy 

of Puerto Rico; that is the ability of the government of Puerto Rico 

to enter into commercial treaties with other countries of the world. 

The new economic world order and the new economic realities 

were that all of the countries of the world have become partners, 

require that Puerto Rico immediately, in order to enhance its competitiveness, enter this world economic order with the power to 

enter into commercial relationships with these countries. 

I believe, Mr. Chairman, that we should work together to find 

ways such as the one that I have proposed to continuously increase 

the competitiveness of Puerto Rico and in that way, generate the 

necessary jobs to keep our economy moving as it has moved continuously under the commonwealth status. If we generate jobs and 

depend less on welfare programs, it is good for Puerto Rico and it 

is good for the United States of America. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Irizarry can be found at the end 

of the hearing.] 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Thank you. Mr. Noriega-Rodriguez. 

STATEMENT OF BON. DAVID NORIEGA-RODRIGUEZ, MINORITY 

LEADER, PUERTO RICO HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

Mr. NORIEGA-RODRIGUEZ. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and 

members of the committee. My name is David Noriega-Rodriguez, not David Noriega-Hernandez. I am the Minority Leader of the Puerto Rican Independence Party in the House of Representatives. 

On November 14, 1993, the people of Puerto Rico expressed their 

wishes to end our colonial territorial status under the United 

States Constitution. It is essential now that the United States Congress express itself with total clarity as to what options it would 

consider for Puerto Rico's decolonization. Congress should act responsibly in order to discharge its constitutional obligation to dispose of the territory. 

Furthermore, until such time as our subordinate and dependent 

status is resolved, Congress must take urgent and concrete steps 

to avoid aggravating our economic dependence. 

Puerto Rico needs political powers to develop and implement new 

policies that will remedy our dependence while .rescuing Federal 

taxpayers from the edge of the bottomless colonial welfare pit. 
93 

While you continue to dismantle the benefits for Puerto Rico of Internal Revenue Code Section 936, you should simultaneously address the deterioration of our economy with concrete action on several issues. 

Puerto Rico needs more economic instruments and power to enter 

into tax treaties with capital exporting nations other than the 

United States; to institute separate wage, labor, and tax policy; to 

develop infant industry and local capital accumulation; to eliminate 

the offshore shipping laws; among many other development tools. 

Economists estimate that Puerto Rican consumers are paying 

over $500,000,000 every year in excess of what they would have to 

pay if Puerto Rico were exempted from the application of the United States shipping laws. We import most of what we consume, and 

export most of what we produce. Thus, the need to reduce the cost 

of shipping goods is of the highest priority. 

You are not in the process of deregulating the maritime transportation. If you finally deregulate, you should reform your coastwise 

shopping law to at least eliminate the monopoly in the maritime 

transportation in the offshore areas. Otherwise, you will leave a 

monopoly without regulation, and that, in my view, is an invitation 

to abuse. 

Several important business organizations in Puerto Rico have 

met with me to discuss their interest to secure Puerto Rico's exemption from the application of the coastwise shipping laws. 

Among these are the Puerto Rican Manufacturers Association, the 

Puerto Rico Chamber of Commerce, the Importers Association and 

the Retailers Association. 

Therefore, on behalf of the people of Puerto Rico, statehooders, 

commonwealth supporters, independentistas, I formally request the 

revision and total elimination of these shipping laws' application to 

Puerto Rico. 

Finally, I must emphasize that Puerto Rico needs the powers to 

enter into commercial and tax treaties with other countries. As our 

party has pointed out several times, when our economy enjoyed the 

full benefits of the tax-sparing mechanism provided by Section 936 

in the era before NAFI'A, when only Puerto Rico had free access 

to the United States market, Puerto Rico became the welfare capital of the hemisphere. 

While, in my view, only separate sovereignty can provide all the 

instruments and powers necessary to respond to our needs, you 

have the power, under the Territorial Clause, to implement some 

specific concrete measures to alleviate our colonial plight. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Noriega-Rodriguez can be found 

at the end of the hearing.] 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Thank you very much; I yield the chair back 

to my good friend from Indiana, Chairman Burton. 

Mr. BURTON. I want to thank you very much. I really appreciate 

my Democrat colleague not taking advantage when all the Republicans were out of the room. 

I want to thank the panel very much. We appreciate your participation. Does anyone have any questions? 
94 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Yes, I do. I certainly want to thank all three 

gentlemen for their very poignant comments and certainly right to 

the point. 

The concern that I have and wanted to ask you for your comments, again, we go back to Section 936. Do I sense that there is 

a consensus among you three gentlemen that if the Congress is expected to gut 936, that you also expect the Congress to provide a 

solution to the real serious economic consequences to the Puerto 

Rican economy if this does happen? 

Mr. CINTRON-GARCIA. My point of view, as a matter of fact, Governor Rossell6 already presented to most of the Members of the 

House and of the Senate alternatives to develop the economy in 

Puerto Rico and to diversify our economy, not just in manufacturing, but on service and goods which is a bigger base for our local 

economy. 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. It would be a fair statement for me to say 

that definitely, the economic impact on Puerto Rico of Section 936 

is going to be devastating, if this provision is to be rescinded? 

Mr. CINTRON-GARCIA. I am not quite sure about that, because not 

all of the manufacturing industry in Puerto Rico depends on 936 

Section, as you know. More than 50 percent of it does not depend 

on the tax exemption on revenues. 

Most of it depends on other sides of 936 Section and other alternatives. 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. I would like the three gentlemen to submit 

for the record your response to my question. I think it is important, 

and I really am very interested in your comments about this issue. 

Mr. NORIEGA-RODIUGUEZ. I think, Mr. Chairman, that your statement has the consensus of all the people of the political parties in 

Puerto Rico. 

If you eliminate Section 936--you have the power to do so, but 

you have the responsibility to provide an alternative mechanism of 

job creation and capital accumulation for Puerto Rico. I mean, that 

is the minimum that we expect from you. 

Mr. IRIZARRY. Mr. Chairman, in our particular point of view, we 

are convinced of the devastating effects that the elimination of Section 936 would have in Puerto Rico. More than 300,000 Puerto 

Ricans depend directly or indirectly upon the jobs created by the 

operation of Section 936 industries, and more than $9,000,000 are 

in the banks of Puerto Rico. 

Therefore, the effect would be very, very, very devastating for 

Puerto Rico. 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. I would appreciate it if you could submit for 

the record written statements to my question. 

One other thing, as much as I appreciate your complimenting the 

Congress and suggesting that it is the responsibility of the Congress to tell you the answers to this very serious issue that has 

been for all these years with the Puerto Rican people, all I can give 

you is an illustration. The Congress is a moving object, and every 

two years, let us face it, and I am going to be very frank with you 

gentlemen, next year is a presidential election, and right in the 

midst of this whole presidential election, the Puerto Rican situation 

is going to be in the terms of a political issue, not necessarily be-
95 

cause of the serious economic and social needs that Puerto Rico is 

faced with. I say this in all sincerity, and I just wish that there was a sense 

of a constancy on the part of the Congress to say, we are here, we 

are going to give it to you. 

Next year, we might have a whole new panel, and I will be frank 

with you, we may not even have some of the members of the subcommittee here addressing the issues affecting the territories, so I 

just want to give you the sense of reality that I wish I could be 

more optimistic for you gentlemen depending on the Congress for 

answers, because it has been my experience that we fall way below, 

and it is not because I judge critically the Members, but it is just 

the institution and the way things operate here in Washington. I 

wish I could be more positive, gentlemen. Thank you. Mr. GALLEGLY. The gentleman from Indiana. 

Mr. BURTON. I can't believe that the phasing out of the 936 program over five to ten years is going to be apocalyptic for Puerto 

Rico. 

The unemployment rate has not changed over one percent since 

the beginning of the 936 program. It is the same, almost identically, as it was when 936 was put in place. 

In addition to that, GAO did a study and they don't just come 

up and throw figures at the wall. The study indicated that the impact on the economy migh~ be as many as 3,000 jobs overall. However, they said that a lot of the slack is going to be picked up by 

subsidiaries and subcontractors of companies that are down there; 

and many companies won't leave in the first place, because they 

have a tremendous amount of investment in Puerto Rico in infrastructure, in equipment and plants. So it is not going to be the end 

of the world if 936 is phased out in an orderly way. 

In addition to that, the amount of money that we spend for each 

job in Puerto Rico, the average worker in Puerto Rico under the 

936 program gets about $25,000 a year, but it costs the government of the United States $100,000 for that $25,000 to be paid. We have 

spent $3,000,000,000 on the program, and about one-fourth of it 

has actually gone in salaries to the workers. 

The bottom line is that there might be another way to skin the 

cat, to make sure that the Puerto Rican economy does not suffer, 

and at the same time maybe even expand, and one of those ways 

is to make Puerto Rico a super-enterprise zone, and there are ways 

for us to do that. 

I hope that the message, and I know that it is late in the day, 

but I hope that the message back to Puerto Rico is not that we are 

callous toward Puerto Rico because we want to save the taxpayers' 

money by phasing out the 936 program. 

What we want to do is make Puerto Rico more independent from 

an economic standpoint, like many of the States, stand on its own 

two feet, and we think this could be accomplished with a lot less 

tax ·dollars. 

Finally, I think that the argument for statehood and the arguments that I read need further airing. That is a decision to be left 

up to the Puerto Rican people, but the bottom line is, I think the 

936 program is going to be passe; it is going to be phased out, but 

that won't be the end of the world. 
96 

Mr. GALLEGLY. Mr. Romero-Barcelo. 

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

Burton, I want to agree with you in that what has been said about 

the devastation of Puerto Rico if 936 is phased out; it is, to say the 

least, grossly exaggerated. 

We have heard here people say that this is the only reason why 

these companies are in Puerto Rico. They eliminate geographic reasons; climatological reasons; accessibility; the large number of work 

force in Puerto Rico, properly trained, highly educated in comparison with other jurisdictions, including the mainland; the fact that 

the salaries in Puerto Rico are still approximately half of what they 

are in the 50 States of the Nation; the fact that the productivity 

and the quality controls in Puerto Rico are very, very, w>:ry, high; 

they are excellent. 

They forget about the capability of the managers in Puerto Rico, 

that we have such excellent industrial managers in Puerto Rico 

that some of these companies have taken them to other plants on 

the mainland to show them how things are being done in Puerto 

Rico in the same company. 

All these other qualities and these other promotions and reasons 

for investing in Puerto Rico are obviated by those who defend the 

companies and who defend the interests of the companies and not 

the interests of the people of Puerto Rico, 1eally. 

In the investments in Puerto Rico, the 936, they don't say for the 

short-term investment. In the newspaper, you will see the Bankers 

Association lamenting because all this money is short-term, so it is 

not helping Puerto Rico; it is not long-term investment. If we look 

for alternatives, the Governor has proposed an excellent alternative, which goes to jobs, and as you mentioned, the super-enterprise zone, which is based on how many jobs are produced and the 

salaries. It is a tax credit based on that, together with other, smaller incentives for investment. I think that will be directed to creation of jobs and not to the enrichment of the companies. 

You mentioned $100,000. There are companies that are making 

as much as $300,000 per job, and how can you defend that type of 

situation which is only to the enrichment of the companies and not 

to the creation of jobs. What we want to do is to create more jobs 

and more opportunities in Puerto Rico. 

Chairman Burton, I agree with you 100 percent, and I don't 

think there is going to be any kind of situation like this being forecast. 

I still have some time, and I would just like to ask a couple of 

questions. Mr. Irizarry, just for the record, when you say Section 

1936 you mean 936, because all along, you have been saying 1936. 

You are talking about Section 936? 

Mr. IRIZARRY. That is right. 

Mr. ROMERO-BARCELO. You are saying 1936. Mr. IRI~Y. 936. 

Mr. ROMERO-BARCELO. Mr. Irizarry, you said you would like 

Puerto Rico to have authority to enter into its own treaties, commercial treaties? 

Mr. IRIZARRY. That is what I just said. 
97 

Mr. ROMERO-BARCELO. Have you analyzed the problems that it 

would create-you want permanent union with the United States, 

don't you, or not? 

Mr. IRIZARRY. In the sense of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, 

yes. 

Mr. ROMERO-BARCELO. You want permanent union. OK. Can you 

visualize the problems that would be created for Puerto Rico if you 

have commercial treaties with other nations allowing you to establish different tariffs or different quotas or whatever for products 

than the Nation has, that would create a problem for any goods 

coming from Puerto Rico into the mainland? Have you visualized 

and analyzed how that would be affected and what would be the 

impact on Puerto Rico if you were to have any treaties with other 

countries different from the ones that the Nation has? 

Mr. IRIZARRY. Well, as I have stated, I think that Puerto Rico 

should have the opportunity to make commercial arrangements 

with other countries, but there must be some sort of communication between the government of Puerto Rico and the government of 

the United States in order that it doesn't go against the political 

position of the United States of America. 

Mr. ROMERO-BARCELO. Well, as I understand David NoriegaRodriguez, he doesn't want to be associated with the United States; 

he wants to have independence so that he can have treaties with 

other countries, definitely. 

But what I am trying to point to you is that if you have any kind 

of a commercial treaty with other nations, then you are destroying 

the common market for Puerto Rico with the rest of the nation. 

You should analyze that. 

Mr. IRIZARRY. That is not my viewpoint, because the United 

States of America makes commercial arrangements with the rest of 

the world, and they are partners in the association, so why can't 

we have the same opportunities? 

Mr. ROMERO-BARCELO. Since you will have a different arrangement in commerce with another country, all the goods coming from 

Puerto Rico into the States will be subject to certain restrictions 

that they are not subject to now, to inspection or whatever, but it 

would change the whole concept of the common market with Puerto 

Rico. 

I just want you to be aware of that. 

Mr. IRIZARRY. I think it depends on the willingness of the government of Puerto Rico to have this instrument to create more jobs in 

Puerto Rico. 

Mr. ROMERO-BARCELO. But it would have consequences. 

Mr. IRIZARRY. The consequences will be better for the people of 

Puerto Rico. 

Mr. ROMERO-BARCELO. So you have analyzed them? 

Mr. IRIZARRY. Yes. 

Mr. ROMERO-BARCELO. All right. 

Mr. GALLEGLY. I thank all you gentlemen for being so patient 

this afternoon, and I know it has been a long day for you, and we 

appreciate you testifying and look forward to getting to know all 

of you better in the months to come. 
98 

We have one more panel, so if you gentlemen will excuse yourselves, we will get on and try to get this meeting wrapped up. 

Thank you very much. 

Mr. CINTRON-GARCIA. Thank you very much. 

Mr. GALLEGLY. Our last panel is Dr. Miriam Ramirez de Ferrer; 

Mr. Jose Antonio Casillas; Mr. Emilion A. Soler Marl; and Mr. Luis 

Vega-Ramos. 

Dr. Ramirez de Ferrer. 

Dr. RAMiREZ. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank both 

chairmen for inviting me to this hearing today. I want to have my 

full statement introduced for the record and the evidence sustaining my statement. I want to make a reduced oral statement for the 

committee. 

Mr. GALLEGLY. Without objection, that will be the order. 

STATEMENT OF MIRIAM RAMiREz DE FERRER, M.D., PRESIDENT OF PUERTO RICANS IN CMC ACTION 

Dr. RAMiREZ. Over 95 percent of our residents voted in the last 

plebiscite in favor of three common principles: permanent union 

with the United States, guaranteed American citizenship, and economic equality with the 50 States of the union. 

The winning commonwealth option was constitutionally and politically unattainable, since it promised the above three benefits of 

statehood without the obligation of Federal franchise and Federal 

taxation. 

What really strikes us is that all this would come under an unalterable bilateral compact. I am amazed that a whole day of hearing 

has gone by, and although I am not going to go into the benefits 

or merits of these definitions, which you will find in my written 

testimony, there is a memo from the Department of Justice from 

July 28, 1994, to Guam from Theresa Wynn-Rosenboro, Deputy Assistant Attorney General. I quote from it, saying, "The Department 

revisited this issue in the early 1990's in connection with the Puerto Rican Status Referendum Bill in light of Bowen v. Agencies Opposed to Social Security Entrapment, and concluded that there 

could not be an enforceable vested right in a political status; hence, 

that mutual consent clauses were ineffective, because they would 

not bind a subsequent Congress." 

This was told to Guam when they wanted to do a bilateral compact, and I think it is important to bring it up to this committee, 

when unalterable bilateral compact happens to be one of the definitions of commonwealth. 

I also would like to add that what really moves me to testify is 

the fact that you saw 936 being mentioned all day, and that is 

something that I have been watching and observing for many 

years. This has influenced just about every election in Puerto Rico 

on anything. Like I said before, we have evidence here to sustain 

this. 

Just recently, we had a Democrat party primary, and employees 

were threatened with job losses and plant relocations. Every time 

that statehooders and commonwealthers are pitted together, this 

comes up as a big issue. 

We have full-page ads in the newspapers; we have television ads; 

we have form letters. The people that felt threatened with their 
99 

jobs would sign form letters with letterheads from the companies. 

The actual Democrat party chairman announced her candidacy 

from the steps of one of these 936 corporations. 

This, plus what we said about definitions, show that Congress 

must set constitutionally definite ballot guidelines and ground 

rules for future status plebiscites. We recommend that as a result 

of this flawed experience, Congress establish a policy statement 

that statehood or independence are our only real options. It must 

also approve legislation authorizing a status plebiscite for Puerto 

Rico and that the status described will tell us how it will affect the 

basic principles I mentioned at the beginning of my statement. 

Ballot definitions have to be reviewed before any plebiscite, with 

a view toward Congressional implementation, since any future 

plebiscite must be free of misleading ballot provisions. 

We also propose that the plebiscite must be binding, both on 

Congress and Puerto Rico, but the economic fallacy of Section 936 

needs to be replaced immediately with an economic development 

plan along the lines suggested by Congressman Don Young; 

empowerment zones, wage credits, capital grants, full enterprise 

funds, Federal program parity, and taxation of island residents. 

You pay, you play. 

Combined with the almost $4,000,000,000 savings from the 936 

tax credit, the U.S. Treasury would see no diminution in revenues, 

nor will Puerto Ricans see any change in their tax burden, as program costs are shifted to Washington. 

In conclusion, the 1993 plebiscite was so fatally flawed that the 

results are null and void. The only status option constitutionally, 

politically, and economically viable that ensures the three goals for 

which 95 percent of the United States citizens in Puerto Rico voted 

for is statehood. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement and appendix to statement of Dr. 

Ramirez can be found at the end of the hearing.] 

Mr. GALLEGLY. Mr. Jose Antonio Casillas. 

STATEMENT OF JOSE ANTONIO CASILLAS, CO-CHAIR, CAMBIO 

XXI 

Mr. CASSILAS. Thankl.ou, Mr. Chairman. Honorable Chairmen 

Gallegly and Burton, an Congressmen, we are Attorneys Jose Antonio Casillas and Emilio Soler Marl, Co-Chairs of Cambio XXI, a 

Puerto Rican nonprofit, nongovernmental civic organization, founded on September 24, 1994, to promote education in the political relationship between Puerto Rico and the United States. We appear before you to propose to your committees that in fulfillment of the popular will of the electorate of Puerto Rico expressed in the plebiscite held in November 1993, Congress enact by 

legislation a bilateral compact between Puerto Rico and the United 

States as a result of the consensus of the ideas and will toward the 

21st century. 

The definition of the alternative that won a plurality of votes in 

the plebiscite asked for the adoption of such a bilateral compact between Puerto Rico and the United States, so that our people can 

develop their future by their own means and resources. This will 

be the only democratic, moral, and proper response to the result of 
100 

the aforestated exercise in self-determination by the people of Puerto Rico. 

There is an ample precedent for the approval of such bilateral 

compact in the decolonialization of the Republic of the Marshall Islands and the Federated States of Micronesia in the Pacific. 

'We are hereby submitting to you as an attachment, a draft of 

suhh a bilateral compact for inclusion in the official record and for 

consideration by your committees and all Federal agencies concerned. We also include the following documents: a memorandum 

of implications of United States citizenship of Puerto Ricans; a proposal for a new economic covenant between Puerto Rico and the 

United States based on a new bilateral compact; an analysis of 

public opinion polls showing that voters prefer that civic organizations make the proposal to implement plebiscite results; a public 

information plan directed toward implementation of the vote; an 

analysis of the 1993 plebiscite published in the prestigious journal, 

Current History, in March, 1994, prepared by our Puerto Rican analyst, Juan M. Garcia, which we suggest be included in the Congressional Record for the information of Members of Congress. 

We are not here to attack others. We are only proposing legislation to implement the option that won the plebiscite. Thus, we propose an autonomous status founded in a bilateral compact outside 

of the Territorial Clause of the Constitution of the United States. 

At present, it is the only solution that is convenient and acceptable to both Puerto Rico and the United States. 

In the Summit of the Americas in Miami in 1994, to which 

Cambio XXI was invited as an observer group, new economic strategies were adopted for the hemisphere, yet in the case of Puerto 

Rico, the goals of the summit can only be achieved successfully by 

our sovereign insertion in the global economy through a bilateral 

compact with the United States. 

Our proposed bilateral compact will also comply with the requirements of the American constitutional law as well as with the pertinent resolutions of the United Nations General Assembly. 

We are certain that understanding and generosity will prevail 

among all sectors of civil society in Puerto Rico, and that consensus 

will be achieved to implement the bilateral compact here proposed. 

We assure you of this consensus, because our proposal is the result of innumerable consultations with persons of all ideologies, 

outside of formal or traditional party affiliations. This is the 

strength of the fourth alternative brought to you by our nongovernmental organization, Cambrio XXI. 

This alternative, therefore, is rooted on a consensus ground of 

the three major political currents of the last two centuries, autonomic, independentist, and annexationist. Puerto Rico has had a 

rich internal democratic history in which these three alternatives 

have been discussed and considered. 

Puerto Rico is ready to assume its duty. 

We thank you for the invitation to appear before you on this historic occasion for our people. 

[The prepared statement of Jose Antonio Casillas and Emilio A. 

Soler Marl, Co-Chairs of Cambrio XXI follows:] 

Mr. GALLEGLY. Thank you very much. Mr. Luis Vega-Ramos. 
101 

STATEMENT OF LUIS VEGA-RAMOS, PRESIDENT OF PROELA 

Mr. VEGA-RAMOS. For the record, my name is Luis Vega-Ramos. 

To my left, there is the Executive Director of our organization; his 

name is Nestor Duprey. 

PROELA is a civic organization that for 19 years has advocated 

in Puerto Rican, Federal, and international forums for the development of the current political status within the context of a bilateral 

association. As that, we took active part in the status plebiscite 

campaign of 1993. 

Today, we come before these subcommittees on behalf of the hundreds of thousands of Puerto Ricans who voted in favor of the 

Estado Libre Asociado on that plebiscite, or as it would be translated literally from Spanish, the Free Associated State of Puerto 

Rico. 

On November 14, 1993, Puerto Ricans voted for the development 

of their present status, and I quote from the definition, "through 

a bilateral compact that can only be amended by mutual consent." 

The main issue that the winning definition addressed was that 

of the applicability of the Territorial Clause of the United States 

Constitution to Puerto Rico. The voters on that day clearly expressed their desire that Puerto Rico not be subjected to Congress' 

plenary powers under that clause. 

A bilateral compact is a contract between equals. Territories cannot make bilateral compacts with the Federal Government. Puerto 

Rico's aspirations for mutuality and prosperit>', along with its 

strong desire to affirm its national identity, which is distinct and 

unique, make this type of arrangement a perfect vehicle for its future relations with the United States . . To this day, the United States has entered into a couple of bilateral compacts. Contrary to the commonwealth arrangement now in 

force, these compacts are comprehensive documents that delegate 

specific powers to the Federal Government instead of general ones. 

A bilateral compact for Puerto Rico would tackle and solve all the 

problems facing both nations. As it enters into a compact, Congress 

would unequivocally dispose of all of its plenary powers over Puerto 

Rico under the Territonal Clause. Once Puerto Rico is outside the 

Territorial Clause, and it is clear that it is outside the Territorial 

Clause, and all in Puerto Rico and all in the United States and all 

in the world can clearly know that Puerto Rico is outside the Territorial Clause, we will have the attributes of a sovereign entity, only 

delegating those powers specifically included in the compact. 

This recognition of full self-government cannot limit itself to internal affairs. It must include the power to conduct foreign affairs 

as well. That way, Puerto Rico will enter the 21st century as a 

player in the international economic game, and not as an appendage of the United States. 

The bilateral compact has also benefits for the United States. 

Once Puerto Rico's relationship with the United States complies 

with international criteria .for political association, and that is current criteria for political association, the international charges of 

U.S. colonialism will have to be dropped in acknowledgement of the 

new status or of the development of that status. 

The economic provisions which are explained clearly in our written statement (and those provisions are part of the compact that 
102 

we propose), will have the effect of reducing the economic cost of 

the relationship. AB Puerto Rico develops a self-sustaining economy, helped, because it is its duty, by the United States, the Federal Government will be liberated from providing eternally for us. 

In the case of citizenship, which has been discussed here, as has 

been noted by U.S. and Puerto Rican legal scholars, there is no 

legal or constitutional reason why Puerto Ricans cannot have two 

citizenships if they so choose in an individual fashion. This has 

been correctly defined by a former advisor to the National Security 

Council, and a person who testified before you today, who is also 

an expert of U.S. models of association, as a question of political 

will as opposed to a legal or constitutional issue. 

Congress has to decide between ensuring the U.S. citizenship of 

Puerto Ricans or preparing to respond to a statehood petition from 

the distinct and very different nationality of the Puerto Ricans. 

The political destinies of Puerto Rico and the United States have 

been intertwined since the tum of the century. A product of military occupation, their relationship has been characterized by neglect, shortsightedness, indifference, and in more than one case, 

outright imperialism. These have bred confusion, dependency, and 

uncertainty. 

It may seem as if we have been both painted into a corner. But 

there are always alternatives. Now that we near the new century, 

the time has come for a major overhaul of the current relationship. 

Governor Luis Munoz Marin wrote in 1953, and I think that his 

words are very valid today, "Where important cultural differences 

exist, such as language and historical background, the smaller unit 

should not participate in the government of the larger one, nor the 

latter wish its laws to rule in the former unless agreeable locally in each case or contained in the basic instrument of association essential to its nature." 

On November 14, 1993, the people of Puerto Rico voted in favor 

of developing the Estado Libre ABociado through bilateral compact. 

The United States and this Congress have historically pledged to 

respect the inalienable right of our people to self-determination. AB 

the contemporary agenda of the world unfolds, confusion, dependence, and uncertainty must give way to political dignity, self-sufficiency, and stability. A bilateral compact of association is the best, 

perhaps the only alternative for Puerto Rico and the Unitea States. 

I thank you very much in the name of PROELA and the Puerto 

Rican community for this opportunity. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Vega-Ramos can be found at the 

end of the hearing.] 

Mr. GALLEGLY. The gentleman from Indiana. 

Mr. BURTON. Some of the rhetoric that I heard just in the last 

couple minutes alarms me a little bit. Calling us imperialistic because of our relationship with Puerto Rico just kind of drives me 

up a wall. 

First of all, Puerto Ricans have American citizenship. AB a result, they have all kinds of American benefits, and they have been 

a good partner, like the Members of the 50 States, in solving problems. I just can't understand how anybody can view us as being imperialistic, especially when you just had a vote down there, a referendum, that was very, very close as far as whether or not you 
103 

kept commonwealth status or became a State. There is a big division of opinion in Puerto Rico itself about that, so I don't think that 

the vast majority of Puerto Ricans would agree with the gentleman's view that we are imperialistic. 

The other thing I would like to say is that if we had a bilateral 

compact as a couple of you suggest, the fa~t remains that 3,700,000 

Puerto Ricans are already American citizens; and if this bilateral 

compact took effect and if Puerto Rico became an independent nation, they would still have the rights and benefits of American citizenship without paying any of the taxes or any of the costs of government. That would be a multi-billion, or even trillion-dollar case 

that we would have to deal with, because the United States would 

have to pay those benefits. We would have to take care of those 

people as American citizens, and there would be no benefit in return for the benefits that we were giving those folks. While I am sympathetic to your concerns, I think that it is probably going to have to be worked out between the commonwealth 

status ultimately and statehood. I don't see the independent road 

being taken because of the tremendous amount of cost that would 

be involved to the government and the taxpayers of the United 

States. 

With that, Mr. Chairman, I will cede back my time and I thank 

you very much. 

Mr. VEGA-RAMOS. Mr. Chairman, if it were possible, I would like 

to briefly respond to the comments. 

Mr. GALLEGLY. The gentleman would like to briefly respond. Mr. 

Vega-Ramos. Mr. VEGA-RAMOS. First of all, on the first issue of the imperialistic conduct or not of the United States, the tr-uth of the matter is 

that the international commitment that the United States adopted 

in 1952 when it presented its case before the United Nations was 

that it would act swiftly and accordingly to any petition that the 

Puerto Ricans made for more autonomy or for independence even, 

and that was the commitment made. Mter this statement, four decades have passed. There have been 

two status votes, and we have yet to hear in terms of specific, concrete action from the Federal Government to enhance the commonwealth in the way that it was asked in 1967 and now in 1993, and 

we believe that this lack of action in itself is a conduct which is 

very unbecoming of a democratic nation that says that it respects 

self-determination. We think that lack of responsiveness in itself 

has a little bit of imperialistic overtones. 

Regarding the benefit issue, we have to tell you that you have 

to make a policy decision soon. Either you help Puerto Rico, and 

knowing that you made Puerto Ricans American citizens in 1917, 

you help Puerto Rico get to the point where it is self-sufficient economically and make the choices that you have to make in that 

sense to provide for our self-sufficiency in economic terms, or you 

will have to deal with us and you accept the economic cost that 

statehood will entail. You have to decide which of the two extremes 

is the better option for you. 

If the economic costs of statehood are what you are willing to 

pay, then that is an option you have. I think that in the long run, 

the United States would be spared a lot more of its economic costs 
104 

by granting an alternative of full autonomy than it would in statehood, but that is your political decision, and the other aspect that 

that would bring about is that statehood would rrovoke other debates in terms of culture, in terms of the type o nation you want 

to be. 

So when you balance those together, you have to decide which is 

the less burdensome option for you. We think that this one is the 

best choice, not only for us, but for you to discharge your responsibilities you have over Puerto Rico, discharge your responsibilities 

you have to the people in the United States in a way that is mutually beneficial for both of us. 

If not, you take the other route, then we will have to pay the cost 

of that, but you will have to pay those costs, too. 

Mr. BURTON. Let me just say that the Burton-Torricelli bill 

which would deal with the plebiscite on a routine basis would head 

us in that direction. 

The reason we are having this hearing today is because we want 

to solve this problem, and we want to solve it as quickly as possible, but we want to solve it in a way that is consistent with what 

the Puerto Rican people or the vast majority of the Puerto Rican 

people want. Once we find out what they want, I think you are 

going to see the Congress move rather expeditiously. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. GALLEGLY. Mr. Faleomavaega. 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. I think we still have other witnesses that 

haven't testified. 

Mr. GALLEGLY. No, everyone has testified. 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. I don't have any comments, only to compliment and thank the members of the panel for their testimony. 

Mr. GALLEGLY. Mr. Romero-Barcelo. 

Mr. ROMERO-BARCELO. Yes, I would like to ask a couple of questions. 

First of all, I would like to thank the panel for being here and 

for your testimony. 

I would like to ask a question from Dr. Ramirez. You talked 

about the bilateral pact. We discussed that earlier today, and I 

asked about a memorandum from the Justice Department. It is not 

specifically on Puerto Rico, although it does mention Puerto Rico; 

there is a memorandum of July 28, 1994. I believe that you referred to that in your formal testimony. 

In that memorandum, it discusses the relationship under a bilateral pact. I would like to refer you to the first page of that memorandum, to the last sentence of that page and the first sentence of 

the next page. Would you read that for the record, please? 

Dr. RAMiREZ. The former views, are you referring to that? 

Mr. ROMERO-BARCELO. Yes. 

Dr. RAMiREz. "The former views of this office on the validity or 

efficacy of mutual consent requirements included in legislation governing the relationship between the Federal Government and 

nonstate areas, for example, areas under the sovereignty of the 

United States that are not States, have not been consistent. We 

therefore have carefully examined this issue. Our conclusion is that 

these clauses raise serious constitutional issues and are legally unenforceable." 
105 

Mr. RoMERO-BARCELO. Would you now also read on page 12 on 

the middle paragraph that starts Section 103 and 202? 

Dr. RAMiREZ. Yes. It says, "Section 103 and 202 therefore do not 

create vested property rights protected by the due process clause 

of the Fifth Amendment. Congress thus retains the power to 

amend the Guam Commonwealth Act unilaterally or to provide 

that as legislation shall apply to Guam without the consent of the 

government of the Commonwealth. The inclusion of such provisions, therefore, in the Commonwealth Act would be misleading. 

Honesty and fair dealing forbid the inclusion of such illusory and 

deceptive provision in the Guam Commonwealth Act," and I must 

add that the quote that I made on page 2 originally refers specifically to Puerto Rico and not to Guam. 

Mr. ROMERO-BARCELO. And in the footnote, it gives the Supreme 

Court case on which it is founded. Would you want to read that 

part? Footnote number 1 on that second page. 

Dr. RAMiREz. "Mutual consent clauses are not a noble phenomenon. Indeed, they antedate the Constitution. Section 14,"-am I on 

the right--

Mr. ROMERO-BARCELO. The first footnote. The first, to our knowledge. 

Dr. RAMiREZ. The department revisited this issue, is that what 

you want me to mention? 

Mr. ROMERO-BARCELO. To our knowledge, the first--

Dr. RAMiREZ. Yes. "To our knowledge, the first consideration of 

the validity of mutual consent clauses occurred in 1959 in connection with proposals to 2.mend the Puerto Rico Federal Relations 

Act. At that time, the department took the position that the answer 

to this question was doubtful, but that such clauses should not be 

opposed on the ground that they go beyond the constitutional 

power of Congress. In 1963, the Department of Justice opined that 

such clauses were legally effective, because Congress could create 

vested rights in the status of a territory that could not be revoked 

unilaterally. The Department adhered to this position in 1973 in 

connection with then-pending Micronesian status negotiation in a 

memorandum approved by then-Assistant Attorney General 

Rennquist. On the basis of this advice, a mutual consent clause 

was inserted in Section 105 of the covenant with the Northern 

Mariana Islands. The Department continued to support the validity 

of mutual consent clauses in connection with the first 1989 task 

force report on the one commonwealth bill. The Department revisited this issue in the early 1990's in connection with the Puerto 

Rico Status Referendum Bill, in light of Bowen v. Agencies Opposed to Social Security Entrapment, 477 U.S. 41.55, 1986, and 

concluded that there could not be an enforceable, vested right in a 

political status; hence, that mutual consent clauses were ineffective 

because they could not bind a subsequent Congress." 

Mr. ROMERO-BARCELO. And it ends with, "We took--

Dr. RAMiREZ. It says, ''We took the same position on the second 

Guam task force report issued during the last days of the Bush Administration in January, 1993." 

Mr. ROMERO-BARCELO. And this memorandum is dated? 

Dr. RAMiREZ. July 28, 1994, just almost a little over a year ago, 

and it was written by Theresa Wynn Rosenboro, Deputy Assistant 
106 

Attorney General for the U.S. Department of Justice under the 

Clinton Administration. Mr. ROMERO-BARCELO. Who is a member of the task force of 

Puerto Rico. 

Dr. RAMiREZ. I believe so. 

Mr, ROMERO-BARCELO. I think she is a representative. 

Dr. RAMiREZ. This is the Clinton Administration. 

Mr. ROMERO-BARCELO. So that is the decision that we have from 

the State Department, that mutual consent clauses are not valid. 

Dr. RAMiREz. The Department of Justice says they are not valid. 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Would the gentleman yield? I would hope 

that the gentleman would submit that to be made part of the 

record. 

Mr. ROMERO-BARCELO. It has been submitted by Mr. Hill. It is 

in the documents that he submitted. Thank you, Dr. Ramirez. 

Dr. RAMiREz. Thank you very much. 

Mr. GALLEGLY. I thank this distinguished panel. I made a commitment we would be finished by 7 p.m. You will all be pleased to 

know that we are 43 seconds ahead of schedule. 

I appreciate your patience. 

Mr. VEGA-RAMOS. Mr. Chairman, I just want to make a one-sentence point about the item that was just presented, if I may. Mr. GALLEGLY. Go ahead. 

Mr. VEGA-RAMOS. Thank you very much. In the sense that that 

memorandum talks about mutuality in relationships within the 

Territorial Clause, and, it says in the memorandum and I reviewed 

it, under the sovereignty of the United States. 

It has been clear that the petition made by the people of Puerto 

Rico is to have its own sovereignty and associate through the sovereignty that comes of our inalienable right as people to the United 

States not to be under the sovereignty, under the plenary powers 

of Congress. That is precisely what we wished to avoid. 

Mr. ROMERO-BARCELO. Mr. Chairman, this is very important. 

Are you authorized to speak on behalf of the commonwealth supporters? 

Mr. VEGA-RAMOS. I am authorized to speak on behalf of PROELA 

and of my mind. And of my convictions. 

Mr. ROMERO-BARCELO. You are saying that the request being 

made on the plebiscite was to have sovereignty. Is that what you 

want to put on the record? 

Mr. VEGA-RAMOS. Let me, if I may, be a little more specific. 

Mr. RoMERO-BARCELO. Just answer. You said that this relationship was based on the sovereignty of the people of Puerto Rico. 

Now, I want you to repeat that you are sure of that, that the people 

of Puerto Rico, according to the plebiscite, want sovereignty? 

Mr. VEGA-RAMOS. Now, can I explain my remarks, Resident 

Commissioner? Thank you very much. 

The people of Puerto Rico voted for a relationship that can only 

be amended by mutual consent. In the international sense, you 

have to have your own sovereignty to enter into a compact, and 

then you will be binded by the terms of that compact, and if I may 

refer, since you wanted to know the Popular Democratic Party's 

stance on it, I refer you to a resolution of the 17th of November 
107 

of 1990, known in Puerto Rico as the Ponce Resolution, which says 

that two of the important elements of the commonwealth are that 

it be out of the Territorial Clause, and the second element says 

that there has to be a recognition of the sovereignty of Puerto Rico, 

and I am not saying this. 

If you want, I can submit that for the record. 

Mr. ROMERO-BARCELO. I know those documents. I just want you 

to get together with the President of the Popular Democratic Party. 

Mr. VEGA-RAMOS. I am not going to back away from the interpretation. I have been always very clear of what I believe Puerto Rico 

should be and what Puerto Rico needs to have to deal with the 

United States. 

Mr. ROMERO-BARCELO. I don't want you to back away. I just 

want you to get together with the President of the Popular Democratic Party, Mr. Acevedo, and play the same tune. 

Mr. VEGA-RAMOS. I know the tune I am playing. 

Mr. ROMERO-BARCELO. Dr. Ramirez. 

Dr. RAMiREz. Yes, I just want to say--· 

Mr. GALLEGLY. If the gentlelady would yield just a second. Mr. 

Faleomavaega. 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. I would like to ask Mr. Vega-Ramos to submit that document to be made part of the record. 

Mr. VEGA-RAMOS. I would be glad to submit that document for 

the record. 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. 

Mr. VEGA-RAMOS. I should say it should be understood as a supplement to the commonwealth definition of the plebiscite, because 

the leaders of the Popular Democratic Party, Don Miguel Hernandez-Agosto, who was a witness before me, explained in a press conference while he was pro tern President of the PDP, that this resolution was one of the bases of the commonwealth definition that 

was proposed, so every principle that is part of this resolution 

should be interpreted, as the legislative intent of the commonwealth definition. 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Please, do submit that. 

Mr. VEGA-RAMOS. I have it here, and I will give it to you. 

Mr. GALLEGLY. We will conclude our hearing. Dr. Ramirez de 

Ferrer had a comment to make, and this will be the end comment. 

Dr. RAMiREZ. Yes, just a very short comment. I am very happy 

that this new Republican Congress is looking at these issues, and 

I hope today's testimony, and hearing this last panel, shows you 

the kind of discussion that goes on in Puerto Rico and how confused it is. 

You can imagine what voters are faced with in an election process, so we have a lot of faith that this Congress will at least at the 

end help us clarify exactly what we can vote for, and what can be 

our final status. 

Mr. GALLEGLY. I think that one of the most important things 

that we are all faced with today is to see that there be an end or 

every effort made to end the division between the people of Puerto 

Rico and resolve this issue. 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Will the Chairman yield? 

Mr. GALLEGLY. Yes. 
108 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. The gentlelady's comments suggest that we 

on this side of the aisle are less interested in the affairs of Puerto 

Rico than our Republican majority and that they have really been 

the only ones that have expressed a sincere interest in some of the 

problems affecting the good people of Puerto Rico. 

I think that it is an inaccurate description. At least I would like 

to say on behalf of my Democratic colleagues on this side of the 

aisle that we are very much interested, and we are working in 

every way possible to work closely with the Republican majority as 

well as with the Administration to resolve this issue. 

Mr. GALLEGLY. I think today is a very good example of how both 

sides of the aisle are trying to work to some common ground here. 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Absolutely. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. GALLEGLY. And with that, I would conclude the hearing and 

the subcommittee stands adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 7:05p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned, and 

the following was submitted for the record: 
109 

Statement by 

The Honorable Pedro Rossell6 

Governor of Puerto Rico 

Presented at ajoinl'hearing oftlte 

SIIICI •• Ittllllllllln a.eriCIIIId lllllar Alliin ..... 

Ce••lttllll l1111rc11 

and the 

Slllcl•llllllllllbl WISlii'IIIIIISPIIIrl ..... 

Cl-lttllllllltii'IIUIIIIIIIIUOIS 

United StllteS House of Representatives 

Washington, D.C 

October 17, 1995 
110 

Chairman Gallegly. and members of the Subcommittee on Native 

American and Insular Affairs of the Committee on Resources; 

Chairman Burton, and members of the Subcommittee on the Western 

Hemisphere of the Committee on International Relations: 

My name is Pedro Rossello. I am the Governor of Puerto Rico, a 

community that comprises 3,700,000 United States citizens; a community 

where immense pride in our Hispanic heritage co-exists inseparably with 

intense allegiance to principles, values and a deep sense of common 

purpose that are cherished by our fellow citizens in the 50 states, and 

which- for more than two centuries- have constituted this nation's 

foundation for greatness. 

In that spirit of unity and commonality of purpose, I should like to 

begin by expressing my gratitude for the interest you are taking in the 

civic and political destiny of your fellow American citizens who reside in 

Puerto Rico. 

Given the exceptionally heavy agenda of this Congress, it is indeed 

commendable that your two subcommittees are investing the time and 

energy necessary to evaluate a plebiscite process that was conceived and 

consummated more than a full year before the 104th Congress first 

assembled at the Capitol. 

The plebiscite process commenced with the New Progressive Party 

platform on which I sought election in 1992. Among the planks in that 

platform was a commitment to allow our voters to express themselves on 

the political status question through an exercise in self-determination. 

Because no such opportunity bad been offered since 1967, most of 

our contemporary electorate had never been formally consulted on this 

most basic of issues. 

On November 3, 1992, my platform -including the political status 

plank-- received a mandate for implementation as our party scored the 

most decisive victory in its 25 years of existence. Not only were New 

Progressives swept into office as Governor and Resident Commissioner, 

but we also elected 54 mayors -- which is more than two-thirds of the 

island's total of 78, and our party captured two-thirds of the seats in 

both chambers of our state legislature. 

Written Statement by the Han. Pedro Rosse116, Governor of Puerto Rico 

U.S. House of Representatives; Washington, D.C.** 17 OCT 1995 
111 

2 

Following my inauguration, in January 1993, we set to work at 

once on drafting legislation for a political status plebiscite. 

In view of the magnitude of our recent general election triumph, 

many of my fellow advocates of having Puerto Rico become the 51st state 

strongly recommended that we play hardball with the plebiscite. 

I was urged to do the same thing that the pro-"commonwealth" 

Popular Party had done a quarter-century earlier, at a time when it was 

in full control of the machinery of government: that is, ram through the 

legislature a plebiscite bill under which the party in power would define 

all the options and structure the proceedings in whatever manner would 

be most conducive to guaranteeing success for the political status 

alternative that the party in power was supporting. This, after all, was 

the sole precedent we had, dating back to 1967. 

Moreover, fellow New Progressives reminded me, a Popular 

Party-controlled Government of Puerto Rico had - as recently as 

December 1991 - mounted a voter referendum on matters intimately 

related to political status. On that occasion, the ena1Jiing legislation 

allowed unlimited government advertising expenditures; allowed 

unlimited private fund-raising; excluded the accounting and financialreporting requirements applicable to general elections; and distributed 

public funds for the referendum campaign in such a way as to ensure 

that supporters of the Popular Party-sponsored "yes" alternatives would 

receive twice as many taxpayer dollars as would political entities that 

were urging the electorate to vote "no." 

From a purely cynical standpoint, those arguments certainly had 

merit Nevertheless, I flatly rejected them. Instead, I insisted that the 

backers of each option be allowed to describe their respective political 

status alternatives in whatever manner they deemed appropriate, with 

no substantive restrictions or interference of any kind - either from the 

government or from the party in power. 

Furthermore, as additional measures to safeguard the principles 

of fairness and equity, I insisted that the plebiscite law allot- to each of 

the three sides - equal amounts of public funding for voter orientation 

and I likewise insisted that the law impose a freeze on media 

expenditures by government agencies and public corporations 

throughout the 60-day period immediately prior to the voting date. 

Written Statement by the Hon. Pedro Rossel16, Governor of Puerto Rico 

U.S. House of Representatives, Washington, D.C. ** 17 OCT 1995 
112 

3 

All of those measures were duly incorporated into Law Number 

22, which I signed on the Fourth of July, 1993. 

However, another measure that I proposed was omitted from Law 

22; and, in light of what has failed to transpire since the plebiscite, that 

measure is worthy of mention. 

As submitted to the Legislative Assembly, our plebiscite bill 

included language providing for a gubematorially-appointed commission 

that would be dispatched to Washington, D.C. following the plebiscite. 

That commission would have had the responsibility of negotiating 

with Congress on modifying Puerto Rico's political status in accordance 

with the ballot-description of whichever status formula was endorsed by 

our electorate. The negotiating commission was to be composed of 

persons selected by the political party that had backed the winning 

formula. 

The members of my party had no problem with that idea, but both 

of the opposition parties were dead set against it. Consequently, in the 

interest oftri-partisan unity, that proposal was deleted from the final 

bill. 

This brings us to Sunday, November 14, 1993 when - faithful to 

Puerto Rico's profoundly democratic traditions -nearly the totality of 

our voting-age population was duly registered, and 74% of those who 

were registered went to the polls and cast ballots. 

Observers and journalists from around the world freely 

scrutinized the proceedings. They were unanimous in their praise of the 

integrity and efficiency with which the plebiscite was carried out. 

The results of that exercise in democratic self-expression 

confirmed a trend that had been gaining momentum throughout the 

pr~.:eding four decades of the Puerto Rican people's centuries-old 

peaceful struggle to forge a permanent, dignified political destiny. 

The Popular Party's definition of "commonwealth" (or "free 

associated state," since in Spanish they call it e/ Estado Ubre Asociado) 

attracted 48.6"/o of the vote - down sharply from the 60% figure 

recorded in 1967. 

The statehood option attracted 46.3% of the vote - well above the 

39% figure recorded in 1967. 

Independence was endorsed by 4.4% oftbe electorate. 

Blank or disqualified ballots accounted for less than 1% of the 

total number cast. 

Written Statement by the Hon. Pedro Rosse116, Governor of Puerto Rico 

U.S. House of Representatives; Washington, D.C. ** 17 OCT 1995 
113 

4 

The confirmation of a trend was apparent. For the first time since 

the 1952 adoption of the "commonwealth" nomenclature, a majority of 

Puerto Rico's voters had formally manifested their desire to replace 

"commonwealth" with a more traditional aliairutisputably permanent 

political status; the once much-heralded "commonwealth" experlmiiir--

had lost its mandate. 

No longer could the United States affirm, at the United Nations or 

in any other global forum, that the current political status of Puerto Rico 

enjoyed "the consent of the governed." 

From one perspective, the plebiscite produced a stalemate: no 

option obtained an absolute majority of the votes. But from another 

perspective, the plebiscite marked an historic watershed because an 

absolute majority of our voters did reject the status quo. 

In accordance with the plebiscite statute, I promptly certified the 

outcome by means of letters directed to the President of the United 

States, the Speaker of the United States House of Representatives, and 

the President of the United States Senate. 

At that point, the obvious next step was for the supporters of the 

majority option to commence negotiations with the Executive and 

Legislative Branches of the Federal Government on how to go about 

implementing the specific points which those leaders of the Popular 

Party voluntarily conceived; compiled and included on the plebiscite 

ballot as the definition of precisely what a vote for "commonwealth" 

or "free associated state" would signify. 

For some reason, 23 months have elapsed and that obvious next 

step has yet to be taken by those who carefully crafted and 

enthusiastically endorsed this option. 

No delegation from the Popular Party has descended upon this city 

to mount even a perfunctory pro-forma effort- let alone any sustained 

crusade - to petition the President and Congress for a response of any 

kind whatsoever to the litany of commitments they made almost two 

years ago to the voters of our island. 

(Noteworthy in this regard is that- after winning the plebiscite -

the Popular Party immediately reversed its previous position by 

requesting that public funds be appropriated for the purpose of 

underwriting a campaign to promote the "commonwealth" option in 

Washington. In light of that party's very recent record of adamant 

Written Statement by the Hon. Pedro Rossell6, Governor of Puerto Rico 

U.S. House of Representatives; Washington, D.C. ** 17 OCT 1995 
114 

5 

objection to any such course of action, its request was rejected by the 

Legislative Assembly. However, there was nothing whatever to inhibit 

the Popular Party or any other political institution from seeking and 

accepting private financial backing for a pro-"commonwealth" lobbying 

effort in Congress.) 

Very conscientiously, your committees have stepped in and taken 

the initiative regarding this unfinished business; business that has been 

neglected by a Puerto Rico political party which has abdicated its solemn 

responsibility to act on its commitment to our voters. 

Now, as Governor of Puerto Rico, I welcome this opportunity -

on behalf of the people of Puerto Rico - to come before you personally 

for the purpose of extending a most cordial invitation, coupled with a 

request for action. I respectfully invite you to deliver a response - a 

clear and direct response- to the Popular Party's plebiscite 

propositions. 

I heartily endorse your decision to convoke this joint hearing 

because I believe it is right, proper and extremely constructive that the 

Congress of the United States convey to the people of Puerto Rico its 

reaction to the proposals which a plurality of our voters endorsed in an 

act of democratic self-expression on that Sunday, November 14th. 

I therefore invite you and urge you to examine those propositions 

carefully and then to inform the people of Puerto Rico of your response 

to each and every item on the Popular Party's plebiscite menu - clearly 

and directly, one by one. 

We respectfully request of these subcommittees that they inform 

the Puerto Rican people by responding to the following questions raised 

by the Popular Party definition of "commonwealth": 

• Is Congress willing to affirm that our United States citizenship, which 

was conferred upon Puerto Ricans by Congress in 1917, is and shall 

always be irrevocable (not only for today's generations, but for 

generations to come)- regardless of the nature of any future changes 

in the island's political status and relationship with the United States? 

• Will Congress affirm that, as a "free associated state," Puerto Rico 

possesses "fiscal autonomy," defined as our total exclusion from 

involuntary Federal taxation in any form and under any 

circumstances? 

Written Statement by the Hon. Pedro Rossell6, Governor of Puerto Rico 

U.S. House of Representatives: Washington, D.C. ** 17 OCT 1995 
115 

6 

• Is Congress prepared to affirm that Section 936 will be 

"reformulated" back into what it was prior to 1993, when Congress 

enacted significant amendments to that highly controversial 

component of the United States Internal Revenue Code? 

• Is Congress prepared to affirm that SSI (the Supplemental Security 

Income program) will be extended to Puerto Rico on the same terms 

that apply to all of the states, without any corresponding participation 

by Puerto Rico in sharing the Federal tax burdens that are borne by 

the states? 

• Is Congress prepared to affirm that Federal funding for nutritional 

assistance in Puerto Rico will be apportioned utilizing the same 

criteria that apply to states of the Union- again, without Puerto Rico 

having to share any of the corresponding Federal tax-burdens that 

are borne by the states? 

• Is Congress prepared to affirm that, in addition to coffee, other 

Puerto Rican agricultural products will be afforded special protection 

from outside competition- even in the context of the North American 

Free Trade Agreement? 

• Will Congress consent to the ratification of a "bilateral pact" between 

Puerto Rico and the United States that "cannot be altered except by 

mutual agreement" and which entails the abdication by Congress of 

the plenary powers over Puerto Rico that are explicitly invested in 

Congress by the territorial clause ofthe United States Constitution 

(Article IV, Section 3, Paragraph 2)? 

Each and every item on the preceding roster of requisites was 

presented to the Puerto Rican electorate by the Popular Party as an 

integral component of that party's commitment in the event that the 

"commonwealth" or "free associated state" alternative prevailed in our 

1993 plebiscite. 

Well, albeit by a very narrow plurality, "commonwealth" did 

prevail. But the Popular Party did nothing about implementing its 

commitment. 

So the ball has now been on your side ofthe court for 23 months; 

23 months during which the other side of the court has been vacant. 

Written Statement by the Hon. Pedro Rossell6, Governor of Puerto Rico 

U.S. House of Representatives; Washington, D.C. ** 17 OCT 1995 
116 

7 

You have exhibited extraordinary patience. At this point, my 

recommendation is that you wait no longer. 

Hit the ball back. 

Tell the proponents of "commonwealth" - the "free associated 

state" - exactly where they stand. 

They need to know; all of us need to know. 

Puerto Rico has grappled, generation after generation, with the 

shadowy specter of cosmetic compromise on the fundamental issue of 

self-determination. 

We know and you know that independence is an internationallyrecognized alternative that endows a people with authentic sovereignty 

as a separate country within the global community. 

We know and you know that full membership in the American 

family, as a state of the Union, is an internationally-recognized dignified 

alternative that endows a people with shared Federal and state 

sovereignty under a banner of freedom and individual liberty: a banner 

of freedom and individual liberty that is the envy of the world, precisely 

because it symbolizes a society that for all of its history has been 

enriched and strengthened by the immense diversity of its people; people 

who, although they can trace their origins to every comer of our planet, 

are nevertheless proudly and gratefully united by the principles of true 

equality that were courageously embraced by the Founding Fathers of 

this precious land. 

There is nothing mysterious about independence and statehood. 

Only the so-called "commonwealth" inexorably plunges friend and 

foe alike into a bottomless quagmire of indefinition; only the so-called 

"commonwealth" poses riddles within riddles, and asks how many 

special concessions can dance on the head of a pin. 

If you are able to unscramble all the riddles into something that 

makes coherent sense, then you will be able to respond affirmatively to 

my seven questions -- the seven questions that are raised by the Popular 

Party plebiscite definition of "commonwealth." 

If, on the other hand, you believe -- as I do -- that 97 years of 

peaceful struggle and 78 years of patriotic American citizenship are 

more than enough to prepare a United States territory for permanent 

self-definition, then by all means tell us that. 

Written Statement by the Hon. Pedro Rosse116, Governor of Puerto Rico 

U.S. House of Representatives; Washington, D.C.** 17 OCT 1995 
117 

8 

And if you do teD us that, may your words be accompanied by 

action; may you do one thing more - one very important thing. 

I urge that you reaffirm the long-standing commitment 

of the Congress of the United States to Puerto Rican self-determination; 

reaffirm that commitment by formaUy advocating that selfdetermination be exercised without delay, in a permanently definitive 

manner. 

What I have in mind is a government-to-government dialogue, 

initiated by Congress, to arrange for the holding of a Federallymandated plebiscite which will offer reality-based self-determination 

options that are unquestionably and emphaticaUy acceptable both to 

Congress and to the White House. 

As I conclude with that simple request, which is eminently 

reasonable and firmly grounded in the democratic principles and values 

to which I alluded at the outset; as I conclude with that request, allow me 

also to express - on behalf of the people of Puerto Rico - my most 

sincere appreciation for your interest, your concern and your 

statesmanship. 

The people of Puerto Rico await your response. 

Thank you very much. 

Written Statement by the Hon. Pedro Rossell6, Governor of Puerto Rico 

U.S. House of Representatives; Washington, D.C. ** 17 OCT 1995 
118 

STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE 

HECTOR LUIS ACEVEDO 

PRESIDENT 

POPULAR DEMOCRATIC PARTY 

THE COMMONWEALTH OF PUERTO RICO 

BEFORE THE 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIVE AMERICAN AND INSULAR AFFAIRS 

AND THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE WESTERN HEMISPHERE 

Good afternoon Mr. Chainnan and members of the Committee. 

I come here as President of the Popular Democratic Pany, which represented the 

Commonwealth option in the 1993 plebiscite. As you all know, that option wori. 

We come here as a people, a proud people with its own history, its own language, its own 

culture enhanced over the centuries. A people that has struggled for over 100 years for 

greater self-government, democracy, and the enhancement of the Puerto Rican culture and 

values. 

I come here well aware of my peoples' reality, their virtues and their problems. My people 

are resilient. They have overcome military and colonial regimes. They have survived the 

application of benevolent and forced assimllinion. They are proud of their language, even 

though at one point in our history our children were taught in a language that was not their 

own. 

C:\HLAJ 
119 

I come here as part of a people that have struggled with the prejudice of the colonial 

mentality that thought that democracy could not flourish in the tropics, that our language was 

a patois and that we were not prepared for the progress and respect we desired. 

I come grateful to men of vision from the U.S. These men, who were friends of Puerto Rico 

have included Henry Croll, Theodore Roosevelt, Jr., Rexford Tugwell, Harry Truman, 

Dwight Eisenhower and John Kennedy. These men understood that there were alternatives in 

Puerto Rico to hunger, humiliation or assimilation. 

Puerto Rico came to be part of the U.S. at the end of the last century. Since that time the 

forces of our culture, an economy in need of development tools, and the forces of stability 

and migration had prevailed over the decades. 

The quest for an elected legislature, the quest for an elected governor, the quest for the 

creation of our own constitution and our autonomy have been the great political developments 

of this century. 

To my understanding, the Puerto Rican people cherish some fundamental values. 

• 

C:\HLAJ 

Our own distinct cultural identity -- not as a minority but as an 

homogeneous and proud people. 

2 
120 

• American citizenship, a bond that is very much esteemed by our 

people. 

• The desire for social justice and economic development that provides 

decent jobs and looks out for the less fortunate . 

• The freedom of movement to travel to and from the U.S. without 

limitations. 

• Loyalty to democracy and the principle of equality of the human being. 

The last fifty years have seen a rapid development in the political, economic, and social 

conditions of Puerto Rico. When I was born 47 years ago, the average life expectancy was 

48 years of age. Today it is 74. Then there were 10,000 university students; today there are 

more than 160,000. The per capita annual income was less than $500, today it is more than 

$6,000. Few people owned homes, today there is a higher home ownership rate than in the 

U.S. 

At the same time, 215 of our population lives in the U.S., most of them in very poor 

conditions. Our economy is still developing, however. We have only a 46% participation in 

the workforce (in the U.S. it is 66%) and unemployment of almost 15%. Almost a third of 

C:\HLA3 3 
121 

our jobs are related to a production program of industrial incentives of which the nowthreatened Section 936 is a vital part. 

We value and treasure every job we have. We have worked very hard with the help of the 

U.S. to provide decent jobs for our people in our land so they will no longer be forced to 

migrate to the U.S. And in this respect, Mr. Chairman, Commonwealth has served Puerto 

Rico well, for ONLY under Commonwealth are certain economic tools available to us. 

We want a culture of work not of welfare. That is why we cannot understand how it is 

possible that this Congress moves to cut welfare and at the same tune cuts the program that is 

responsible for almost a third of our jobs. In sum, Mr. Chairman, Commonwealth has 

served Puerto Rico well, and the people themselves have consistently recognized this reality . 

Commonwealth has worked, is working, and will continue to flourish. It is therefore · 

troubling to the Puerto Rican people when the U.S. Congress attempts to tear-down that 

which the Puerto Ricans themselves have worked so hard to build. 

The only answer has to be improvisation. The lack of a consistent federal policy regarding 

Puerto Rico and its economic development greatly harms our people. 

We formally request from you today a program for enhancing what we have accomplished so 

far, not for impoverishing our people. We do not wish to become the poorest state of the 

Union. We hope to become the richest Island in the Caribbean -- a model for others in the 

C:\HLAJ 4 
122 

region to look to for inspiration. We look to Congress for an economic development plan for 

Puerto Rico that gives continuity and predictability to our economy. We need an Act for tbe 

Economic Development of Puerto Rico that takes into account our special circumstances, our 

competitiveness, our production costs, all in relation to otber jurisdictions. We request that 

you take no action against our incentives until you have tbe whole picture of tbe 

consequences of your actions and tbe realities of tbe alternatives. 

To subject tbe jobs and tbe quality of life of my people to improvisations of tbe moment is a 

great injustice and a disservice to tbe U.S. 

The left hand cannot destroy what the right hand is constructing. The promise of a society of 

workfare cannot be constructed witb actions that destroy jobs and eliminate incentives for 

investment. The true test of politics is not tbe amount of words, but tbe improvement of tbe 

lives of tbe people who hear tbose words. 

In terms of political development, our road has been a rocky one. Tbe normal tension 

between the concentration of power in Washington and in tbe states or Puerto Rico has been 

a continuity in our history. We see witb great hope the movement of block grants and the 

limitS on unfunded mandate as a welcome initiative. that takes into account local initiatives 

and will promote better understanding of our requests for autonomy. 

C:IHLA3 5 
123 

Lets talk about the plebiscite. In 1950 and 1952 Congress and the voters in two referendums 

in Puerto Rico approved a process to enhance self government and to approve the 

Constitution of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico in the nature of a compact. 

The U.S. government, with a congressional delegation asked the United Nations in 1953 to 

withdraw Puerto Rico from the list of colonial dependencies based upon the exercise of the 

will of the people and upon the existence of a bilateral compact. 

In 1967 and in 1993 different governments have called for two plebiscites-- Commonwealth 

won both. 

Through 1989 and 1991 the political leadership of Puerto Rico jointly requested from 

Congress a plebiscite in which there will be a commitment by Congress to implement its 

results. That support failed to produce a law because there was no consensus in Congress for 

its approval. 

In 1993 the Governor and the NPP unilaterally called for a plebiscite. They even changed 

the date for the most partisan considerations. They called for it, got it, and lost it. Then 

they sabotaged the implementation, did not assign a single cent, opposed the creation of a 

presidential task force and continued to propose statehood against the will of our people. 

C:\HLAJ 6 

2Q-766 - 96 - 5 
124 

The agenda of the Commonwealth is one that uniftes the effons of Pueno Ricans. 

Throughout the years different governments have tried and won parity in different federal 

programs. Governor jerre and Commissioner Diaz initiated the effort for parity in the food 

Stamp program. Governor Hernandez Colon and Commissioner Benitez got the ftnal 

approval with an appropriation. So what we are asking today was exactly what we bad until 

1982. 

Regarding the SSI, I call your attention to the Northern Marianas' participation fully in this 

program since 1976. 

So what we are missing is the political and economic will to produce the same results. 

This committee bas a singular opportunity, it can tike sides in the controversy or become a 

beacon of understanding. 

Great friendships depend upon the understanding of basic differences. 

7 
125 

STATEMENT BEFORE SUBCOMMITIEE ON NATIVE AMERICAN 

& INSULAR AFFAIRS 

OCfOBER 17, 1995 

SENATOR RUBEN BERRIOS MARTINEZ 

PRESIDENT 

PUERTO RICAN INDEPENDENCE PARTY 

In 1989 the presidents of the three Puerto Rican political parties, petitioned 

the U. S. Congress for federal legislation to solve Puerto Rico's political status. 

I vividly recall my first meeting with Senator Bennett Johnston, then 

chairman of the Senate Natural Resources Committee, regarding this matter. I told 

him: the real issue before all of us is whether the Puerto Rican nationality; which 

I compare to a ship adrift in mid ocean. should be steered towards separate 

sovereignty or towards statehood That was the issue then and that is the issue 

now. 

Years later and in light of the ensuing congressional paralysis, Puerto Rico 

took up the suggestion made by several U. S. senators and held the 1993 status 

referendum under Puerto Rican law. 

Now, faced with the referendum results, this Committee should address itself 

to the same question I posed to Senator Bennett Johnston six years ago. Which 

way should Congress move? 

The Puerto Rican people have already spoken. Congress should therefore 

move in the direction of the petition made by the Puerto Rican people, particularly 

when the will of the Puerto Rican people in this case coincides with the national 
126 

2 

interest of the United States. 

The November 14,1993 referendum on status gave e people of Puerto Rico 

a choice of three status options: Statehood, State (or 

Commonwealth) and Independe.oce. 

of sovereifoty for Puerto Rico. Of that 4.5% voted for 

independence and a plurality, 48.9%, opted for a Free ociated State based on 

a bilateral pact with the U. S. - that is to say a juridi relation that cannot be 

unilateraiiy altered by Congress i.o the exercise of its po 

Clause, a juridical relation that presupposes the recogoiti n by Congress of Puerto 

Rico's sovereignty. 

It should not come as a surprise that many in Co gress were thankful that 

statehood was defeated. Otherwise Congress would ave been faced with a 

statehood petition which it would have been forced to efuse for very powerful 

reasons, many of which, if I were an American, I waul also share. 

Some would have you believe that Puerto Rico' problem is one of civil 

rights or disenfranchisement, like that of the District o 

It is a problem of a different nature, of a different speci . To the United States, 

Puerto Rico poses a problem not of iDdividual rights, btt of the collective rights 
127 

3 

of a people; of the right of a distinct nationality to govern itself in its separate and 

distinct homeland. 

Puerto Rico's problem is colonialism: and inte~:ration as a state could 

~:enerate an explosive cont1ict of nationalities within the United States. The dawn 

of the 21st century hardly seems the appropriate time to bring back, literally from 

the dead, the question of secession into the America political scene. Even Puerto 

Rican statehooders insist that Puerto Rico become a state without compromising 

its distinct language and cultural identity. 

Quebec, Ireland, Lithuania, Bosnia and Chechnia serve to underline the 

often unpredictable, sometimes explosive but always disruptive nature of 

nationality conflicts. As concerns the American federal body politic. Puerto Rico 

is a non - compatible donor. One should not underestimate the power of ideas 

such as federalism; but blood laud and lanpa~:e are closer to home. 

Senator Robert Dole and Speaker Gingrich, in proclaiming the primacy of 

the English language as a cohesive force in U. S. federalism, have shown that they 

are well aware of these problems. 

The fundamental issue for the U. S. as reprds Puerto Rico is what type: of 

juridical and political relationship Coo~:ress is wmio& to establish with a people 

who constitute a distinct patiooality. who inhabit a distinct apd separate territo[y, 
128 

4 

who speak a different Jan~a~:e. apd who upapimous!y aspire to maiotaio their owp 

~· 

By rejecting statehood and favoring some form of sovereignty, separate and 

distinct from that of the United States, Puerto Ricans have answered that question 

for you in a manner consistent with your best interests. 

As regards statehood, Congress should take "no" for an answer. 

Coo~:ress pow bas the opportunity. in accordance with the wm of the Puerto 

Rican people to steer the ship of Puerto Rican nationality in the correct direction: 

towards separate soyerei~:oty. away from statehood. 

That separate sovereignty is the correct alternative becomes even more 

evident now that Congress is on the verge of drastically altering or eliminating 

section 936 of the U.S. Internal Revenue Code. 

Even when our economy enjoyed full 936 tax privileges and preferential 

entry into the U.S. market in pre-NAFTA days, Puerto Rico become the welfare 

capital of the Hemisphere. Imagine the scenario under post-936 conditions 

together with two senators and 6 or 7 representatives, for that is what statehood 

implies. Puerto Rico would become a chronically depressed ghetto state and its 

congressional delegation a permanent lobby for increased welfare payments as the 

only alternative to massive migration. 
129 

5 

What Puerto Rico requires in order to develop is not more welfare but more 

economic powers and flexibility, economic tools and decisions that respond to our 

needs and not to those of the highly develop U.S. economy. Nations, like persons 

have different ills that demand different treatments. 

Puerto Rico needs more economic instruments and power to enter into tax 

sparring treaties with capital exporting nations other than the U.S. while making 

use of the foreign tax credit; to institute a separate wage, labor and tax policy, to 

develop infant industry and local capital accumulation, to eliminate the offshore 

shipping laws, among many other development tools. Statehood which demands 

uniformity would permanently impair such possibilities. Only separate sovereignty 

can provide for such alternatives. 

Congress should face the Puerto Ri~n problem once and for all; not in a 

piecemeal basis, responding to the most recent crisis as is now the case with 

section 936, but through an integrated, coherent response that is mindful of the 

long term consequences of such decision. 

How should Congress go about such a task? Our proposal is simple and 

direct. Con~ress should le~islate to offer a choice between a sovereign. noncolonial non - territorial Free Associated State. and independence, an inalienable 

right which therefore must always be present as an option. I remind you that only 
130 

6 

two years before the Declaration of Independence, George Washington was still 

saying that "Independence is not desired by any thinking man in North America". 

We propose the creation of a Joint Committee of the U.S. Congress to draft 

the terms and conditions for the independence of Puerto Rico and for a bilateral 

pact between, the United States and the Free Associated State of Puerto Rico, in 

accordance with applicable principles of international law and the U. S. 

constitution. After consultations with the President of the United States, Puerto 

Rico's political parties and other interested persons as may be appropiate, 

congressional approval through a fast -track process would constitute the U.S. 

offer. The people of Puerto Rico would then vote on the form of sovereign self 

government of their choice, not later than July 25, 1998. A full century of U.S. 

colonialism is more than enough, both for the colonizer and the colonized. 

I must also point out that the outcome of this proposal would constitute a 

solid basis upon which to develop a policy for the relations between the United 

States and the nations of the Caribbean region. 

One of the main principles of such hemispheric policy should be that 

intimate economic relations must not imply cultural and political assimilation. 

Under statehood, Puerto Rico would never be seen as a bridge between the 

Americas; as a state of the American Union Puerto Rico would more likely be 
131 

7 

perceived as an American Trojan Horse in the midst of Latin America, a 

permanent extension of the U. S. border into the Caribbean. 

Let me before concluding introduce a word of caution. Whatever the 

specific course Congress may decide to take, you should at least speak clearly and 

forthrightly to the Puerto Rican people. 

Regarding the status of Puerto Rico as Senator Patrick Moynihan said on the 

Senate floor a few short years ago: "The fundamental issue is .. . whether Puerto 

Ricans want to become Americans ... , or whether they want to retain a separate 

identity." In light of the Senator's most accurate description of reality, you should 

make clear to Puerto Rico the evident conclusion: that as long as Puerto Ricans are 

Puerto Ricans. with their distinct identity and lan~age. Congress as a body cannot 

seriously consider statehood. 

Furthermore, Puerto Ricans should be told the truth relilardinlil the present 

status: that Commonwealth is a colonial status. an unincorporated territory of the 

United States: and that Conlilress could only enter into a bilateral pact with a 

separate soyereililJl body politic. As regards independence, which is a right and not 

a privilege, I have no doubt that we would be able to agree on the terms and 

conditions for a Treaty of Friendship and Cooperation. 

If Congress fails to speak clearly, the result would be the continuation of 
132 

8 

colonialism by inertia. This would be contrary to the results which many of you 

intend, as well as to the will of the Puerto Rican people. I need only remind you 

that the present status, Commonwealth-as-is, was not even on the referendum 

ballot. 

The solution to the Puerto Rico status problem is within your grasp. If you 

do not respond favorably to the referendum results and speak clearly to the Puerto 

Rican people, you may have to face an embarrassing statehood petition tomorrow, 

not because Puerto Ricans will have met the criteria advanced by Senator 

Moynihan, but as a result of Puerto Rico's continuing economic dependence and 

subordination. Puerto Rico has spoken; Congress should speak now. 

There may well be procedural alternatives to the one we have proposed 

today but they will in the long run respond to the same interests and realities. The 

end result will undoubtedly be the same, a firm and steady course towards separate 

sovereignty, but the process will surely be more painful and costly. 

Congress would do well to heed some very sound advice from William 

Shakespeare: 

There is a tide in the affairs of men 

Which taken at the flood, leads on to fortune; 

Omitted, all the voyage of their life 

Is bound in shallows and in miseries. 

On such a full sea are we now afloat, 

And we must take the current when it serves, 

Or lose our ventures. 
133 

TESTIMONY OF 

THE HONORABLE LUIS A FERRE 

BEFORE THE WESTERN HEMISPHERE SUBCOMMITTEE 

OF THE HOUSE INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS 

AND THE NATIVE AMERICAN AND INSULAR AFFAIRS SUBCOMMITTEE 

OF THE HOUSE RESOURCES COMMITTEE 

REGARDING THE 

CONGRESSIONAL HEARING ON 

THE 1993 PLEBISCITE RESULTS OF PUERTO RICO 

OCTOBER 17, 1995 
134 

-1-

Chairman Galfegly and members of the Subcommittee on Native American and 

Insular Affairs of the Committee on Resources; 

Chairman Burton and members of the Subcommittee on the Western 

Hemisphere of the Committee on International Relations: 

Good Afternoon. 

My name is Luis A. Ferre. 

I served as Governor of Puerto Rico from 1969 to 1973 and I appear before you 

on behalf of Puerto Rico's New Progressive Part)', which I founded in 1967 as result of 

the plebiscite held early in the same year following the recommendation of the U.S. 

P.R. Status Commission of 1964. The platform of the New Progressive Party stated that 

its political objective was to achieve statehood for puerto Rico. 

The political status plebiscite that was conducted on November 4, 1993, must 

be evaluated within a historical context. 

The quest for statehood has strong historical, political and moral precendents. 

During the spanish colonial regime puertorrican patriots and citizens suffered great 

abuses and developed great enmity towards Spain. Coincidentaly, Puerto Rico's trade 

with the United States, particularly sugar, was most important. As a result, puertorrican 

leaders became familiar with the democratic traditions of the United States and 

developed great admiration for them, to the extent of even considering possible 

annexation. 

Cuba started it's war of independence in 1895 and was joined by the United 

States when the latter declared war on Spain in 1898 after the sinking of the Maine. 

The war was waged to gain independece for Cuba. 

The United States War Department considered it convenient to take advantage 

of the occasion to invade Puerto Rico and contrary to its intentions towards Cuba, to 

retain it because of it's military significance to the defense of the United States 

interests in the Carribbean. It decided to do so, because it was well informed of the 
135 

-2-

favorable attitude of the puertorricans towards the United States. 

United States vessels attacked Puerto Rico on July 25, 1898 and american 

forces landed in Ponce, July 27,1898 after the spanish forces surrendered and 

retreated fowards San Juan. Amercian troops were welcomed enthusiastically by the 

citizens of Ponce, who lined the streets to cheer them, led by the puertorrican patriots 

who had suffered from the colonial abuses of ·spain. Not a single shot was fired 

against the landing american troops. 

Upon landing, General Nelson Miles, who accepted the enthusiastic welcome, 

published and distributed a proclamation which in part read: "Our military forces ... 

bring you the fostering arms of a free people, whose greatest power is justice and 

humanity to all living with-in their fold ... They have not come to make war on the 

people of the country ... but on the contrary to bring protection, not only to yourselves. 

but to your property, promote your prosperity and bestow the immunjtjes and blessings 

of our enlightenment and liberal jnstnutjons and goverment. •. 

This proclamation was considered by the political leaders and puertorrican 

people as a moral commitment by the United States that Puerto Rico would be 

accepted eventually as a state of the Union, with the enjoyment of American 

citizenship. Accordingly, both the political parties that participated in the elections in 

1900 under the leadership of the two most important Island leaders, Barbosa and 

Munoz Rivera included statehood in their platforms. 

To the dissapoinment of the people of Puerto Rico, shortly afterwards Congress 

enacted the Foraker Bill to establish the first civil goverment in Puerto Rico which did 

not give U.S. citizenship to its inhabitants, it acted in contradiction to the established 

tradition of accepting territories only to become states, as per Judge Taneys Dictum 

keeping Puerto Rico in a political limbo. 

This unexpected action created great dissappointment in the Island. However, 

the people of Puerto Rico did not loose confidence in the ultimate spirit of justice of the 
136 

-3-

United States and persisted in what they believed was their right to become U.S. 

citizens because of the moral committment they understood which resulted from their 

acquiescense during the United States invasion and the promises made by General 

Miles on behalf of th United States. 

Congress finally approved the Jones Act of 1917, granting U.S. citizenship to 

the people of Puerto Rico. The people of Puerto Rico considered this as a firm 

committment to grant statehood as soon as a majority of its citizens should so request, 

because statehood is a constitutional right of a U.S. citizen, and also a matter of civil 

rights. 

In what I consider was a mistaken effort to prevent Puerto Rico from paying 

federal taxes and as a result of questionable constitutional considerations, the 

Supreme Court enunciated the theory of non-incorporated territory with respect to 

Puerto Rico, denying it the right of incorporation of acquired territories which had been 

traditionally established. 

This distinction opened the way to the enjoyment of tax exemption, which has 

determined the development of industry and business in Puerto Rico as a priviledged 

location, based on advantages which could be arbitrarily altered or cancelled by 

Congress. This condition of uncertainly has been a perpetual menace to our economic 

development as compared to the firm progress of the States of the Union, which is 

based on Congressional Legislation, common to all, on a sound basis of equal rights. 

This is why we have insisted in becoming a state to gain the stability that results 

from equal political rights, with representation in Congress. We do not want privileges. 

We want equality, equality in our rights and equality in our duties. That is the way of 

american democracy in which we have been brought-up to think and cherish. That is 

the only dignified position for an american citizen. 

Mr. Chairman, since I came back from college at M.I.T. to work in Puerto Rico, I 

have dedicated my life to the quest for statehood. 
137 

-4-

In 1939, I testified before the· Trade Commission of the U.S. Senate, 

respresenting the Lions Club of Puerto Rico and expressed the need to admit Puerto 

Rico as a state so that it could protect its interests against concessions to foreign 

countries as states could do. At that time I realized how important it was to inform the 

Members of 'congress about Puerto Rico, since the knowledge they had was indeed 

meager. I then proceeded to engage a team to interview as many of its members as I 

could with information about the right of Puerto Rico to become a state and was able to 

interview over 400 Members. As a result, more than 50 Members of Congress, 

including Senators Chavez, Langer, Burke and King, became advocates of statahood. 

Senator Langer, introduced a bill to admit Puerto Rico as a state. 

In 1945, I traveled to Washington, via airplane fron San Juan to Haiti, to Cuba 

and to Miarni, and hence by train up-here, to oppose the Tydings Bill for the 

Independence of Puerto Rico and, to reaffirm our desire for statehood. 

In 1949, I testified in Ponce, Puerto Rico before the Subcommittee of the 

Committee on Labor and Education of the U.S. House of Representatives and 

maintained that to solve our economic problems, through our own effort and enterprise 

we had to be given the same tools that our fellow American citizens have in 

Continental U.S.: equal rights under statehood, to enable us to protect our economic 

interests in that very place -Congress- where economic policies are established. 

In 1950, the U.S. Congress enacted Law 600 to authorize Puerto Rico to draft a 

constitution under the Territorial Clause, in the manner of a compact. I was a member 

of the Constitutional Convention. We drafted a Constitution which after approval by 

Congress· and the President went into effect in 1952. It clearly stated Puerto Rico 

would be subject to the Federal Relations Act, which it was understood meant subject 

to the Territorial Clause of the Constitution. 

But the leaders of the Popular Democratic Party, began a series of moves to try 

to obtain a release from the Territorial Clause under a "fait-accompli" strategy, that 
138 

-5-

tried to make Law 600 look like and irrevocable surrender of soverignty by Congress 

and making the so called "Commonwealth of Puerto Rico" a permanent status. As a 

result of these actions and the objections it raised, Congress decided to appoint a 

Commission to look into the matter. We maintained the Popular Democratic Party was 

trying to deceive the electorate in Puerto Rico, claming advantages for the 

Commonwealth status over statehood that were clearly untrue and unconstitutional. It 

also affrimed that statehood would be economically catastrophic for Puerto Rico. 

These are the arguments and advantages that were incorporated by them in 

their definition of Commonwealth in the ballot of the recent plebiscite, subject of these 

hearings. 

In 1964 the United States-Puerto Rico Status Commission was created and I 

had the privilege of been appointed on behalf of the statehood position. One of its 

conclusion reads, "Economic studies indicate that sustained economic growth, under 

the present status and continuation of the special economic arrangements will make 

statehood with adequate, but not extraordinary or unprecedented provisions for 

transition fully possible without severe risks". 

Following the recommendations of the Status Commission, a Plebiscite was 

held in Puerto Rico in 1967 between Independence, Statehood and enhanced 

Commonwealth. The statehood forces rallied under my leadership and that of Mr. 

Romero Barcelo and others, and we increased our voting strength in a such manner, 

that four months after the Plebiscite, we organized the New Progressive Party, on the 

platform of Statehood and won the 1968 election. As a result, I was elected Governor, 

after 28 years of uninterrupted Popular Democratic control. 

The growth of the statehood forces have been overwhelming since 1968. The 

P.N.P., the statehood party which I represent as its founder, has won three of the six 

elections since then. It is today in control, with Governor, Resident Commissioner, and 

a two-third majority in both Senate and House of our Legislature, elected by 938,969 
139 

-6-

votes, which is 49.33 "'o against 45.34 "'o for the Popular Democratic Party. 

We feel that Puerto Rico is ripe to become a state after almost a hundred years 

of apprenticeship and to assume its full political rights and responsabilities. During all 

this century, more than 200,000 puertorricans have served with distinction in all the 

wars that the U.S. has been involved and in several cases with higher casualties than 

some states. More than 2,000 puertorrican soldiers served in the recent Gulf War, 

amongst which was a grandson of mine in the 1st Armored Division. Several, such as 

Fernando Luis Garcra who gave their lives heroically in the line of duty, have been 

condecorated with the Congressional Medal of Honor. 

Amongst other distinguished leaders are Admiral Horacio River~. in 1968 

Commander in Chief of NATO Forces in Southern Europe and later Ambassador to 

Spain; Admiral Diego Hernandez, who was in command of the Mediterranean Fleet; 

Major General Pedro del Valle commanded the U.S. Marine Corps, First Division in 

the Pacific; General William A. Navas, Jr., who is Deputy in command of the National 

Guard. Dr. Antonia Novello served as U.S. Surgeon General and Dr. Enrique 

Mendez, Jr., as Deputy Surgeon General of the U.S. Army. 

Puerto Rico is participating successfully and with distinction in Mainstream 

America to enrich its economy and its culture. There are about 2,000,000 puertorricans 

living throughout the Nation, doing constructive and creative work as factory workers 

and as professionals in all fields of activity: thousands of physicians, and engineers, 

thousands of teachers and professors in schools and universities, amongst which are 

two of my grandchildren in the Universities of Texas and Boston. 

In the Arts and Humanities our rythms and melodies have contributed to enrich 

american music; our great actors like Jose Ferrer and Raul Julia have been american 

favorites. Justine Dfaz and Pablo Elvira have been great voices at the Metropolitan. 

In the area of civil goverment, amongst many others, Judge Juan Torruellas, 

Chief Justice of the U.S. First Circuit Court of Appeals; Judge Jose Cabranes is 
140 

-7-

member of lhe U.S. 2nd Cln:ult of Appeala and, Maurice Ferr6, hal served as Mayor of 

Miami. 

In the area of sports we have contributed wllh many baseball players amongst 

which Roberto Clemente has been Included In the Hall of Fame; Glgt Fem&ndez is a 

tennis champion; as well as Chichi Rodriguez in golf. 

As a personal note I could mention that I have been awarded the Hoover Medal 

by my engineering peers and have been honored with the Presidential Medal of 

Freedom by President Bush. And last, but not least to shew how much Puerto Rico is 

imbedded in american life, it was the puertorrlcan judge of the Southam District of 

New York, Sonia Sotomayor, who as a fearless jurist, decided a few months ago to 

Issue an injunction that could break the deadlock in the bueball strike, and by doing 

so, sent the baseball players back to give americans, after more than a year, the 

enjoyment of their favorite sport Nobody could be part of America, mare than this 

fearless and competent jurist of 40 years of age. 3he was the true Image of the 

freedom and respect of law America stands tar. 

Mr. Chairman, I think the time has come for Congress to live up to the 

commitment of equalily under which we were brought Into its fold. It is lime to do justice 

to more than 3.6 million disfranchised American citizens of Puerto Rico. 
141 

Statement of Jeffrey L. Farrow 

co-Chair, u.s. Interagency Working Group on Puerto Rico 

before the u.s. House of Representatives Subcommittees on Native American and Insular Affairs 

and Western Hemisphere Affairs on Puerto Rico's 1993 Political Status Plebiscite and its Results 

October 17, 1995 

Chairmen Gallegly and Burton and distinguished Members, 

let me begin by saying that it is a special honor for me to 

appear before the Subcommittee led by Chairman Gallegly and 

Ranking Democrat Faleomavaega and full Committee Chairman Young 

and Ranking Democrat Miller .since I assisted the committee for over 12 years. 

I left a year ago only because the issues that are the subject of 

this hearing prompted President Clinton to have policy concerning 

the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico developed and coordinated ..• a step that Members of both Houses had long urged Presidents to 

take. 

Let me add that the interest of both Subcommittees in these 

matters is appreciated. They are difficult and their importance 

is not always recognized in Washington. 

They are of vital importance, though, to the 3.7 million citizens 

in Puerto Rico. They not only involve matters as basic as selfgovernance, national identity and citizenship rights; they also 

frame perspectives on major economic and social policy questions. 

The debate on them is intertwined with competition among three 

political parties. Each promotes one of the status preferences 

generally discussed in the islands: commonwealth, which is the 

existing, mutually-determined relationship -- or a development of 

it; statehood; and independence. The commonwealth and statehood 

parties have traded control of the government. 

Status differences are so intense that they often hinder action on serious problems. They can be unintentionally fueled by policy actions and statements here in the capital. 

There have been numerous initiatives to settle this controversy. 

In the latest, Puerto Rico's government conducted a popular vote 

in November 1993 among the three preferences. 

Officials who favor statehood were elected having promised a vote. They pledged it after a deadlock in the lead U. S. Senate 

committee over the approach for resolving the status issue. 

Legislation was being considered in response to an extraordinary 

joint request from the three parties for a Federal commitment to 

act to implement a Puerto Rican choice. 
142 

2 

Half the committee backed a bill that detailed options and 

provided for final consideration of an option that got over 50% 

in an initial referendum. The other half, however, proposed that 

Puerto Ricans seek Federal action after selecting a status. 

With support from some of you, the House promised implementing 

legislation for mutual U.S.-Puerto Rican consideration if a 50% 

plus vote sought any of the options within general parameters. 

Puerto Rico's 1993 plebiscite law was enacted without a local consensus. There were questions about the lack of both a majority 

requirement and a Congressional commitment to the process. 

The law authorized the parties to define the options •.• or other 

groups to do so if they did not. It suggested that the vote was being held to petition the u.s. Government. Officials said the 

proponents of the option that won the most votes were expected to 

seek implementation; but the law did not specify how and when. 

over 1.7 million people voted-- 73.5% of the electorate. 

Commonwealth won 48.6%. Statehood got 46.3%. Independence, 4.4%. 

Afterwards, insular officials said that: seeking implementation 

of the Commonwealth definition was up to the commonwealth party; 

Congress should respond to the definition; and the results 

rejected the commonwealth arrangement. 

The commonwealth party, meanwhile, has sought Executive Branch 

actions in line with the definition that won a plurality. 

Recently, the statehood party called for another plebiscite. 

President Clinton is deeply committed to supporting the people of 

Puerto Rico's decision of what their islands' status should be. 

His own vision of how the status dilemma should be solved was laid out in the Democratic Platform: It pledged support for a choice made by the people acting in concert with the Congress. 

The President hoped that the plebiscite would conclude the 

debate. He said that he would back statehood or independence if 

the people voted for either one ••• but try to make the current 

relationship work better for them if they did not. 

He supported their decision and has worked since then to make the 

current relationship work better, as he pledged he would. 

He directed the formation of the group of senior officials that I 

co-chair to ensure serious attention to Puerto Rico's 

circumstances, needs, and proposals and to assist him in working 

with the islands' leaders and Congress on them. 
143 

3 

This policy-level network is the practical fulfillment of the 

assignment of Puerto Rico matters to the Office of the President 

through the White House Office of Intergovernmental Affairs. 

While we have heard disagreements about the plebiscite results, areas of consensus were reflected ... and continue today. For 

example, Puerto Ricans clearly want: to retain u.s. citizenship; 

to preserve their cultural identity, including use of the Spanish 

language; and to obtain assistance for those most disadvantaged. 

Many favor tax incentives to encourage job-creating investments 

and measures to make the islands more self-sufficient. 

Since human concerns are at the root of many of these expressions -- and the problems in Puerto Rico are substantial -- President 

Clinton has placed an emphasis on helping the islands to grow 

economically. 

He also recognizes, though, that the fundamental status debate 

unfortunately -- still rages. Further, the frustrating stalemate 

is likely to continue until the Federal Government meets its 

responsibilities in this matter. 

This is because the status problem involves not only a choice by 

the people of the islands but decisions by the United States as well •.. as is clear from all of the parties' plebiscite proposals. 

And the fact is that the decisions have not been made by our government ••• and cannot be presumed. As Senator Johnston, who has 

done so much to try to resolve this matter, has said: "These are not extraneous details, they are the core issues which dictate 

the choice [open to Puerto Ricans] ... No one can know what the answer of Congress will be until these questions are presented." 

The President believes that the answers need to be developed 

together with the people of Puerto Rico. The Administration is, 

therefore, willing to work with the islands' leaders and 

Congress to develop a process that would enable the selfdetermination aspirations of Puerto Ricans to be fulfilled. 

Such a process would build upon their expressions in the 1993 

plebiscite and resolve what the options can be. It would 

seriously address the complexities of the situation -- including 

the realities of both Puerto Rico and the United States. 

Finally, it would commit both governments to act in response to 

the will of a majority of the islands' people. 

Chairmen and Members, the outcome of. the 1993 plebiscite should. 

be an effort to finally resolve the issue that divides Puerto 

Ricans and impedes their progress. We look forward to working 

with their various elected leaders and you for the consensus process that is needed. 
144 

SUPPLBKBHTAL SHBBT 

WZTHBSS ZHFORMATZOM 

JmMB: 

ADDRBSS: 

TBLBPBOMB: 

Jeffrey L. Farrow 

Interagency working Group on PUerto Rico u.s. Departaent of co .. erce Building 

Room 6061 

washington, D.c. 20230 

(202) 482-0037 

SUMMARY OP COMMBHTS AND RBCOMXBBDATZOBS 

President Clinton is deeply committed to supporting the people of 

Puerto Rico's decision of what their islands' status should be. 

He has pledged support for a choice made by the people acting in 

concert with the Congress. 

The President hoped that the plebiscite would conclude the 

debate. He has supported the people's decision and has worked 

since then to make government work better for them. He directed 

the formation of the Interagency Working Group on Puerto Rico to ensure serious attention to the islands' circumstances, needs, 

and proposals. 

While there are disagreements about the plebiscite results, areas of consensus were reflected. Puerto Ricans clearly want to 

retain u.s. citizenship; preserve their cultural identity; and 

obtain aid for those most disadvantaged. 

He also recognizes that the fundamental status debate still 

rages. The stalemate is likely to continue until the Federal 

Government meets its responsibilities in this matter. 

The President's position is that the answers need to be developed 

together with the people of Puerto Rico. The Administration is, 

therefore, willing to work with the islands' leaders and Congress 

to develop a process that would enable the legitimate selfdetermination aspirations of Puerto Ricans to be fulfilled. 

Such a process would build upon their expressions in the 1993 

plebiscite and clarify the options. It would commit both 

governments to act in response to the will of a majority of the 

islands' people. 

The outcome of the 1993 plebiscite should be an effort to finally 

resolve the issue that divides Puerto Ricans and impedes their 

progress. 
145 

TESTIMONY OF HOWARD L. HILLS* 

BEFORE THE 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIVE AMERICAN AND INSULAR AFFAIRS 

COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES 

AND THE 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON WESTERN HEMISPHERE 

COMMITTEE ON INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS 

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

OCTOBER 17, 1995 

* Howard Hills formerly served as Legal Counsel and Department 

of Defense Advisor for the National Security Council (NSC) 

interagency office which concluded the Micronesian free association 

treaties. He was lead counsel for the NSC interagency group on Micronesia in connection with the Congressional approval process 

for the Micronesian treaties, and coordinated development of the 

u.s. legal position in U.N. Security Cotincil and Trusteeship 

Council on Micronesian decolonization. Mr. Hills also served in 

government as Counsel for Interagency Affairs, Office of Associated 

States, East Asia and Pacific Bureau , u.s. State Department, and 

subsequently was appointed to serve as Vice President and General 

Counsel of the State Department's Overseas Private Investment 

Corporation (OPIC) . Since joining the Washington D.c. office of 

Stroock & Stroock & Lavan in February of 1993, Mr. Hills' 

activities have included visits to Puerto Rico at the invitation of 

Independence Party leaders and the San Juan Rotary Club to discuss 

federal policy and the decolonization process for Puerto Rico, as well as providing legal analysis of federal .territorial issues, 

including maritime law reform, for the Citizen's Educational 

Foundation, and serving as counsel for the Guam Commission on SelfDetermination (1993-1995) . 
146 

SUMMARY OF TESTIMONY 

1. Establishment of local self-government for Puerto Rico in 

1952, under a "commonwealth" constitution amended by Congress and 

enacted as a federal statute, was deemed sufficient for the U.S. to 

have Puerto Rico removed from the U.N. list of colonial areas in 

1953. However, neither the constitution, the label "commonwealth" 

nor deletion of Puerto Rico from the U.N. decolonization list 

changed the legal fact or the political reality that Puerto Rico 

remains an unincorporated territory of the United States as defined 

by the u.s. Supreme Court in the Insular Cases. Thus, the u.s. 

Congress continues to exercise plenary power to govern Puerto Rico 

under Art. IV, Sec. 3, Cl. 2 of the Constitution, the so-called 

"Territorial Clause." 

2. The political status of an unincorporated territory regulated 

at the discretion of Congress under the Territorial Clause is not 

that of permanent union with the United States, and the rights of 

permanent and equal citizenship are not guaranteed. There are only 

two recognized options for Puerto Rico to end application of the 

Territorial Clause and achieve a permanent status: independence or full incorporation into the U.S. constitutional system leading to 

statehood. 

3. The pronouncements of some federal officials and' certain 

federal measures taken during the last four decades have 

contributed to ambiguity and confusion with respect to the legal 

and political nature of the present "c01111110nwealth" status. In the 

local Puerto Rican political arena there have been creative but 

ultimately unsuccessful efforts to take advantage of the ambiguity 

in federal territorial policy in order to transform the present 

"collllllonwealth" status into what might be viewed by some as de facto 

full self-government. The core elements of •comaonwealth" status 

as defined on the November 14, 1993 plebiscite ballot are 

consistent with the goal of converting territorial status into a hybrid arrangement combining a treaty-like relationship of autonomy 

with special irrevocable guarantees exclusively available to 

citizens within the U.S. constitutional system. However, the 

central proposals contained in the "commonwealth" option would 

perpetuate the present colonial regime without opening a path to 

full self-government, and are not legally or political viable in 

the context of American constitutional federalism and historical 

Congressional practice under the Territorial Clause. 

4. Congress has the authority and responsibility under the 

Territorial Clause to establish a clear federal policy with respect 

to the real political status options available to Puerto Rico under 

our constitution and in our political system. On the basis of 

well-defined federal policy, Congress then must establish a 

legitimate and federally recognized procedure through which the 

people of Puerto Rico can exercise their right of selfdetermination in an informed vote that leads to a permanent 

political status for Puerto Rico. 

-2-
147 

OVERVIEW: PUERTO RICO'S 1993 POLITICAL STATUS VOTE 

In 1992 the Puerto Rican Federal Affairs Administration ca.piled a comprehensive collection of political and leqal docu.ents relating 

to the Puerto Rican political status question. This ca.pilation 

comprises primarily -terials and submissions presented to the U.S. 

Congress during the 1989-1991 period in connection with proposed 

leqislation that would have governed a plebiscite on the future 

status of Puerto Rico. 

That leqislation -s never enacted, with the result that no federally-sanctioned plebiscite was conducted as originally 

contemplated by the Congressional sponsors of the plebiscite bills. 

Instead, a political status vote was conducted under local law in 

Puerto Rico on November 14, 1993. 

The collection of official papers assembled in connection with the 

failed federal plebiscite leqislation is a voluminous and valuable 

record which should be studied by every person concerned with selfdetermination for Puerto Rico. For more than anything else, the 

record of that process reveals that the political status debate in 

Puerto Rico and here in Washington has not produced clarity on the 

most critical and fundamental issues. Not surprisingly, even though it revealed important trends in sentiment among the people on the status question, the 1993 vote failed to produce a clear 

democratic mandate. 

Indeed, based on my experience as a u.s. State Department escort 

officer for a Visiting Mission of the United Nations observing 

political status plebiscites in Micronesia, it is impossible for me to conceive that the vote in Puerto Rico on November 14, 1993 would 

have met the minimum U.N. standards for an informed and legitimate 

act of self-determination. This is because of highly misleading 

ballot language and lack of accurate information for the voters 

about the leqal meaning of the ballot options in the November 14, 

1993 plebiscite. 

If the people of Puerto Rico are to make a more informed choice in 

the next plebiscite, whether it is federally sponsored or not, it 

will be necessary.to strip away the veil of political mystery that 

obscured the real questions facing the voters in 1993. Only then 

will the people be able to look without flawed presuppositions at 

the actual options available to Puerto Rico. 

I have made this statement before, and it is more true now than . ever: For Puerto Rico and the u.s. it is midnight at the ball. 

It is time for all of us to unmask and be truthful about what the 

real choices are for Puerto Ricans. 

For forty years there have been those in the federal government who 

have pretended that the commonwealth achieved full self-government 

in 1952. While this enabled the U.S. in 1953 to have our largest, 

most populous and strategically indispensable territory removed 

-3-
148 

from the U.N. list of non-self governing areas, federal law and 

policy toward Puerto Rico remained anchored in the bedrock reality 

that Puerto Rico continues to be an unincorporated territory as 

defined by the U.S. Supreme Court in the "Insular Cases.• 

Over the years, Puerto Ricans have struggled internally with 

differing interpretations of their own political and legal status 

in the aftermath of the 1952 constitution, and have divided 

generally into three major political parties committed, 

respectively, to the three political status options of 

independence, statehood and the status quo of ccmmonwealth. 

Instead of clarifying the issues in order to promote real and 

definitive self-determination in the period following 1952, a few 

influential figures in the federal political establishment have 

sought to ensure that the federal government would always adopt a 

posture of seemingly principled neutrality with respect to these 

three status options. 

As discussed below, without clarifying the actual constitutional 

nature of the present •commonwealth" status, it is highly 

misleading and it distorts the choices the people 11111st Jllllke to 

simply be neutral toward the •commonwealth" option. Thus, some key 

federal officials have contributed to confusion of the issues and 

have obscured the choices even more by claiming to be neutral and 

disinterested about both the constitutional nature of coumonwealth 

and the even more fundamental issue of whether Puerto Rico actually 

achieved full self-government in 1952. 

Thus, the pretense of neutrality on fundamental issues actually has 

misled, and someti.mes exploited in a cynical way, those in Puerto 

Rico who had sincerely hoped that Puerto Rico could escape from 

under Territorial Clause colonial regime as a result of the 1952 

constitution. For in reality failure to repudiate the legal and 

constitutional fallacies relating to the commonwealth option has 

been a violation of the principle of federal respect for selfdetermination for Puerto Rico, because neutrality toward a political fallacy favors and helps sustain that fallacy. 

While some federal officials were pretending to be objective and 

neutral about how the •creative ambiguity• surrounding Puerto 

Rico's status should be resolved, the real nature of •commonwealth" 

status was obscured further. Meanwhile, the architects of legal 

policy in the Congress and the Department of Justice were 

struggling with the reality that, regardless of what the u.s. may 

have said to the U.N. or the Puerto Ricans in order to achieve deinscription of Puerto Rico from the U.N. list of non-self-governing 

areas, there was no known legal framework within which to manage 

the federal-territorial relationship other than the Territorial 

Clause in Article IV of the Constitution, as interpreted by the 

Supreme Court in the "Insular Cases.• 

Carefully orchestrated presidential pronouncements and statements 

in the Congressional record, as well as non-binding dicta in a few 

-4-
149 

federal court decisions, contributed to the confusion and the 

a.biguity about Puerto Rico's actual status. Instead of 

recognizing the federal government's seeming schizophrenia about 

Puerto Rico's status as part of a well-financed effort to preserve 

the cOIIIIIlOnwealth political regime, and later to preserve the 

Section 936 interests, there have been those in Puerto Rico who 

stubbornly have persisted in espousing the hopeful but naive notion 

that in 1952 Puerto Rico achieved sufficient autonomy and mutuality 

in its relationship with the u.s. to constitute full selfgovernment. 

By perpetuating this fallacy some of the most sincere and wellintentioned commonwealth advocates in Puerto Rico unwittingly have 

collaborated with those in the federal government who, by 

pretending Puerto Rico has been decolonized, have been wishing away 

the opportunity of the Puerto Rican people to exercise the right of 

self-determination. 

The political mythology in Puerto Rico that •commonwealth" status 

constitutes full self-government is based on the plainly wrong idea 

that Puerto Rico achieved a status in 1952 that ca.bines features 

of the international status of free association with attributes of 

permanent membership in the u.s. federal political family. If 

saying it for forty years could make it so, Puerto Rico would be 

enjoying that best of both worlds status and we would not be here 

today. 

But the masquerade is over. It is time for the pretending, the 

bluffing, the partisan mischief and the dysfunctional political 

status process in Puerto Rico to end. We must empower the people 

by giving them clear choices which they understand, and then 

getting out of the way so they can reveal Puerto Rico • s true 

identity through a legitimate act of self-determination. 

In my own view, before the people of Puerto Rico can freely express 

their wishes as to the form of decolonization they prefer in an 

informed act of self-determination, the following discrete points 

of political and legal analysis, summarized and enumerated here 

but presented more fully in the subsequent two parts of my 

testimony, should become part of the political status debate: 

1. Under applicable provisions of the U.N. Charter and 

resolutions approved by the members of that world body, in the era 

of decolonization following the end of World War II non-self 

governing areas have had three political status options: 

independence, free association and integration. In u.s. 

constitutional practice independence and free association are 

international relationships established by treaty. Our internal 

constitutional process in the u.s. for integration of a non-self 

governing area within the u.s. offers only two paths: statehood or 

territorial status. There is no other 111echanisa under the 

constitution or u.s. practice for inclusion in the federal 

political system. 

-5-
150 

2. Statehood is recognized as full integration because under our 

constitutional system statehood is a form of full self-government. 

The most direct and unambiguous way for a U.S. territory to become 

self-governing is to be incorporated into the union and then to 

become a state with equal legal and political rights -- including 

the right to vote in national elections and proportional voting 

representation in Congress. This is the path that Alaska and 

Hawaii, the two u.s. territories to undergo a status change in the 

post WWII era, ultimately elected after prolonged periods of 

territorial status. 

3. As a path to integration, territorial status is problematic 

because under U.S. internal policy and practice towards its 

territories those non-state areas which are classified as 

"unincorporated" under the Supreme Court's "Insular Cases• 

historically have not been self-governing. Integration can be 

achieved through territorial status and recognized as 

decolonization only if consistent with the freely expressed wishes 

of the people and the fundamental principles of self-government. 

In 1953 the U.N. accepted approval of the 1952 constitution as 

decolonization for Puerto Rico, but it now is 1995 and the issue 

still is not resolved to anyone's satisfaction. This is not 

because the U.S. federal government is acting in bad faith to 

frustrate Puerto Rican self-determination. It is for the much less 

dramatic reason that the only source of constitutional authority 

for the u.s. to exercise its powers with respect to non-state areas within the framework of federalism is the Territorial Clause, as 

interpreted by the "Insular Cases. " As a result, even though the 

U.S. diplomats who told the U.N. in 1953 that Puerto Rico would be 

fully self-governing probably believed what they were saying, the 

reality is that the federal government simply has no way of 

rationalizing its relationship with Puerto Rico other than to treat 

it as an unincorporated territory. Under resolutions adopted by 

the U.N. in 1960 and 1970 to define legitimate decolonization 

standards, the arrangements made between the u.s. and Puerto Rico 

in 1952, especially as subsequently interpreted and clarified after 

the political "honeymoon" following adoption of the local 

constitution was over, would not have been accepted as full selfgovernment. 

4. Only full integration and equality leading to statehood or transition to a treaty based relationship between separate 

sovereigns will get Puerto Rico out from under the Territorial 

Clause and the "Insular Cases." Although its proponents would 

object to this characterization, no matter what they believed or told the voters, the simple truth is that in the federal courts, 

the Executive Branch and Congress the commonwealth option on the 

November 14, 1993 ballot can be understood and treated only as a 

proposal that the u.s. Congress exercise its authority under the 

Territorial Clause to give Puerto Rico now what Puerto Rico has 

been unable to get from the federal government for forty years: an 

unalterable intergovernmental pact based on mutual consent and 

permanent membership in the federal union. Under current 

-6-
151 

CoDgressionally-aandated federal policy that so far has not been 

possible. The ca.DOnwealth option calls for a political status 

arrangement that has never existed, does not exist now, and can only ca.e into existence if approved by the Congress in an exercise 

of its plenary authority under the Territorial Clause. 

5. Although it -s not understood this -y by many voters 

because the ballot and the campaiqn was so lllisleading, as a 11111tter 

of legal and political reality a vote for the commonwealth option on the Movember 14, 1993 ballot was a vote the federal government 

ultimately IIU&t · treat as a req\lest that Congress exercise its 

Territorial Clause power by imposing a autual consent requirement on itself. Although that type of mutual consent arrangement is 

precisely what Guaa seeks fraa the federal goverrDiellt, Guaa•s 

political leaders and the Guam Commission on Self-DeteEmination 

correctly do not vi- a JaUtual ·consent, bilateral pact arrangement 

for an unincorprated territory as sufficient to constitute full 

self-qovernment. Thus, Guam seeks JaUtual consent and a so-called •c~nwealth" relationship as a !Ileana to increase and blprove 

local self-qovernment as an unincorporated territory too Slllllll to 

pursue statehood. Establishing •commonwealth" arrangements with 

the strongest possible mutual consent provision at this stage on the road to full self-government is not something of which Guam .is or should be ashamed. Silllilarly, adopting the c~nwealth 

arrangement in 1952 is not sOIIlething Puerto Ricans need to regret 

because it probably represented progress at that time. But it ·would become regrettable if Puerto Ricans are not able, or are not 

allowed, to recoqnize, as the Guamanians have, that real 

decolonization and full self-government will require .ore than a •ca.aonwealth" territorial status. The people of Guam know that 

an unincorporated territory, even with a mutual consent or bilateral pact commonwealth arrangement approved by Congress, has 

not been decolonized because such a commonwealth does not 

constitute sovereiqn self-government, it does not constitute full 

equality for u.s. citizens residing in the commonwealth, it does 

not constitute full self-government in our political systea and it 

does ~ot constitute decolonization under international law. In 

the case of Puerto Rico the federal government and the local 

leaders need to be as open and candid about this as the 

commonwealth proponents are in Guam. 

6. The ccamonwealth option on the 1993 ballot actually just 

proposed to do within the frallleWOrk of federalisa what free 

association does in the international . context put the 

relationship . on the plane of mutuality. The IIJltual 

consent/bilateral pact proposal is simply a substitute legal right 

to coapensate the o.s. citizens in Puerto Rico for their lack of 

equal treatlllent under the law because Puerto Rico is a non-state area (unincorporated territory) within the federal union. Even if 

100\ of the voters approved commonwealth, that would have been 

understood in Washington as a mandate for Congress to continue 

exercising ita Territorial Clause authority in order to structure 

an acceptable relationship between the federal governlllent and 

-7-
152 

Puerto Rico as an unincorporated territory. That is what the 

territory of Guam and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana 

Islands are seeking to do, and so far the federal courts, Congress 

and the Executive have not gone along with a mutual consent 

approach that has been tested and proven to be binding or enforceable. The political climate is less receptive than ever to 

giving special rights to insular areas. 

7. The people of Puerto Rico currently have a citizenship status 

that is less than equal to that of their fellow citizens in the 

states. They are not empowered to give consent to the form of 

government under which they live through proportional voting 

representation in Congress or voting in national elections. Nor 

are their rights as citizens as secure as those of their fellow 

citizens in the states, and u.s. citizens living in Puerto Rico do 

not get equal benefits under federal policies and programs. The 

fact that Puerto Ricans do not pay federal income taxes is used by 

some in the federal establishment to justify this discriminatory 

and unequal treatment. 

8. The real issue that should have been decided on November 14, 

1993 was how best to achieve first class citizenship. The choices 

to so that are two: 1) equality of burdens and benefits, rights 

and responsibilities, known to be attainable by u.s. citizens of 

Puerto Rico through statehood; 2) establish Puerto Rican 

citizenship through separation from the federal union and 

commencement of a new era through a treaty-based relationship. The 

third option for Puerto Rico is to continue to pursue enhancements 

of the so-called •commonwealth • relationship in a manner which 

preserves the present status but seeks Congressional permission for 

increased federal benefits which hopefully would make up for denial 

of equal legal and political rights and the lack of real selfgovernment. 

LEGAL ANALYSIS OP PUERTO RICO'S POLITICAL STATUS 

Press reports with respect to the results of the 1993 plebiscite 

suggested that 48\ voter support for the •commonwealth" option on 

the ballot constituted approval of Puerto Rico's present status. 

This indicates that ambiguity about the nature of Puerto Rico's 

current political status continues to create confusion about the 

meaning of the November 14 vote. Por the description of 

•commonwealth" on the ballot is radically different from the 

current status quo, and the current status quo appears to make 

attainment of the core elements of the "commonwealth" option 

impossible. 

In 1952 Puerto Rico's local constitution was amended and approved 

by the U.S. Congress, · and that document was then approved by the 

people of Puerto Rico. The seeds of Puerto Rico's 40 year 

identity crisis were sown when some took the position that the new 

measure of self-government which Puerto Rico achieved somehow 

-8-
153 

constituted a form of •free association• within the fra.ework of 

U.S. federalism. Pree association actually is a treaty-based 

international political status relationship the u.s. has accepted 

only in 'the case of the Federated States of Micronesia, the 

Republic of the Marshall Islands and the Republic of Palau. 

Federal officials did not clarify the actual leqal effect of 

establishing greater local self-qovernment under a local 

constitution in 1952 because at the same time the u.s. was 

preparing to seek removal of Puerto Rico from the U.N. list of non- self governing areas. This u.s. action had more to do with Cold 

War politics relating to the Caribbean reqion than Puerto Rican 

self-determination. 

For forty years Puerto Rico has struggled with a political debate 

over whether its current status, which in English is called 

•commonwealth" but is referred to by its political supporters in 

Spanish as •free association,• is something leqally and politically 

distinct from territorial status. The u.s. Supreme Court has 

ruled that Puerto Rico remains subject to the plenary powers of t;.he 

U.S. Congress under the Territorial Clause in Article rv of the 

U.S. Constitution. ~ v. Rosario, 446 u.s. 651 (1980). 

Consistent with that view, in a June 1993 decision by the U.S. 

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit in the case of ~ v. 

San£hez, 992 P. 2d 1143, the three judge panel ruled that the 

authority of the co~stitutional government of Puerto Rico derives 

from the U.S. as sovereign, and that the federal statute under 

which the u.s. approved the establishment of local constitutional 

government is simply a deleqation of authority over local matters. 

The court stated that the u.S. acquired full sovereignty over 

Puerto Rico from Spain and has exercised it by instituting limited 

self-government. The court left little room for a.biguity about 

its views by concluding that Puerto Rico's local self-government 

"has not changed in any way Puerto Rico's constitutional status as 

a territory, or the source of power over Puerto Rico. Congress 

continues to be the ultimate source of power pursuant to the 

Territory Clause of the Constitution ... Congress may repeal the 

Puerto Rican Constitution or the Puerto Rican Federal Relations Act 

and replace them with any rules or regulations of its choice.• 

In a January 14, 1991 letter to the u.s. General Accounting Office, 

Puerto Rico's former Secretary of Justice and Attorney General, 

&ector Rivera Cruz, -de the best possible use of s~ngly helpful 

language in federal court decisions such as ~ v. Ogipones, 758 

P. 2d 40, (1st Cir. 1985), in support of the vi- that Puerto 

Rico's present commonwealth status has changed in sa.e func:ta.ental 

respect and is a form of full self-government based upon autual 

consent. 

In its analysis of this question the GAO's June 1991 report on Puerto Rico, entitled •u.s. ·Insular Areas: Applicability of 

Relevant Provisions of the u.s. Constitution, • stated that the 

-9-
154 

language in Quinones relied upon by those who argue Puerto Rico is no longer a territory under the Territorial Clause "is not binding 

legal precedent. • In an April 12, 1991 letter to the GAO on 

behalf of the u.s. Department of Justice, an Assistant U.S. 

Attorney General also rejected the interpretation given to Quinones 

by advocates of the status quo in Puerto Rico, referring to the 

language relied upon to make that interpretation as dictum which 

does not alter Puerto Rico's status as an unincorprated territory. 

Indeed, the Department of Justice pointed out in its submission to 

the GAO and Congress on the meaning of the Quinones decision that 

the court in that case upheld application of a federal statute to 

Puerto Rico notwithstanding inconsistency with the Puerto Rican 

local constitution. Thus, even where the court was sympathetic to 

the most expansive theory of the present commonwealth arrangements, an exercise of Territorial Clause authority by Congress 

unilaterally altering the local constitution was upheld. 

Clearly, the process through which local constitutional government 

was instituted, including enactment of the Puerto Rican Federal 

Relations Act, has not resulted in federal recognition of full 

self-government for the people of Puerto Rico. Indeed, 48 u.s.c. 

73lb is the federal statute which authorized constitutional 

government in Puerto Rico, and the reference in that federal law to 

the •principle of government by consent • apparently has not 

provided a basis in U.S. law for concluding that Puerto Rico is 

fully self-governing or that the current commonwealth relationship 

is governed by a mutual consent requirement. u.s. House of 

Representatives Report No. 2275 made it explicitly clear that at 

the time Section 73lb was approved by Congress it was the intent of 

the lawmakers that the law • ... would not chanqe Puerto Rico's 

fundamental political, social, legal and economic relationship with 

the United States.· Yet, this is one of the provisions which 

provided the basis for the commonwealth myth that a mutual consent 

bilateral pact had been formed and that Puerto Rico was no longer a territory of the United States. 

While there are some federal court decisions in which the court 

accepted the theory of a federal/commonwealth •pact• in non-bindinq 

background commentary, and while something as invasive as repeal of 

the constitution by Congress would be viewed by many as bad faith 

by the federal government, in the application of federal law and 

policy to Puerto Rico the federal position continues to be based 

upon the view that Puerto Rico is an unincorporated territory 

subject to the Territorial Clause. 

Thus, the ·commonwealth" option on the November 14 plebiscite 

ballot was really a proposal to seek federal recoqnition of a 

status for Puerto Rico which the federal qovernment has pretended 

to consider but ultimately refused to accept for forty years. 

Still, the most straightforward interpretation of the votinq 

results is that the people of Puerto Rico have spoken and told the 

world that they want to end their current non-self qoverninq 

-10-
155 

terr~torial status, a goal which apparently can not be achieved as 

long a Puerto Rico is a territory. Pretending that calling it a •commonwealth" and seeking special treatment under federal law will 

not solve the problem. 

PUERTO RICO'S FUTURE POLITICAL STATUS OPTIONS: A COMMON SENSE 

ANALYSIS 

The most critical issue facing the people of Puerto Rico is to 

acquire a better understanding of those political status options 

which Puerto Rico would have under international law 

independence, free association and integration. If continued 

integration with the U.S. is what the people want, it is time to be 

more straightforward about the options for self-government 

available to Puerto Rico within the framework of u.s. domestic 

constitutional law and practice: 

IHPEP£NDENCE AND FREE A5SQCIATION both are international, 

government-to-government political relationships established by 

treaty. The constitutional sources of authority for actions by the 

political branches of the federal government with respect to 

independent nations and freely associated states include the 

President's treaty-making and foreign affairs powers under Article 

II, Section 2, and the power of Congress to regulate foreign 

commerce, provide for naturalization, control immigration, etc., 

pursuant to Article I, Section 8. While the practice of the u.s. 

in managing its relations with independent nations is well 

established, if the u.s. were to recognize and establish relations 

with Puerto Rico consistent with the status of free association, 

certain benefits of domestic law and policy, such as federal 

programs, grant assistance and open immigration could be extended 

to Puerto Rico subject to agreement of the federal government. 

However, free association is not inherently a permanent status 

because it remains unilaterally terminable by either party, its 

continuation is based upon federal government agreement and it does 

not constitute binding political union. 

Like complete independence, free association is a relationship 

which is outside the framework of federalism. The precedent for 

u.s. policy and practice in its relations with freely associated 

states has been established under the Compact of Free Association 

with the Federated States of Micronesia and the Republic of the 

Marshall Islands, both of which are recognized as independent 

nations and full members of the United Nations. u.s. citizenship 

has not been extended to a freely associated state because most 

features of the relationship, except for certain u.s. defense 

rights, expire in the year 2001. If the federal government does 

not agree to extend the favorable terms of the relationship, free 

association may lead to absolute independence. 

IN'l'BGRATION within the U.S. is achieved when, based upon a 

legitimate act of self-determination, a non-self governing area 

-11-

2o-766 - 96 - 6 
156 

enters into political union with the u.s. Membership in the 

federal political family comes in one of two forms: statehood or territorial status. Just as independence is well understood on the 

international plane, in the domestic leqal context the 

constitutional nature of statehood is well known. All U.S. 

citizens residing in a state enjoy equal rights under the 

Constitution and laws of the United States. The allocation of 

burdens and benefits, rights and obligations among the states is 

determined through the state and federal political processes in 

which the people of each state participate, and to which the people 

of each state are bound. 

This constitutes full self-government in the context of u.s. 

federalism. Under present u.s. insular areas policy, statehood is 

the only existing or available status through which an area which 

comes under U.S. sovereignty can achieve full self-government. The 

only other form of membership in the U.S. federal family is that of 

territorial status. Whether given the label "incorporated, • "unincorporated, • •commonwealth • or the ubiquitous "insular area, • 

the constitutional source of authority for federal actions relating 

to these areas is the Territorial Clause in Article IV of the 

Constitution. 

3. Even in an era of international decolonization, there 

currently exists no procedure under u.s. policy for an insular area 

integrated into the u.s. domestic political system to become fully 

self-governing other than by becoming fully incorporated into the 

union in a process that historically led to statehood. For it is 

the view of the federal government that Congress has granted 

limited local self-government to Puerto Rico and other territories, 

but under current federal policy such measures, including 

establishment of a constitutional cODDDOnwealth in Puerto Rico 

"consistent with the principle of consent, • are reqarded as 

discretionary exercises of u.s. sovereignty to deleqate authority over local matters. 

To be more specific, there is no mechanism under u.s. domestic law 

and constitutional procedure for u.s. citizens residing in an unincorporated territory to vote in national elections or to give 

consent through representation in Congress to the federal laws 

under which they are governed. Nor has the Congress yet recognized 

an alternative set of political rights to .eke the residents of a terri tory whole for the lack of equality, if that is possible, much 

less provide for some form of full self-qoveJ:JmBnt for the 

territories. While the u.s. satisfied the U.N. in 1953 that Puerto 

Rico was launched upon a political course which would lead to selfgovernment, and while the u.s. recognized the importance of the 

consent of the Puerto Rican people as opposed to unilateral action 

by the federal government, the entire arrangaaent appears to remain 

a creation of statute that can be revised by statute. 

Thus, under the "unincorporated" territory doctrine of the "Insular 

Cases • something less than full self-qovern.ent is the 

-12-
157 

constitutional norm for territories which do not become states. 

This was not emphasized in 1953 when the Puerto Rican arrangement was accepted by the U.N. at u.s. insistence, and it also must be 

noted that the U.N. was still formulating its criteria for 

decolonization in 1953, and the nuances of U.S. territorial law and 

policy were not well-understood in that world body. The principles 

governing the U.N. decolonization process were defined with greater 

precision in 1960 with the adoption of General Assembly Resolution 

1541, and Resolution 2625 in 1970. There are those who doubt the 

u.s. could have achieved a few years later de-inscription of Puerto 

Rico from the list of non-self governing areas based on the 

constitutional arrangements of 1952 -- especially if the current 

application of the unincorporated territory doctrine of the 

"Insular Cases• had been fully comprehended at the time. 

CONCLUSION: 

Congress and all recent Presidents have recognized that democratic 

principles require the federal government to respect the right of 

the people of Puerto Rico to pursue full self-government through a free and fair process of self-determination. Of course, if the 

1952 constitution actually had created an unalterable bilateral 

pact, the U.S. no longer would need to make pronouncements about 

respecting the right of the people to choose a real and permanent 

form of self-government. The unresolved political ambiguities in 

the relationship between the u.s. and Puerto Rico explain why the 

November 14 plebiscite took place, but the process was flawed by 

misleading language on the ballot. 

The effect of the November 14 vote is that a majority of Puerto 

Ricans has not yet approved statehood, independence or continuation 

of the present commonwealth status. If the measures proposed in 

the •commonwealth" option on the November 14 ballot are not 

acceptable to the u.s., the federal government has an obligation to 

make its position clear as to what form of "commonwealth" is 

acceptable if territorial status is to continue. Then the people can compare that outcome with statehood and independence. Once 

the people of Puerto Rico can understand their real choices, real 

self-determination and decolonization can take place. 

-13-
158 

THE 1993 PUERTO RICAN PLEBISCITE: . 

WHAT IT MEANS TO THE UNITED STAlES CONGRESS 

ROBERTO F. REXACH BENITEZ 

PRESIDENT OF THE SENATE 

COMMONWEALTH OF PUERTO RICO 
159 

Roberto R.exach Ben{tez 

Preaident, Senate of Puerto Rico 

THE 1993 PUERTO RICAN PLEBISCITE: 

WHAT IT MEANS TO THE UNITED STATES CONGRESS 

Less than a year before the first anniversary of the Estado Ubre 

Asocjado. its founder, Governor Luis Munoz-Marin, stated in his Message 

to the Legislature that, 

• If the nature of our political freedom were to be interpreted 

at some important point in a manner that is different from the 

way it is seen by the people of Puerto Rico .... we would have 

to seek the necessary clarification before the highest court in 

the USA or the Congress itself. • 

And clarifications have been badly needed and have been repeatedly 

asked from Congress since the very beginings of the Estado Ubre 

Asociado 43 years ago. 

When the first three attempts to clarify the nature of the .EaliHm 

Ubre Asociado failed in 1963, 1969 and 1961, Governor Munoz-Marfn 

gave it a fourth try. In a letter to President Kennedy dated July 10, 1962, 

he stated: · 

"Ten years ago (the Estado Ubre Asocjadol was a pioneering 

effort ... to terminate colonialism by substituting for it, not 

nationalism or independence, but freedom within the 

framework of a close and mutually beneficial association 

between a smaller and a large community .. .. We have 

become increasingly .... aware that the arrangement was not 

perfect . . . The moral and juridical basis of the (Estado Ubre 

Asocjadol should be further clarified . . . . The governmental 

power and authority of the [Estado Ubre Asociado] should be 

complete and reservations and exceptions . not 

indispensable .. .. for permanent association should be 

eliminated. • 

Although viewed with a good eye by President Kennedy, this fourth 

· The Capitol, Sao Juau. Puerto llico 00901 I (809) 7!5-!·U• 
160 

2 

attempt at clarification also failed. And the fifth one led by Governor 

Rafael Hernandez Col6n through the so-called "New Compact Bill" struck 

out in 1976. 

These five major efforts to clarify the nature of our relation with the 

USA failed because, since its enactment in 1950, Congress and the 

Estado Ubre Asocjado supporters have entertained totally different ideas 

as to the meaning of Public Law 600, enacted "in the nature of a 

compact•. Is the "compact• the basis of congressional authority in Puerto 

Rico or is that authority still based 'on the territorial clause of the 

Constitution? 

The estadoljbristas, who comprised· almost three-quarters of our 

people back in 1952, believe that under Law 600 Puerto ·Rico's 

relationship with the USA is based on a binding compact which Congress 

can not change or cancel without the explicit consent of the people of 

Puerto Rico. 

On the other hand, while claiming the benefits derived from 

permanent union with the USA and swearing for it, the estadoljbristas 

also ask for complete autonomy for Puerto Rico, and would limit the 

powers of Congress to those that are • an indispensable part of the 

arrangement for permanent association .... • 

It is no easy task to convince Congress that this was what its 

members had in mind in 1950 when they enacted Public Law 600. Very 

often congressmen ask where in the Constitution one might find the 

Congress' authority to enter into a binding compact with american citizens 

in a territory granting them at perpetuity powers tradionally exercised by 

Congress under the territorial clause. 

And of course, many congressmen have raised their eyebrows when 

facing the idea of creating within the federal system a political entity more 

privileged than a state of the Union. If blessed by Congress, the f&la.dQ 

Ubra Asociado would have most of the powers of a republic and would 

·enjoy all the benefits of a state without either paying the burdens of 

independence or assuming the fiscal responsibility of statehood. 

Congress, as we all know, -does not legislate utopias. 
161 

3 

And now here we are again, for the sixth time, asking for 

clarifications as to the meaning of the "compact• and the juridical and 

moral nature of the Estado Libre Asocjado. We certainly are where we 

started forty five years ago. 

Four percent of Puerto Ricans would welcome independence and 96 

per cent would rather be permanently united or associated with the USA. 

That 96 percent of us are almost evenly divided. Half of us favor 

statehood while the other half would rather step again in the batters' box 

with unending pleas for clarification. It is up to you to break this 

deadlock. And you can break it in either of two ways: 

1 . By granting the status changes favored the by the 48 

percent of the voters that supported the Estado Ubre Asocjado 

in the 1993 plebiscite, thus validating the estadoljbrista's 

interpretation of Public Law 600 and the nature of the fml.dQ 

Ubre Asocjado. Or, 

2. By telling the people of Puerto Rico, in unambiguous terms, 

what Congress has apparently implied each time it has failed 

to act on proposals to enhance the Estado Ubre Asociado. 

That is, that there is no special place for it in the federal 

system that recognizes the existence of states, territories and 

republics. No more and no less. 

In the event that the Estado Ubre Asociado voted upon in 1993 is 

not an option, I suggest that you create a Congressional Commission to 

clearly define feasible status alternatives that could take us to the end of 

the line in the up-to-now never-ending status debate. 
162 

STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE 

MIGUEL HERNANDEZ AGOSTO 

PRESIDENT 

POPULAR DEMOCRATIC PARTY 

THE COMMONWEALTH OF PUERTO RICO 

BEFORE THE 

SUBCOMMITrEE ON NATIVE AMERICAN AND INSULAR AFFAIRS 

AND THE SUBCOMMITrEE ON THE WESTERN HEMISPHERE 

I appear before these subcommittees as the Senate Minority Leader representing the Popular 

Democratic Party. I was the President of the Party at the time of the 1993 plebiscite. 

The history of the Pueno Rico-United States relationship is one of frustrated Pueno Rican 

attempts to attain political progress. It is not until 1950 that significant progress was 

achieved. 

Public Law 600, providing for the organization of a constitutional government by the people 

of Pueno Rico, became operative upon its approval in a referendum with the people of 

Pueno Rico. That law was adopted by the Congress as a compact by the people of Pueno 

Rico. As a result of this initiative, Pueno Rico adopted its own Constitution, and the 

Commonwealth of Pueno Rico was created as a body politic not subject any longer to the 

plenary powers of the Congress. At the time, it was understood both by leaders in Pueno 

Rico and in the United States that the Commonwealth had the possibility of further 

development within the basic relationship established within the compact. Many effons have 

been made to that effect, to no avail. 

A:\MHAI 
163 

On the other hand, while the United States bas been reluctant to consent to further political 

development of the Commonwealth, we must admit that it bas been more generous as far as 

providing tools for our economic and social development. 1be unique relationship between 

Puerto Rico and the United States bas made is possible for Puerto Rico to obtain parity with 

the States in most social programs and bas allowed the United States Congress to legislate to 

complement our economic development efforts, mainly Section 936, which bas been pivotal 

in furthering significant economic growth in Puerto Rico. 

With such history as a background, we participated in the 1993 plebiscite defining 

Commonwealth as it is: a status based on a bilateral compact, with irrevocable United States 

citizenship, fiscal autonomy, international sports representation and cultural identity. In other 

words, we described the uniqueness of Puerto Rico and of its relations with the U.S. Those 

are unquestionable facts. 

Based on them, we presented four proposals to further our economic and social development. 

1bese are: reformulation of Section 936, parity in SSI and the Food Stamp Program and 

tariff protection for our agriculture. All of these proposals are within the legal and 

constitutional framework within which Congress can act. In other words, there are no legal 

nor constitutional impediments to the adoption of these proposals. We are aware of 

budgetary constraints. We are also aware of international trade agreements which may 

reduce the possibilities within which tariff protection may operate. But if there is the 

A:\MHAI 2 
164 

political will and if budgetary constraints were not present, all of these proposals are viable 

under the Commonwealth status. 

We are conscious that in the same manner that you may purpose amendments to our 

Constitution and it is within our prerogatives to accept or reject them, it is within your 

prerogatives to accept or reject our proposals. 

We acknowledge that some people believe that a new plebiscite is the answer to the 1993 

plebiscite. Some leaders in Puerto Rico think that we should have plebiscite after plebiscite 

until their status preference wins. And only when that happens, then there will be is an act 

of self determination. They are wrong. The people of Puerto Rico already went through an 

act of self determination and in a democracy the only response is to abide by the will of the 

people. 

Other leaders, mostly in the states, in good faith believe in another plebiscite. I must again 

state that the answer to the plebiscite is not another plebiscite. Whether the Congress reacts 

favorably or not to the 1993 plebescite is not the end of the Commonwealth status. We may 

have to continue our long journey, but our will to remain a nation with its own cultural 

identity and language, proud of its heritage will not diminish nor fail. 

We will follow our quest for further political and economic development. We will face with 

courage and determination the rocks on our path with our deep conviction that we shall 

A:\MHAI 3 
165 

prevail. Long after all of us have vanished from tbe public scene, Pueno Rico will still be 

Pueno Rico, proud of its own cultural identity, loyal to tbe principles of democracy and to its 

American citizenship. 

17 October 1995 

Longworth House Office Building 

Washington, D.C. 

A:\MHAI 4 
166 

STATEMENT BY FERNANDO MARTilll 

ON BEHALF OF THE PUERTO RICAN INDEPENDENCE PARTY BEFORE TilE 

HOUSESUBCO~EE 

ON NATIVE AMERICAN AND INSUlAR AJIFAIRS 

OCTOBER 17, 1995 

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee' 

The crisis provoked by the amendments proposed in: Congress to Section 936 

of the Internal Revenue Code may have a saving grace. lrt serves to highlight -in 

an illuminating and dramatic manner- two crucial issues that by far transcend the 

particular merits of the proposed amendments. Both ba\ie a profound bearing on 

the matter before you today. 

In the first place it clearly shows that policy regarding Puerto Rico is being 

made, or what is the same, that Congressional action is: taking place that deeply 

affects the political relationship between Puerto Rico ~ the United States, and 

the economic development perspectives of Puerto Rico iQ the short and in the long 

run. That these Congressional initiatives will have con<tete policy consequences 

is not open to question although today is not the occasion to debate them or their 

merits; it seems to me more importa11t to raise the issu~ of whether the decision 

making process leading to those initiatives is the appropl1iate mechanism to decide 

the future of Puerto Rico. 

The question of what 5hould be the fiscal relatio.bip between the United 

States and Puerto Rico is not one tbat should be ft!Jcused solely on budget 

balancing considerations as if 936 were merely another liJx break, among so many, 
167 

2 

for the Fortune 500. It may well be, but that should be tlie conclusion as opposed 

to the premise; and a conclusion arrived at only after ha;ving determined that the 

consequences of such a treatment promote larger objectives regarding territorial 

policy. 

I submit that the question at issue, U.S. tax policjy towards Puerto Rico, 

cannot be responsibly addressed except as a cornerstpne of the overarching 

question of what should be the relationship between the Vnited States and Puerto 

Rico as we stand in the threshold of the twenty first centjJry. If it is otherwise it 

will then be the classical case of the tail wagging the dqg, of policy by default; 

surely not an auspicious beginlling for the excercise in Cbnstitutional jurisdiction 

concerning Puerto Rico in which you embark upon toda)l. 

The second issue pushed to the fore by the crisis relating to Section 936 and 

which should serve as food for thought to those in Congress who have primary 

jurisdiction over Pueno Rico's political status is that the reaction of the Puerto 

Ricans has been so homogeneous. 

It is not the differences that stand out, but the common denominator: the 

Populares, like some Soviet scientist after the G'bernobyl melt down, are surprised 

that everyone isn't willing to go back to business as usuai. The statehooders like 

Governor Rossell6 have found religion in a special Enterprise Zone with a 60% 
168 

·3 

wage credit for which only Puerto Rico could qualify q,nvioced that at long last 

they have found a loophole to the tax uniformity clause 1tnat will make statehood 

constitutionally compatible with preferential tax treatment for Puerto Rico, a 

somewhat adolescent version of the perfect fiscal crim~. We independentistas, 

realists if nothing else, prefer to put our faith in the time honored tax 

arrangements, improved upon if possible, that have worked excellently for our 

principal competitors such as Ireland and Singapore, in spite of they being higher 

wage economies than Puerto Rico. 

The common denominator is the recognition that !Puerto Rico needs to be 

treated, as an economy, at a different level of development than that of the United 

States, and that the uniform rules that apply here canaot apply in Puerto Rico 

without disastrous consequences. 

Let this spontaneous and revealing consensus serve·as a starting point, as far 

as economics is concerned, for your deliberations in this !Process of responding to 

the 1993 plebiscite. As to other aspects of the issue, do be sure to have your 

response translated into Spanish because seventy five percent of the Puerto Ricans 

don't understand English. And, as the long time President of the Puerto Rican 

Republicans told Senator Robert Dole recently, if you can't live with that, don't 

even count on their support. 
Ha. Aalol ... a-sa Gon:la 

........ .v.Larp 

Wajadly Wllip 

OoiiDa 

c--... oalluloiq A&ia 

c.-.iDoo .. c-A&ia 

Solod <:....-.. .. 8loico 

169 

Legislative Assembly 

House of Representatives 

The Capitol 

San Juan, Puerto Rico 00901 

Testimony of 

The Honorable Angel M. Cintron-Garcia 

Majority Whip 

Bouse of Representatives 

Government of Puerto Rico 

Before the U.S. Bouse of Representatives 

Subcommitte on Native American and Insular Attairs and 

Subcommittee on the Western Hemisphere 

regarding the results of the Plebiscite on Political Status held 

on November 14, 1993, in Puerto Rico 

October 17,1995 
170 

Chairman Burton, Chairman Gallegly and members of the 

Subcommittee on the Western Hemisphere and of the Subcommittee 

on Native American and Insular Affairs: 

My name is Angel Cintr6n-Garcfa. It has been my privilege to 

serve the People of Puerto Rico in our House of Representatives for 

the past seven years, the last three as Majority Whip of our 

delegation. 

Today, I appear on behalf of the Speaker of our House of 

Representatives, The Honorable Zaida Hernandez-Torres, in order to 

present her views regarding the results of the Plebiscite on Political 

Status held on November 14, 1993, in Puerto Rico. Regretfully, she 

cannot be present here today due to prior commitments that she was 

not able to postpone. Nonetheless, she wishes to convey her full 

support to this effort, as it will provide an excellent opportunity to 

dispel any doubts whatsoever about a lack of resolve on the part of 

Congress to finally address and bring to an end the. issue of Puerto 

Rico's self-determination. 

In order to succeed in the task that you have undertaken, it is 

absolutely necessary that you be fully abreast on a variety of issues, 

such as: the constitutional context of the relationship between Puerto 

Rico and the United States; the guidelines provided by International 

Law as to what may allow for any status plebiscite to be considered a 

true exercise of self-determination; the apparent failure of every 

previous attempt to settle this centuries old problem once and for all. 

Such background information will provide a more appropriate setting 

for you to better comprehend the issues and the results of the Status 

Plebiscite of 1993. On the other hand, failure to do so will allow for 

distorted and unsubstantiated facts to dominate any discussion, 

further confusing and misinforming all the parties involved in this 

process. 

The role that you play in this process is essential in order for 

the People of Puerto· Rico to know the viability of the Commonwealth 

formula that garnered a plurality of the votes in the aforementioned 

Plebiscite. The need for such a response on your part was 

acknowledged by Congressman Don Young on September 30, 1994, 

when be said on the House Floor that "[i]t is essential to a meaningful 

self-determination process for the United States House and Senate to 

provide the people of Puerto Rico a sense of the Congress concerning 

the viability of the elements of the [C]ommonwealth formula 
171 

proposed in the November 14, 1993 plebiscite."1 If you decide that 

such a definition of Commonwealth is not attainable, then all of us 

have a right to know what are the real options that would be 

available. 

In such a case, you are the only party in this process who can 

provide the basis for a more level playing field; primarily because of 

your inherent role in this process, but also because as an institution 

you are widely respected by the people of our Island regardless of 

their political beliefs. 

Congressional jurisdiction on all matters relating to Puerto Rico 

date from 1899 with the ratification of the Treaty of Paris. It was 

through this Treaty that Spain ceded to the United States the island 

of Puerto Rico, as well as several of the insular possessions in the 

Pacific Ocean. More importantly though, the second paragraph of 

Article IX of this Treaty recognized that "[t}he civil rights and 

political status of the native inhabitants of the territories hereby 

ceded to the United States shall be determined by the Congress. "2 

Thus, Article IX is an acknowledgment of the plenary powers that 

Congress has over any territorial possession as determined by the 

Territorial Clause of the Constitution of the United States. 3 

As an exercise of this authority, Congress provided in the year 

1900 for the establishment of a civil government in its first organic 

act for Puerto Rico, primarily known as the Foraker Act.4 

Nonetheless, to the chagrin of our people, this Act did not grant them 

U.S. citizenship as most had expected. 

A year later, the Supreme Court of the United States decided a 

case whose legacy has had an enormous impact in our status debate. 

I 140 Cong. Rec. (daily cd. September 30, 1994) 

(statement of Rep. Young) 

2 Treaty of Paris, December I 0, 1898, United States-Spain, 1 L.P.R.A. 

3 U.S. Const art IV, sec. 3, cl. 2. "The Congress shall have Power to dispose of 

and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other 

Property belonging to the United States; ... " 

4 Organic Act of April12, 1900, c. 191, 31 Stat. 77. 

2 
172 

I am referring to the case of Downes v. Bidwell ,s which involved the 

collection of duties from goods imported into the United States from 

Puerto Rico. Yet, the importance of this case is the conception of the 

"incorporation theory" that would eventually prevail as the rule of 

the Insular Cases. This theory rests on the conclusion that "the 

treaty making power cannot incorporate territory into the United 

States without the express or implied assent of Congress." 6 

In 1917 a second organic act was conferred upon the people of 

Puerto Rico.7 This act popularly known as the Jones Act granted 

even more autonomy to the Island, and more significantly, made all 

persons born in Puerto Rico U.S. citizens. Curiously though, the 

Supreme Court of the United States determined in the case of ~ 

y. Porto Rjco 8 that the Island was still unincorporated despite the 

granting of citizenship by the Jones Act. This was a complete 

reversal of an earlier decision in which the Court determined that 

Alaska bad been implicitly incorporated by the conferral of U.S. 

citizenship. 9 

For quite a few years nothing much changed, until 1947 when 

Congress granted Puerto Ricans the right to elect their own 

governor. 1o 

Then, in 1951 Congress approved Public Law 60011 which 

authorized the people of Puerto Rico to draft their own constitution 

in order to organize their own local government. This legislation reenacted the main tenets of both the Jones and the Foraker Acts, 

which continued to be in full force and effect, into what came to be 

denominated as the "Puerto Rican Federal Relations Act". 

5 182 u.s. 245 (1901). 

6Jd., p. 339. 

7 The Act of Congress of Mar. 2, 1917, c. 145,39 Stat. 951. 

8 258 . 298 (1922). 

9 Rasmussen v. United States, 197 U.S. 516 (1905). 

10 P.L. 362 of August 5, 1947,61 Stat. 770 (1947); also known as the Elective 

Governor Act. 

II 64 Stat. 319 (1951). 

3 
173 

As Judge Juan Torruella said in United Stales v. Lopez Andino 

With each new organic act... Congress has simply 

delegated more authority to Puerto Rico over local 

matters. But this has not changed in any way Puerto 

Rico's constitutional status as a territory, or the source of 

power over Puerto Rico. Congress continues to be the 

ultimate source of power pursuant to the Territorial 

Clause of the Constitution. 12 

The congressional debates over S. 3336, which provided for the 

establishment of a constitutional government by the people of Puerto 

Rico are very illustrative. For example, then Resident Commissioner, 

Mr. Antonio Fem6s-Insem, expressed that "S. 3336 would make it 

possible for them to organize themselves in the present exercise of 

United States authority, all matters of a Federal nature, would 

continue undisturbed. "13 Similar expressions along the same line dot 

the Congressional Record, ranging from those of then Senators 0' 

Mahoney and Butler, to those of Secretary of the Interior, Mr. 

Chapman. 

In 1951 two special elections were held in Puerto Rico. The 

first one was the Referendum held on June 4 of that year for the sole 

purpose to have the people of Puerto Rico accept or reject the 

objectives of Public Law 600. It passed by a very wide margin. 

Then, on August 27 of that year voters elected the delegates for the 

Constitutional Convention. 

By early February of the following year the final draft of the 

Constitution was complete. It was later approved by voters in a 

Referendum held on the 3rd of March. After some review, President 

Truman submitted to Congress the document for its final approval. 

There the process encountered some roadblocks, as members of 

Congress considered it necessary to remove a whole section of the 

Constitution, while amending other parts of it. The final document 

approved by Congress came to be known as Public Law 447.14 The 

12 831 F.2d 1164, at 1176 (I st Cir. 1987). 

13 Cong. Rec. 9585 (daily ed.June 30, 1950) 

(statement of Res Com. Fem6s-lnsem) 

14J.R July 3, 1952, c. 567,66 Stat. 327. 

4 
174 

Constitution as such, was proclaimed to the People by Governor Luis 

Muiioz-Marin on July 25, 1952. 

It is significant though, that after the Constitution was ratified 

in a Referendum, Congress still had the power to eliminate a whole 

section of the document without any consent whatsoever --before or 

after-- from the people of Puerto Rico. That is why Professor Helfeld, 

former dean of the Law School of the University of Puerto Rico, wrote 

that "[c]onstitutionally, Congress may repeal Public Law 600, annul 

the constitution of Puerto Rico and veto any insular legislation which 

it deems unwise or improper."1S Judge Juan Torruella, Chief Judge of 

the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 1st Circuit, maintains that: 

[C]onstitutionally speaking, Puerto Rico remains an 

unincorporated territory of the United States even if de 

facto it has been allowed by Congress to exercise internal 

autonomy similar to that which the states are entitled. 16 

In Harris v. Rosario,l1 the Supreme Court of the United States 

unanimously stated that the Territorial Clause still governs the 

relationship between the United States and Puerto Rico. No court has 

_ever held that the Territorial Clause does not apply to this 

relationship, and several cases from the First Circuit after lif.u:J:H 

have reaffinned that the clause applies. 

Thus, Puerto Rico is an organized, yet unincorporated territory 

of the United States, whose official name is the Commonwealth of 

Puerto Rico. Nonetheless, that does not refer to the relationship 

between itself and the U.S., but rather to the body politic created by 

t he Constitution itself. Consequently, it cannot be recognized as 

IS David M. Helfeld, "Congressional Intent and Attitude Toward Public Law 600: 

The Constitution and the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico," 21 Rev. Jur. U.P.R. 255 

at 307 (1952). Almost identical statements can also be fOUDd in Stanley K. 

Laughlin, Jr., The Law of United States Territories and Affiliated Jurisdictions, 

p. 344 (Lawyers Cooperative Publishing, 1995), and in the case of United States 

v. Sanchez, 992 F. 2d 1143, 1152-3 (11th Cir. 1993), reh'g en bane denied 3 F.3rd 

366 (1993), cert. denied Sanchez v. United States, 114 S. Ct 1051 (1994). 

16 Juan R. Torruella, The Supreme Court and Puerto Rico-The Doctrine of 

Sepante and Unequal, p. 159 (Editorial de Ia Universidad de Puerto Rico, 1985) 

(emphasis in the original). 

17 446 u.s. 651 (1980). 

5 
175 

having achieved a full degree of self-government that would lead to 

true decolonization. 

It is appropriate to say that a new dimension in U.S. territorial 

policy was introduced with the creation of the United Nations in 

1945. This does not mean though, that U.S. institutions that deal 

with the territories are subject to every U.N. policy position: 

Nonetheless, it provides a very useful guideline as to how an issue or 

an specific situation is analyzed under International Law. 

The role of the United Nations in the decolonization process is 

based on Article 73(e) of the U.N. Charter. This article requires all 

colonial powers that administer non-self-governing territories to 

report "statistical and other information of a technical nature relating 

to economic, social and educational conditions in the territories" and 

"to promote ... the well-being of the inhabitants ... and to develop selfgovernment." 

In 1953, after Puerto Rico came to have a Constitution of its 

own, the United States said that it would cease to transmit further 

information under Article 73(e). 

The debate on this issue was very extensive and somewhat 

heated. Those delegates who felt that Puerto Rico was self-governing 

emphasized the referendum, the free choice given to the people to 

enter into this type of "association", and the supposed "mutuality" 

principle of the "compact". Delegates who voted for continued 

reporting noted the limited choice afforded in the referendum on 

Public Law 600, the absence of a "compact", the vast powers retained 

by the Unites States over Puerto Rican affairs, and the lack of a vote 

by the Resident Commissioner in the U.S. Congress which could pass 

laws substantially affecting Puerto Rico. To all these delegates, this 

meant that Puerto Rico was non-self-governing. 

Although Resolution 748 (VII) was finally approved by the 

General Assembly that same year, it did not bring to a close the case 

of Puerto Rico at the United Nations. On the contrary, for many 

years, the Committee on Decolonization has conducted hearings on 

the issue of Puerto Rico's self-determination, or rather, freedetermination as they like to proclaim. 

In 1960, Resolution 1541 (XV) of the General Assembly 

brought forth an important set of principles to guide any process of. 

self-determination. The sixth principle of that Resolution established 

6 
176 

that "[a] Non-Self-Governing Territory can be said to have reached a 

full measure of self-government by: 

(a) Emergence as a sovereign independent State; 

(b) Free Association with an independent State; or 

(c) ln~gration with an independent State." 

These three options are very important, because they are the 

only decolonizing status formulas sanctioned under International 

Law. The three subsequent principles in Resolution 1541 (XV) went 

on to describe both Free Association and Integration. 

After this analysis regarding the historical framework of the 

constitutional relationship between the United States and Puerto 

Rico, and the issue of Puerto Rico's self-determination within the 

context of International Law as put forth by the U.N.; it is 

appropriate to enter into a brief discussion of the process that led to 

the Status Plebiscite of 1993. 

On November 3, 1992, the pro-statehood New Progressive 

Party (NPP) won the general election in a most impressive manner. 

Dr. Pedro Rossell6, our current Governor, garnered 49.9% of the vote, 

something that had not been achieved in any election for the past 

twenty years. In both the Senate and the House of Representatives, 

our Party surpassed the 2/3 maximum composition allowed by the 

Constitution. At the municipal level, the NPP got control of 54 of the 

78 municipalities in the Island. Certainly a very impressive showing. 

Out of these extremely positive electoral results, one message 

stood out on the forefront very clearly. Our Party had obtained a 

mandate from the electorate to carry out what it had promised to do 

if elected into office. 

One of the most publicized campaign promises was the 

commitment to celebrate a status plebiscite in 1993. The Party 

Platform provided more specifics on this issue. 18 

By May 20, 1993, this campaign promise was getting closer to 

being a reality. On that day the Governor of Puerto Rico submitted an 

18 Partido Nuevo Progresista, Programa de Gobiemo 1993-1996: El Liderato de 

las Ideas, c. VI, p.152-3, 1992. 

7 
177 

enabling bill to the Legislature, to be considered by a Joint Special 

Committee constituted for that purpose only. 19 

Public hearings began by the 15th of June. On the third day of 

hearings, then Secretary of State Baltasar Corrada del Rfo--and as a 

sidenote, also former Resident Commissioner and now Supreme Court 

Justice-- testified on behalf of the Governor. Apart from defending 

the merits of the bill, his testimony centered on the two most 

important characteristics that were prevalent throughout this bill. 

He was referring specifically to the element of fairness and to the 

simplicity of the whole process. Supposedly, these were going to be 

instrumental in making sure that the people of Puerto Rico were able 

to exercise their right to self-determination in the most fair and 

democratic manner. 

Nonetheless, as in every legislative process, there were a few 

objections concerning some provisions of the bill. This meant that a 

good number of amendments were proposed, some of which were 

incorporated into the fmal draft of the bill. 

Most noteworthy among these was the strong opposltton that 

came up regarding a provision that would have required the 

Governor of Puerto Rico to appoint a publicly funded commission 

comprised of the advocates of the political status option obtaining the 

largest number of votes, in order to discuss the implementation of 

that option with Congress.2o Foremost among those who voiced their 

concern during the public hearings were Senator Miguel HernandezAgosto --then President of the Popular Democratic Party (PDP)-- and 

Senator Marco A. Rigau, also of the PDP; as well as Senator Ruben 

Berrios and Mr. Fernando Martfn of the Puerto Rican Independence 

Party. They argued that in the eventuality that a status formula 

were to win the plebiscite without a majority of the votes, any use of 

19 S.B. 320 and H.B. 694, 12th Legislative Assembly, lst Ordinary Session (1993). 

20 ld., p. 14. 1be second paragraph of Anicle '1:1 read as follows: "'The Governor 

of Puerto Rico will nominate the: memben of a Commission that shall deal with 

the Congress of the United States in order to begin the process that would 

provide for the implementation of the will of the people of Puerto Rico. 1be 

names of those who will become memben of this Commission shall be 

submitted to the Governor by the Party or Group whose status formula won the 

Plebiscite. 1be Governor will establish this Commission by means of an 

Executive Order." (unofficial translation) · 

8 
178 

public funds for such a commiSSIOn would be in violation of the 

Constitution of Puerto Rico as construed by our Supreme Court in the 

case of P.S.P. v. E.L.A._z1 

That provision was stricken from the bill so as to prevent a 

constitutional challenge to the plebiscite further down the road; as 

well as to maintain a spirit of consensus at this stage of the process. 

It is noteworthy to point out, that after the Plebiscite was held, the 

Popular Democratic Party requested that public funds be assigned for 

the purpose of furthe'ring commonwealth status. Given the 

legislative history just mentioned, no funds were appropriated. 

On July 4, 1995, Governor Rossell6 signed the Plebiscite Bill into 

law, which then came to be known as Act. No. 22. 

It is important to recognize that this Act maintained the 

element of fairness that former Secretary of State Corrada referred 

to in his testimony before the Joint Commission of the Puerto Rico 

Legislature on H.B. 694. Let me provide you with a few examples. 

The most clear example of our good intentions to have a 

process characterized by fair play --and I may add, not only in 

reality, but also in appearance--, was the hands-off approach 

regarding the definitions that would be presented to the electorate 

on the day of the plebiscite. The second paragraph of Section l of 

this Act reads as follows: "The principal political parties or any group, 

organization or entity certified or selected to defend any of the three 

status formulas, shall state in writing the definition of the status 

formula each is proclaiming and defending during the plebiscitary 

process authorized herein. "22 This meant that each Party or 

organization with the responsibility of presenting the definition on 

behalf of any of the three status alternatives had absolute control 

over what was included in its contents. 

But why did we do it this way? First, in order to preserve the 

element and the appearance of fairness, you cannot be part player, 

and part umpire. Second, in order to maintain the process fair and 

simple, and avoid heated debates and possibly numerous challenges 

in court, it seemed more appropriate to allow each side to define 

21 107 D.P.R. 590 (1978). 

22 Plebiscite Act of 1993, Act No. 22 of July 4, 1993, § 1. 

9 
179 

their given status formula. Experience has shown us that even a 

process of congressional initiative such as the one for S. 712, which 

provided for detailed definitions of the three status formulas, takes 

much time and effort.23 Third, and most important of all, only 

Congress is able to speak for itself, and in a case like this indicate 

what is viable in the definition of a status formula, and what is not. 

Only Congress might be able to even go as far as saying that a given 

status alternative is not viable because they so see fit. Because of 

our current territorial relationship with the United States, the rest of 

us, especially those in Puerto Rico, can only have well founded 

opinions; but nothing more. 

It was our naive belief that public debate was going to be able 

to neutralize any attempt to misinform voters by the inclusion of 

false and unrealistic elements in any given definition for a status 

formula. We were wrong. As Congressman Don Young later said on 

the House floor, "[t]he law's genuine intent to be fair unintentionally 

fostered a weakness by permitting historically unprecedented 

hypothetical status definitions on the ballot." 24 

There were other important examples of fair play present in 

the Plebiscite Act of 1993. Section 3 ordered the State Electoral 

Commission to conduct a drawing in order to assign the geometric 

symbol corresponding to each formula, as it was going to appear in 

the ballot on November 14th.25 This was done this way so as to 

avoid any kind of controversy or cry of foul play regarding who had 

the right to use a symbol such as a star; coveted initially for different 

reasons by both the pro-statehood and the pro-independence 

movements. It is also interesting to point out that this was an 

amendment proposed by the minority parties during the public 

hearings conducted for H.B. 694. 

Section 18 of this Act established that if a party or an 

organization utilized the public funding provided by this Act, it could 

only spend up to a maximum amount of three million (3,000,000) 

23 S. 712, IOtst Cong., tst Sess. (1989). 

24 140 Cong Rcc. (daily ed. September 30, 1994) 

(statement of Rep. Young) 

25 Plebiscite Act of 1993, Act. No. 22 of July 4, 1993, §3. 

10 
180 

dollars on the Plebiscite campaign.26 This Section also established a 

ceiling of one million, five hundred thousand (1,500,000) dollars that 

could be spent for the purchase of time and space in the 

communications media. 

There is also the example of Section 22 which prohibited the 

three branches of the Government of Puerto Rico "from incurring 

expenses for the purchase of time and space in the public 

information media in order to expound their programs, projects, 

achievements, accomplishments, projections or plans ... "27 Finally, 

Section 28 provided nine hundred thousand (900,000) dollars in 

public funds for each party or organization that was going to 

represent one of the status formulas in the Plebiscite. 

The campaign that followed the enactment of the Law in July 

was very inspiring and educational, yet tough and disheartening in 

other ways. To no one's surprise the campaign aroused much 

enthusiasm in our electorate regardless of ideology. On the other 

hand, on most occasions it did not provide good opportunities for 

serious debates between the advocates of the three status formulas. 

Sadly, many issues and facts were distorted or simply made up, as 

misinformation was the rule of the day. Opponents of statehood, but 

specially the PDP, were successful in making it seem like a 

referendum on statehood. The campaign came to a close at a 

moment when both Commonwealth and Statehood were neck and 

neck in all polls, albeit with a slight edge for Commonwealth. 

On November 14, 1993, the Plebiscite was held amid high 

expectations among supporters of the three ideologies that this vote 

moved us right on track towards a final resolution of our centuries 

old status dilemma. The results of the vote were as follows: 826,326 

votes or 48.6% for Commonwealth; 788,296 votes or 46.3% for 

Statehood; and 75,620 votes or 4.4% for Independence. Voter 

turnout that day was 73.5%; between 10 to 12% less than on a 

general election. 

For us, these results were quite disheartening. Nonetheless, 

something quite significant had also happened. 

26 ld., §18. 

27ld., §22. 

11 
181 

Twenty eight years ago, on July 23, 1967, a. plebiscite of local 

initiative --very similar to the one on 1993-- was held in Puerto Rico 

so that our people could express their preferences as to the three 

status options. The results for that event showed Commonwe~lth 

with a 60.41% support among those who voted, Statehood with 

38.98% support, and Independence which boycotted the process 

garnered only o.6% of the vote. Based on those results, advocates of 

Commonwealth always claimed that the people of Puerto Rico had 

overwhelmingly ratified their consent to their status formula. 

So if we look again at the results of November 1993, we can see 

that although the Commonwealth status option obtained a plurality 

of the votes, that option is no longer supported by a majority of 

Puerto Ricans. On the other band, 50.7% of the electorate supported 

Statehood and Independence combined. So one could argue with 

some vigor that a majority of the people of Puerto Rico voted for 

truly deoolonizing options and against the status quo. The supposed 

consent for our current relationship with the United States is part of 

history now. It is a path thltt the people of Puerto Rico have decided 

to leave behind. 

In full compliance with Section 27 of the Plebiscite Act of 1993, 

Governor Rossell6 officially notified these results to the Congress of 

the United States, to the President, and to the Legislature of Puerto 

Rico.28 On December 17 of that year, the Speaker of the House and 

the President of the Senate signed House Concurrent Resolution 24 

for the purpose of petitioning Congress to "express itself concerning 

the principles which define the Commonwealth formula, as submitted 

to the People of Puerto Rico in the Plebiscite held on November 14, 

1993. "29 Pursuant to this objective, a special joint committee of 

legislators from the three political parties was appointed for the sole 

purpose of delivering this Resolution to the leadership of Congress. 

Let us take a look now at the process that was set in motion by 

Act. No. 22. Keep in mind that the ballot for the Plebiscite of 

November 14 contained three different status alternatives. Yet, none 

of the three alternatives asked for a vote in favor of our current 

relationship or the status quo. At the same time, it is important to 

281d., §27. 

29 H. Cone. R. 24, 12th Legislative Assembly (1993). 

12 
182 

take into consideration that the three alternatives campaigned as if 

embarking on a process of self-determination, in search of a status of 

full political dignity. It can be said that in some way the people of 

Puerto Rico wanted to make certain that such was the case, as more 

than fifty percent of the voters rejected the status formula associated 

with our current relationship. 

Once the process was set in motion by the celebration of the 

Plebiscite of 1993, the party that defended the winning status 

formula --the PDP in this case-- had the duty and moral obligation to 

act according to the specific mandate given by the voters. In this 

case, as it would have been for any of the other two options, the 

leadership of the PDP should have come here, to the Congress of the 

United States, to request action on your part regarding the 

implementation of the Plebiscite results. Then it is up to Congress to 

act on such a request, and to indicate on the viability of the 

Commonwealth option that garnered a plurality of the votes on that 

14th of November. Finally, once there is a response on the part of 

Congress about what kind of a Commonwealth option it is willing to 

grant to Puerto Rico, then a referendum has to be held on the Island 

in order to request the consent of the People regarding the terms and 

conditions put forth by Congress. 

The need for this process to culminate with the celebration of a 

yes/no referendum on what Congress finally decides to grant was 

understood by all parties involved from the very beginning. One 

only need look at countless remarks during the five days of public 

hearings for H.B. 694. They always seemed to understand that the 

celebration of such a referendum in a second round of the process is 

indispensable in order for this to be a true exercise of our right of 

self -determination. 

This process has a glaring defect, and it is that it depends on 

the goodwill of the party whose status formula won the Plebiscite to 

request prompt congressional action on the issue. Regrettably, the 

PDP has failed miserably to follow through on this process. The most 

telling example is the amount of time they took to inform --and be 

that in an informal or indirect manner-- the Congress of the United 

States on such an important matter. It was not until May 24, 1994, 

over six months after the Plebiscite, that the PDP through Ms. Celeste 

Benitez decided to inform the Subcommittee on Insular and 

International Affairs regarding this important issue. In a hearing 

before the Subcommittee on H.R. 4442, she said that her "first 

13 
183 

mtSSlOn is to personally and officially inform the members of the 

Subcommittee of the results of the November 14, 1993 

referendum ... " 30 

We are quite concerned that such lack of action by the PDP 

may provide a further lease on life for our current status 

relationship with the United States; which as of November 14, 1993, 

is devoid of any possible consent on our part. Nonetheless, this lack 

of action on their part gives the impression that they are trying to 

avoid any congressional expression or action into this matter at all 

costs. 

But why would this be so? Do they fear that Congress may 

reject many of the provisions that they included in the definition of 

their status formula? Let us then look at the definition itself, to see 

if we can find any answer there. 

It read as follows: 

Commonwealth 

A vote for Commonwealth is a mandate in favor of: 

Guaranteeing our progress and security as well as that of 

our children within a status of full political dignity, based 

on the permanent union between Puerto Rico and the 

United States embodied in a bilateral pact that cannot be 

altered except by mutual agreement. 

The Commonwealth guarantees: 

a) Irrevocable U.S. citizenship; 

b) Common market, common currency and 

common defense with the United States; 

c) Fiscal autonomy for Puerto Rico; 

d ) Puerto Rican Olympic Committee and our own 

international sports representation; 

e) Full development of our cultural identity: under 

30 Hearing on H.R 4442 Before the Subcomm. on Insular and International 

Affairs of the House Committee on NaiUnll Resources, 1 03rd Cong., 2nd Sess. 

(1994) (statement of Celeste Benftez on behalf of the Hon. H~tor L. Acevedo, 

President of the Popular Democtatic Party). 

14 
184 

Commonwealth we are Puerto Rican first. 

We will develop Commonwealth through specific proposals to 

be brought before the U.S. Congress. We will propose at once: 

a) Reformulating Section 936, ensuring the creation of 

more and better jobs; 

b) Extend the Supplementary Security Insurance (SSI) 

to Puerto Rico; 

c) Obtain Nutritional Assistance Program allocations 

equal to those received by the states; 

d) Protect other products of our agriculture, in 

addition to coffee. 

Any additional change will be submitted to the Puerto Rican 

people beforehand for its approval. 31 

It is appropriate then to formulate some questions and/or 

provide you with some tidbits of information that will prove useful 

when you sit down to ponder the viability of the various provisions 

of this status formula definition. 

In the first section of the definition, what do they mean by a 

"status of full political dignity"? I would like to recall to your 

attention, that as I mentioned at the beginning of this statement, 

Puerto Rico continues to be an unincorporated territory of the United 

States subject to the plenary powers of Congress under the 

Territorial Clause of the Constitution; and unless Commonwealth 

evolves into Free Association it will continue being so. Thus, is it 

possible then that a status formula that has not achieved a full 

degree of self-government can be considered to be a status of full 

political dignity? Doesn't it need be a decolonizing status formula? 

Is permanent union compatible with the condition of Puerto 

Rico as an unincorporated territory of the U.S.? or how about in the 

case of Free Association? Is the supposed existence of a "bilateral 

pact that cannot be altered except by mutual agreement" possible if 

Puerto Rico remains an unincorporated territory subject to the 

plenary powers of , Congress under the Territorial Clause of the 

Constitution? or is it only possible in the case of Free Association? 

31 English version of the Commonwealth fonnula definition presented to the 

voters in the Status Plebiscite of November 14, 1993 (unofficial translation). 

15 
185 

Keep in mind that most supporters of Commonwealth argue that such 

a bilateral pact already exists by virtue of Public Law 600. Do you 

consider this true? 

The second section of the definition consists of a list of things 

.that Commonwealth is supposed to guarantee. Is our U.S. citizenship 

irrevocable under Commonwealth, be it as an unicorporated territory 

or as a state in free association with the United States? It is 

important to keep in mind that a 1989 CRS Memo on this subject 

stated that "the limitation of the first sentence of § 1 of the 

Fourteenth Amendment would not restrain Congress' discretion in 

legislating about the citizenship status of Puerto Rico. "32 Is Congress 

willing to give away its sovereign powers in all fiscal matters related 

to the Island? This would include giving away all power to impose 

federal personal and corporate income taxes, excise taxes, inheritance 

taxes, and custom duties. 

Is it appropriate that the Commonwealth may guarantee these 

things, when most of them are matters purely under the realm of 

Congress? 

Finally, the third section · refers to matters or proposals to be 

brought before Congress. Would it be possible that sometime in the 

future Section 936 of the Internal Revenue Code might be 

reformulated to once again allow a 100% income tax credit? 

Definitely it is impossible at the present time due . to current 

budgetary constraints. Is it realistic to ask for parity in federal 

welfare programs, such as in SSI and in the Nutritional Assistance 

Program, when Congress is handling a welfare reform package that 

includes significant cuts in many of these programs? 

As Congressman Young has said: "[i]t should not be surprising, 

given human nature, that a plurality of the people voted for a 

3 2 Discretion of Congress Respecting Citizenship Status of Puerto Ricans: CRS 

Memorandum for Senator Bennett Johnston, 101stCongress, Man:h 9, 1989 (by 

Johnny H. Killian, Senior Specialist, American Constitutional Law). This 

position was reaffirmed in another CRS Memorandum -this one for Senator 

Paul Simon- entitled: Legal Status of Puerto Rico, 103rd Congress, November 2, 

1993 (by Kenneth R Thomas, Legislative Attorney, American Law Division). 

16 
186 

guarantee of virtually all of the benefits and assistance of U.S. 

citizenship without the corresponding duties and obligations." 33 

What are the options now, for you and for us? 

First of all, Congress has to express itself regarding the viability 

of the Commonwealth status formula proposal. If you find all or part 

of that definition acceptable, it is your duty to inform the people of 

Puerto Rico about your position with respect to Commonwealth. 

Then voters should have the opportunity in a second round 

referendum to vote for or against what you are willing to give. 

If Congress decides that the Commonwealth status formula 

proposal is not viable, what are the options available? What kind of 

process should follow? Is it possible that the status quo be 

maintained without the consent of the people of Puerto Rico even 

against their will? or have we embarked on a self-determination 

process that is irreversible? 

In the meantime, Governor Rosse116, who's running for reelection, has promised to hold another plebiscite sometime in 1998. 

Obviously, a solution to this ·problem is best, not only for the 

people of Puerto Rico, but for the U.S. Nobody gains from such a 

prolonged and protracted process. This is the appropriate 

"opportunity to set the record straight; to quell the commonwealth 

fantasy status which continues to be promoted to the detriment of 

the society it is purported to help." 34 

Thank you for your patience and good afternoon. 

33 140 Cong Rec. (daily ed. September 30, 1994) 

(statement of Rep. Young) 

34 Id. 

17 
187 

STATBIIBNT OP 

TBB BONORABLB 

CARLOS ~ZCARROHDO l:RIZARRY 

BBPOU TBB 

StJBCOMMITTBB ON HATIVB AIIBRICAH AND INSULAR APPAI:RS 

AND 

THE StJBCOMMITTBB ON TD WBSTB:RH BBIIISPBBU 

OCTOBB:R 17, 1995 

Good afternoon, Mr . Chairman , and distinguished members of 

this Committee . My name is Carlos Vizcarrondo Irizarry and I am 

an at-large member of the Puerto Rico House of Representatives 

for the Popular Democratic Party. I am here today substituting 

for Severo Colberg , the House Minority I.eader, who could not 

appear today. On behalf of the Minority Delegation in the Puerto 

Rico House of Representatives, I would like to thank you for the 

opportunity to appear before you . 

We appear before you to fully support the will of the people 

·of Puerto Rico express democratically i~ the plebiscite that took 

place in the island on November 14, 1993, which favored the 

Commonwealth formula . 

This option of political association was defined in the 

ballot as a bilateral pact between Puerto Rico and the United 

States that could only be amended by common consent of both 

parties in the association. The people of Puerto Rico reaffirm 

its support of the political relationship that was established in 

1952, the so-called •commonwealth Status•. The will of the 

people was also expressed in the 1967 plebiscite held in Puerto 

Rico in which 60.44 percent of the voters that participated 

favored the Commonwealth .status over statehood or independence. 

20-766 - 96 - 7 
188 

The 1993 Plebiscite in favor of Commonwealth reaffirms the 

establishment of a common agreement under the terms of Law 600 of 

1950 and the joint resolution of Congress Number 447 of 1952 

establishing an autonomous entity permanently associated with the 

United States. The four pillars of that association are common 

citizenship, common currency, common defense and a common market. 

The position of the United States for the United Nations has 

consistently been that Puerto Rico is no longer a colony and that 

in 1952 a compact was created between the people of Puerto Rico 

and the United States. This sentiment was articulated in 

Resolution 748-VIII of 1953 before the General Assembly which the 

United States itself was a part of. Thus, Mr. Chairman, from the 

very beginning it was clear to the United States, to the United 

Nations, and to the people of Puerto Rico that Puerto Rico ceased 

being a territory after the 1952 compact of association between 

Puerto Rico and the United States. 

Mr . Chairman, once the people expressed themselves in the 

1993 plebiscite, now the time has come for the leadership of a 

commonwealth formula of which I am a part to come before you and 

find common ways to put forth ideas expressed by the people of 

Puerto Rico and favored by the voters in 1993. Along with the 

reaffirmation of the bilateral nature of the compact within the 

people of Puerto Rico and the United States, there were four 

economic requests made by the Puerto Rican voters in 1993. These 

have been amply discussed today. However, I would like to stress 

one of those because I believe strongly in the significance for 

c ,\WPSI\0099\00991J29 
189 

the people of Puerto Rico and for the future economic development 

of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico. The first item was that 

Puerto Rico wishes to maintain Section 936 of Internal Revenue 

Code because of the many thousands of jobs that it creates for 

Puerto Rico and because it has generated an economic climate 

favorable to investors in Puerto Rico . I am well aware of the 

changes being made and the unfortunate consequences that these 

changes being made in the Congress could have for the economy of 

Puerto Rico. I want to state in no uncertain terms that I favor 

the permanence of Section 936 in Puerto Rico because it has been 

an "engine" of growth and development over the last few decades. 

However, given the nature of the political and economic climate 

in Washington, DC today in which the people of Puerto Rico are 

not fully informed or participants on their future economic 

development, I would like to bring to your attention one 

additional policy recommendation that could have a favorable 

impact in the economy of Puerto Rico. That is, the ability of 

the Government of Puerto Rico to enter into commercial treaties 

with other countries of the world. The new economic world order 

and the new economic realities were that all of the countries of 

the world have become partners, require that Puerto Rico 

immediately, in order to enhance its competitiveness, enter this 

world economic order with the power to enter into commercial 

relationships with these countries. I believe, Mr. Chairman, 

that we should work together to find ways such as the one that I 

have proposed, to continuously increase the competitiveness of 

\WP51~13l9 
190 

Puerto Rico and in that way generate the necessary jobs to keep 

our economy moving as it has moved continuously under the 

commonwealth status. If we generate jobs and depend less on' 

welfare programs, it's good for Puerto Rico and it's also good 

for the United States. 

Thus , Mr . Chairman, I would like to conclude my remarks 

today, by restati ng our position in regards to the 1993 

plebiscite. First, the people of Puerto Rico have expressed 

themselves and have favored the commonwealth status. That 

relationship has worked well for the United States and for Puerto 

Rico and that association of permanent union should continue to 

serve well if both parties, the United States Congress and the 

people of Puerto Rico work together. Second, Puerto Rico needs 

to continue working closely with the United States Congress to 

develop the necessary tools for the economic development of 

Puerto Rico. One of those fundamental tools has been Section 936 

of Internal Revenue Code. We encourage you, Mr . Chairman, and 

other members of the Committee, to do everything possible to 

avoid the elimination or amendment Section 936 . 

Finally, Mr . Chairman, we should work together in finding 

ways of making Puerto Rico more competitive in the international 

economic market in which we are entering on the verge of the 21st 

Century. The members of the Popular Democratic Party of the 

House of Representatives look forward to working with you and 

other members of the Committee in the elaboration and development 

of plans that will enhance Puerto Rico's competitiveness . One 

C:\WP, I \0099\00991329 
191 

idea that we could explore in the near future is, as I have 

stated, developing the legislation so that Puerto Rico can enter 

into economic and commercial agreements with other countries of 

the world. I thank you very much, Mr . Chairman, for the 

opportunity. 

C: \ WPSI \0099\00991329 
192 

STATJ5!f!5V Bl 

THI BOll I DAVID IQRIIQA,-RQDRIQUII 

MIIQRITI l.IIQIR or TB1 

PUIRTO RIC:U IIQIPUPQCI PARfl 

IR THI PUIR%0 RIQO BQUSI Or RIPRISSITATIVIS 

OVersight Bearings on the 1993 Puerto Rico Status Referendum 

Sub-Committee on Rative ~rican and Insular Affairs 

Sub-Committee on Western Beaispbere 

Washington, D.C. October 17, 1995 
193 

My name is David Noriega Rodriguez, and I am Minority Leader 

of the Puerto Rican Independence Party in the Puerto Rico House of 

Representatives. 

On November 14, 1993, the people of Puerto Rico expressed 

their wishes to end our territorial status under the U.S. 

Constitution. It is essential now that the u.s. Congress express 

itself with total clarity as to what options it would consider 

for Puerto Rico's decolonization. Congress should act responsibly 

in order to discharge its constitutional obligation to dispose of 

the territory. 

Furthermore until such time as our subordinate and dependent 

status is resolved, Congress must take urgent and concrete steps to 

avoid agravating our economic dependence. Puerto Rico needs 

political powers to develop and implement new policies that will 

remedy our dependence, while rescuing federal taxpayers from the 

edge of the bottomless colonial welfare pit. While you continue to 

dismantle the benefits for Puerto Rico of Internal Revenue Code 

Section 936, you should simultaneously address the deterioration of 

our economy with concrete action on several issues. 

Puerto Rico needs more economic instruments and power to enter 

into tax sparing treaties with capital exporting nations other than 

the United States, to institute separate wage, labor and tax 

policy, to develop infant industry and local capital accumulation, 

to eliminate the offshore shipping laws, among many other 

development tools. 

1 
194 

Economists estimate that Puerto Rican consumers are paying 

over $500 million every year in excess of what they would have to 

pay if Puerto Rico were exempted from the application of U.S. 

shipping laws. We import most of what we consume and export most 

of what we produce. Thus, the need to reduce the cost of shipping 

goods is of the highest priority. 

You are now in the process of deregulating the maritime 

transportation. If you finally deregulate, you should reform your 

Coastwise shipping laws to at least eliminate the monopoly in the 

maritime transportation in the off-shore areas. Otherwise you will 

leave a monopoly without regulation, and that, in my view, is an 

invitation to abuse. 

Several important business organizations have met with me to 

discuss their interest to secure Puerto Rico's exemption from the 

application of Coastwise shipping laws. Among these are the Puerto 

Rico Manufacturers Association, the Puerto Rico Chamber of 

Commerce, the Importers Association and Retailers Association. 

Therefore, on behalf of the people of Puerto Rico -statehooders, 

commonwealth supporters, and independentistas- I formally request 

the revision and total elimination of these shipping laws' 

application to Puerto Rico. 

Finally, I must emphasize that Puerto Rico needs the powers to 

enter into commercial treaties with other countries. As our Party 

has pointed out, when our economy enjoyed the full benefits of the 

tax-sparing mechanism provided by Section 936, in the era before 

NAFTA, when Puerto Rico had free access to the u.s. market, Puerto 

2 
195 

Rico became the Welfar e Capital of this Hemisphere. 

While, in my view, only separate sovereignty can provide all 

the instruments and powers necessary to respond to our needs, you 

have the power, under the Territorial Clause, to implement some 

specific concrete measures to alleviate our colonial plight . 

Thank you. 

3 
196 

PUERTO RICANS IN CIVIC ACTION 

P.O. IOUZ21 MAY-.u,PUERTORIC0-1 

TEL 11011 U4-072I 

, 

testimon-£ 

of 

Miriam J. Ramirez De Ferrer. MD* 

before the 

Subcommittee On Native American And Insular Affairs 

Committee On Resources 

and the 

Subcommittee On Western Hemisphere 

Committee On International Relations 

U.S. House Of Representatives 

OCTOBER 17, 1995 

• Miriam J. Ramirez de Fener Is presldenl and founder of Puerto Ricans in Civic: Adlon, a non-partisan cxganiu!lon 

worl<ing to 5ealre political and economic equality for the 3.7 million United States Citizens resident on the Island. 

Slnoe 11182, Or. Ramirez has speartleaded the lobbying efforts of the group in the u.s. Congress. She was Instrumental In scafing blck Sedlon 838 tax exempt benefitS in the OmnibuS Budget Reconcilialion Ad of 1983. 

Section 936 plays 1 significant role, andlnftuence, in the politicallnd economic life of Puerto Rico. 

Or. Rami~ 1 full time 01>-Gyn physician with the Department of Health In Mayaguez.. She and her husband, 

Or.Tomas Ferrer, have seven children. 
197 

Mr. Elton Galealy Mr. Dan Burton and Mr. Young Honorable Chairmen of these committees 

MemberS and friends. 

It is an honor to have been invited to testify before this unprecedented joint hearing or these two 

subcommittee's which have jurisdiction over Puerto Rico on such a historical issue. I commend 

your interest and sincere efforts to address the issue of the self determination of the United 

States citizens in Puerto Rico. 

This is indeed a historic occasion and given the results of the 1993 status plebiscite, whose 

process end ballot options you are reviewing, the committee's findings may well authoritatively 

determine the Mure relationShip between the 3.7 million U.S. citizens in Puerto Rico and the 

United States, which has governed us since 1898. 

SUMMARY 

1. 95% of the voters overwhelming endorsed three ·principles: 

• permanent union with the United States, 

• guaranteed American citizenship 

• and economic equality with the rest of the fifty states. 

2. Commonwealth and Independence ballot language were constitutionally and politically 

unattainable, as they promised statehood without its obligations. 

3. Section 936 companies influenced workers to vote for commonwealth, which endorsed 936 in 

its ballot, by threatening loss or jobs if statehood prevailed. 

4. Dev>ite economic extortion, commonwealth, the status quo, was rejected by a majority of 

voters for the first time in over forty years. 

5. Congress must set constitutionally definitive ballot guidelines and ground rules for Mure 

status plebiscites whose results will be. implemented. 

STATEMENT 

Far from clouding the issue on status, the island residents in 1993 overwhelmingly endorsed 

three principles to govern their Mure relationship with the U.S. Over 95 percent of our residents 

voted tor statehood and commonwealth which promised: 

• permanent union with the U.S. 

• guaranteed American citizenship 

• and economic equality with their mainl8nd counterparts. 

And, upon closer analysis or the independence ballot language, ifs clear that all Puerto Ricans 

cherish these rights and goals and seek to perpetuate them. 

2 
198 

ANALYSIS OF THE PLEBISCITE PROCESS 

1. The Ballot Language Was Defective & Misleading 

The plebiscite bill provided for each political party in Puerto Rico to define each status 

alternative. ( See sample ballot ) 

While the statehood proponent's ballot directly addressed the realization of these goals through 

the constitutional process, neither the commonwealth nor the independence language were 

legally, politically or economically viable. 

It is self-evident that the disingenuous nature of the ballot language set forth by supporters of 

both commonwealth and the independence movement: 

• misled voters, 

• influenced the election's outcome, 

• were inherently coercive on workers 

• and offered unconstitutional and impractical alternatives 

They were, and remain, intellectually dishonest attempts to gain voter support through rhetoric 

and.pie-in-the-sky promises that have little or no connection with reality. 

First, although the commonwealth proposition promised to safeguard the above named three 

principles, its endorsement of greater self-autonomy, trade protectionism, economic oligopoly and 

fiscal self-suffiCiency flew in the face of constitutional and political impediments. 

Indeed, the commonwealth ballot provision was nothing less than a promise of statehood without 

the obligations attendant, namely federal taxation. Voters, having been told this lie often enough 

and long enough have come to believe, with Congress' acquiescence, that indeed they could 

have their cake and eat it, too! 

It's utterly disingenuous to capture voter ballots by promising residents a pseudo-Puerto Rican 

statehood status by disregarding and riding roughshod over the U.S. Constitution. They can't 

have it both ways: self-government with all the benefits of American citizenship; protection and 

economic integration without the obligations of federal franchise and federal taxation. 

If commonwealth proponents argue, that Puerto Rico represents a nation whose culture and 

language is different from the U.S., then they should seek indepenclence. 

It is their illusion that commonwealth, an unrealizable myth, no more than the continuation of 

co!or1ial status, is the only way to protect their identity. They convenierrtly overtook the 

expetience of millions upon millions of immigrants who happily discovered that the constitutional 

protections afforded them within the states provided a measure of protection they found lacking 

even in their former homelands. 

3 
199 

Ttiey renege the responsibilities and loyalties to the United States, and then brazenly demand all 

the benefits of American citizens under the United States Constitution, conveniently OV8flooking 

the fact that cu Constitution does not provide for divided loyalties. 

In this vein , the commonwealth party's ballot proposition clearly demonstrated the fidion of 

Puerto Rican self-rule under the U.S. Constitution by endorsing its enhancement and the 

mutuality of interests between the party and Saction 936 companies. Calling for 936's extension 

was the not so subtle suggestion broadcast, that a vote for status quo was a vote for job security 

The independence proponents were not any less than disingenuous in their ballot language. 

Independence promi5ed: 

• l.llBiterable Mure guarantees of dual U.S./Puerto Rican citizenship, 

• the rights to continued use of U.S. currency, 

• free access to the US marketplace, 

• tax incentives for Puerto Rican investments, 

• and the continuation of federal aid to the island. 

Their call for dual citizenship, integration into the United Stiotes' economy and free migration to 

the mainland are inconsistent with any and all socio-political notions of an independent 

nationhood. As with enhanced commonwealth, those relying on these definitions and conditions 

of independence are really asking for their cake and eating it, too. To a casual observer this 

amounted to nothing less, once again, than the proposition of statehood without taxation. Just 

under another legalistic rubric. 

In essenca both of the above ballot provisions promised more than they could deliver. They 

pandered to what were thought to be the voter's basest instinds. All the rights and benefits of 

statehood without any of the burdens, taxation in general. This was not lost on Congress, 

following the plebiscite's results. 

The only ballot provision that was indeed accurate in its description was statehood. A 

straightforward statement of the objective. The fad that it managed to gamer over 46 percent of 

the vote against self-serving verbiage enveloped in campaign promises and economic ~xtortion 

is a testament to the integrity of our people and their commitment to American ideals. 

2. The Voting Process Was Contaminated By The Interests Of Section 936 

Beneficiaries: 
200 

Having established the uniformity of interests endorsed by the voters in the 1993 plebiscite, and 

explored the fallacious language contained in two of the proposals, I would be remiss if I did not 

touch on the process under which the balloting was conducted. The evidence is overwhelming 

that corporate powers interested, not in Puerto Rico's future, but in their own bottom lines, found 

all too willing allies among commonwealth proponents whose own interests lay in political survival 

rather than the best interests of their putative constituents. 

This observation should not come as a surprise to anyone, after all we have seen every election 

in Puerto Rico influenced by Section 936. In league with the Commonwealth proponents, Section 

936 companies regularly threaten employees with job losses, plant relocation's or automation, 

every time ballots are cast pitting commonwealth supporters against statehood or independence 

proponents. 

Further, these same resources are mobilized every time Section 936 is examined by Congress. 

Our newspapers run full page company ads, letter writing campaigns are instigated, marches 

organized, both in Puerto Rico and the mainland, again brandishing the same threats if change 

comes. All funded with taxpayer's dollars. 

And, these threats are not made in a vacuum. Hand in hand are the commonwealth advocates 

who place 936's continued existence at their disposal, in arguing against any changes in the 

status quo. Their party platform incorporates 936 as the economic backbone of our island, and 

their opponents are targeted as anti-labor. 

Not unlike the sugar barons who opposed Hawaiian statehood, the 936 companies with their 

annual $4 billion tax breaks had a large stake and financial motivation to oppose any changes in 

the status quo that would threaten their taxpayer financed corporate welfare handouts. Similarly, 

the lifeblood of commonwealth, a constitutionally flawed mirage of bi-lateralism, elevated 

expediency and politics above principle. The survival of each was and is dependent on 

maintaining the status quo. 

Therein lies their mutual admiration and interdependence. To witness these forces acting in 

unison requires little imagination. All throughout the 1993 plebiscite campaign the 936 

companies operating independently and under the umbrella of their lobbying organization, the 

Puerto Rico USA Foundation, ran ads, letter writing campaigns and financed employee actions 

aimed at preserving 936 which, coincidentally, was under fire from the Clinton administration. 

Taking to the floors of 936 factories they preach to the converted the economic consequences 

that would befall them and their employers should the opposition gain power or the status quo 

changed. Such efforts were not lost on employees, who were told that changes in 936 might 

mean plant closings and relocations and increased automation leading to job losses. The ads 

and company rhetoric reported daily in island newspapers hammered these themes home even to 

the most naive among us. 

Nor was it lost on these same employees voting in the plebiscite, that the commonwealth ballot 

specifically endorsed, not just the retention of 936, but its extension. It did not take a degree in 

5 
201 

political science to connect the dots: voting for the status guo i.e .. commonwealth, was the only 

way to protect jobs. There could be no mistake that the connection between 936, commonwealth 

and the status quo was inseparable. 

I ask, how can supporters of the status quo claim legitimacy from this tainted ballot process? My 

response: Under these conditions it was nothing less than a miracle that economic extortion 

coupled with political demagoguery failed to carry the day by a majority vote. Commonwealth, for 

the first time, was rejected 51 percent of the voters 

ANALYSIS OF THE RESULTS OF THE PLEBISCITE 

It is best summarized by Senator Simon and Representative Young who concluded that : 

" the winning enhanced commonwealth promises were neither politically, economically, 

nor constitutionally viable". 

(The same could just as easily have been said of independence had it prevailed.) 

• the three basic aspirations of the islander's were endorsed by all. 

• statehood is the only legal, politically and economically viable option which provides the 

singular vehicle to achieve this end. 

• Commonwealth was rejected by 51% of the voters: 

But miracles do not happen in a vacuum. Most Puerto Rican voters are politically and 

economically savvy enough to recognize a con job when they see one. They know that their 

future and that of their children, in fact all future generations of Puerto Ricans, is inexorably tied 

to a permanent relationship with the U.S. And that relationship can only be based on sharing in 

the benefits and obligations of full citizenship and full participation in the constitutional processes 

that provide the basis of the American dream. 

They need to know that the current status quo, a veritable limbo situation in which Puerto Rico is 

neither fish nor fowl, with respect to its political legitimacy, has undermined their desire to be 

equal citizens of the United States, politically and economically. They need to understand that, 

so long as they are excluded from the national political process that provides representation in 

Washington, they will also be denied equal economic opportunities, equal participation in federal 

programs and equal voice in their own destinies. 

PLEBISCITE LESSONS 

The only status option constitutionally, politically and economically viable that ensures the 

achievement of Puerto Rican's goals, as indicated in the 1993 plebiscite, is statehood. Both 

commonwealth and independence are long on rhetoric but, all too knowingly, unable to deliver on 

their promises. 

Given the circumstances surrounding the plebiscite, and the ballot language options, both of 

which prejudiced the outcome, what should committee members and the American public 

6 
202 

conclude from the 1993 vote and what expectations should they anticipate coming from the 

Puerto Rican people? 

It's self-evident that the issue of Puerto Rican status will not go -ay. Equally compelling is the 

conclusion that with the inevitable phase-out of Section 936, economic interests will no longer 

play a significant role, as they have in the last 25 years, in thwarting the self-deterministic views 

of the Puerto Rican people, by threatening their livelihoods if they vote against the status quo. 

- Section 936 Is A Failure 

They also know better than anyone on the mainland, or in the 936 corporate boardrooms, that 

section 936 has created an economic-political axis that, not only seeks to perpetuate its tax raids 

on the U.S. Treasury but most importantly, has failed to deliver on the economic promises that 

was its genesis. It is an idle boast that rings hollow in Puerto Rican's ears, that after $70 billion in 

936 tax credits and nearly 100 years of American rule, all that can be said is that our average 

standard of living is better than Haiti's! 

- Congress Must Definitively Deal With The Status Issue 

Painfully, no doubt for many of you, Congress will also have to deal with the status issue. You 

will no longer have the luxury of the cover of commonwealth, with which to obfuscate the matter, 

or delay an authoritative resolution of the destiny of America's longest held territory and its 3. 7 

million U.S. citizens. 

Allow me to remind you that Puerto Rico has been a U.S. possession, subject to the Territorial 

Clause of the U.S. Constitution since 1898, which has been interpreted by the courts in the 

Insular cases to mean that Congress has sole authority to determine how the island is governed. 

Although this authority has been clear for nearly 100 years, a myth has been perpetuated that 

Congress and Puerto Rico's United States citizens can bypess the clear language of these laws 

and interpretations to grant self-governing authority to Puerto Rico. This fiction is the basis of the 

'commonwealth' arrangement entered into in 1952. 

Puerto Rico, after nearly one hundred years of American rule, remains one of the last of the 

world's colonies. That it is maintained and countenancad by the West's bastion of selfdetermination and democracy exacerbates the hypocrisy. That this is self-evident is readily 

gleaned from both the Treaty of Paris in which Spain caded Puerto Rico, the Territorial Clause of 

the U.S. Constitution and numerousjudiciat interpretations in the~ cases.: 

Territorial Clause 

''The Congress shall have Powers to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations 

respecting the Territory, or other property belonging to the U.S." (Article IV, Section 3, Cl. 2) 

Treaty of Paris 

"The civil rights and the political status of the native inhabitants of the territories hereby cede to 

the United States shall be determined by Congress." (Article XI, Para 2). 

Insular Cases 

7 
203 

''Yet this body, Congress and many in P. R. all of whom should know better, have for over forty 

years perpetuated a fiction that the supreme law of the land and court rulings related thereto, 

self-evident on their face, can be circumvented to serve narrow political and economic objectives. 

At a time when America has been hailed as the champion of democracy and self-determination, 

the conqueror of evil empires and the tribune leading newly freed peoples, its not too much to ask 

that its elected representatives set a world example closer to home. We cannot expect the world 

to blindly follow our lead when the same rights and freedoms we pledge to others are denied to 

citizens here. 

Puerto Ricans have fought for America in every war since 1917 - and made the supreme 

sacrifice defending freedom abroad. They have the right, they've earned it, to finally know if, 

when and how, they can achieve final equality with other citizens and with the fifty states. 

It is incumbent upon Congress to let us know where we stand. lfs not enough after nearly 1 00 

years to tell us that the United States is unwilling or unable to define the conditions for our entry 

into the union or for independence. lfs not enough to go on with the charade of commonwealth -

- a political status not dissimilar to an emperor without any clothes. 

Unless and until Congress assumes its responsibilities, Puerto Ricans will continue to be subject 

to status proponents that promise the sky with never any possibility of delivering anything. 

Secondly, ifs not enough to even set the parameters for status selection, Congress must also 

agree to abide by the legitimately aspired results. If a majority of voters select one of the feasible 

status alternatives, Congress must assent in advance, to its expeditious implementation. 

Otherwise this body will be no more responsible than those on our island who offer empty 

promises. 

This means, of course, that whatever hurdles are inherent in any of the propositions, they must 

be cleared prior to a status vote. Each status option and its language, if that choice becomes the 

voter's own, must be reviewed with a view toward Congressional implementation, through the 

appropriate legislation. 

In the case of independence, for example, Congress may state under what on-going political and 

economic relations it might grant Puerto Rico its complete autonomy. However, Puerto Ricans 

should be under no illusion that such conditions are anything but general guidelines and be 

forewarned that any and all negotiations to that end will only take place after a Puerto Rican vote, 

since one Congress can't bind another. 

As for commonwealth, Congress must be honest with our people and let them know just what the 

Constitution, the courts and various treaties have said about such an arrangement's efficacy. If 

we want complete autonomy within the U.S. orbit, jt's an imoossjbiljtv. If we want veto power over 

Congressional actions regarding the island, it's an imoossibilitv. 

Finally, if we truly believe we are a nation apart,· we can't pledge allegiance to the U.S. and the 

flag for which it stands. There is no room or accommodation under the American flag for two 

8 
204 

loyalties even though there is, indeed, room to accommodate and protect the cultural differences 

of the great mosaic that is at once both the strength and attraction of the U.S. 

- Congress Must Implement Our Status Decision 

And if statehood is to be the choice, then Congress owes us the duty to admit P. R. as the fiftyfirst state. Discussions about language and cultural differences, party orientation, economic 

assistance, geography and other distinctions - without a difference - must be resolved 

beforehand. And, candidly, they have been resolved favorably in previous instances where 

putative states bearing similar challenges to national uniformity were deemed fit to enter the 

union. 

These committees, charged with oversight over our island territory, must begin the final 

authoritative dialog that leads Puerto Rico and Puerto Ricans to a final and conclusive closure of 

the relationship between the island and Washington which has been its ruler since 1898. It is a 

large and historic responsibility and one which congress, the mainland American people and the 

3.7 million U.S. citizens of our island can no longer shirk. 

We look to you to find the facts and set the policies that will help us chart our course. II was for 

these hard decisions that you were elected. You should look to us to make the ultimate decision 

that will determine whether after nearly 1 00 years of American rule we will finally embrace union 

with the new world's leader, or set sail on our own independent course. This is the hard decision 

we must make under definitive guidelines; It is one we are prepared to make after 500 years of 

colonial status. 

CONCLUSIONS 

Therefore, one must conclude: 

1. . .. that the circumstances under which the 1993 plebiscite was held, and the ballot 

provisions describing two of the status options were so contaminated by external coercive 

factors and pie-in-the-sky promises as to be so fatally flawed, so to render the results null 

and void. 

2. . .. any future plebiscite must be free of both misleading ballot provisions and any 

intervention by economic interests committed to the status quo who can use the workplace 

to coerce job holders to vote not on principle but for principal. 

3. . .. it is clear that Puerto Ricans legally have only two legal status choices, statehood or 

independence. They must decide which will provide the democratic guarantees they have 

fought for and the economic opportunities they deserve. 

4. . .. Congress also has only two choices with respect to the future relationship of the U.S. 

with Puerto Rico: · ··-.. 

• a legal obligation to recognize the reality thattherels no middle ground between Puerto 

9 
205 

Rico entering the union or going it alone 

• 2 commitment to abide by the results of a plebiscite in which these options are offered. 

5. . .. the plebiscite must be binding on both Puerto Rico and Congress. 

6. . .. a moral obligation, if statehood is chosen, to expedite the admission process. 

It is clear that the 1993 plebiscite was null and void with respect to determining the will of the 3. 7 

million Puerto Ricans, all American citizens, who reside in the United State's oldest territory, the 

1 00 year old colony of Puerto Rico. 

RECOMENDATIONS 

1.. Congress should establish the oolicy that Statehood or lndeoendence are Puerto Rico's only 

options. 

The myth of commonwealth, an extra-legal fabrication, foisted upon 3.7 million U.S. citizens was 

created to whose benefit ? 

• Commonwealth serves Congress by postponing its moral obligation to accede to the 

constitutional aspirations of the 3.7 million U.S. citizens of Puerto Rico: without this 

fiction, Congress would have to grant Puerto Rico statehood · 

• Commonwealth serves political interests in Puerto Rico who covet power more, than 

serving the interAsts of its constituencies: without this fiction they would be 

powerless. 

• Finally, commonwealth serves Section 936 companies economic interests since any 

change in Puerto Rico's status would end the tax credit: without this fiction the $3-

$4 billion in annual tax credits extracted from the U.S. Treasury would be lost. 

But Washington must not abdicate its responsibilities even under this enlightened approach. It 

must come to grips with constitutional reality and recognize that commonwealth is a myth and tell 

the Puerto Rican people so much. 

2. Congress should introduce and pass leaislation authorizing a self determination process for 

the US citizens in Puerto Rico in which anv and all future plebiscites must entail the only two 

constitutional options: statehood or independence. Congress must let us know this. 

But that is not enough: 

3. We also demand that Congress accede to the will of the people of Puerto Rico if stateboocl is 

chosen. Congress is morally obligated to grant statehood, the last imprimatur of parity with the 

fifty states, having bestowed citizenship and demanded of us the supreme sacrifice in five wars. 

10 
206 

Correspondingly, we have earned that star. No American territory has remained a colony as 

long as Puerto Rico, without obtaining entry into the union. No United States citizens have given 

so much of their commitment to the U.S. constitution for so long and yet have remained second 

class citizens in their own land. 

If Congress is unwilling, by its overt actions over the past 100 years, to abide to a decision of the 

Puerto Rican people, through a process of self determination, to seek entry into the union, then 

we must prepare to go it alone. We have earned the right to a fifty-first star, Congress has held 

it out, there must be no reneging on that promise. 

Make no mistake ! 

• Congress by refusing in 1993 to level with the Puerto Rican people as to what rights and 

obligations were entailed in their status options, evaded its constitutional responsibilities 

under the Territorial Clause. 

• As a pre-condition for that status plebiscite, and for any others in the future, it must clearly 

enunciate what every first year law student knows to be true: 

4. There is no middle ground between statehood a!Jd independence unless you're for 

colonization. 

And .... Congress must say in no uncertain terms that it will abide by the results. Unless Congress 

is willing to categorically state that it will seriously entertain Puerto Rican statehood if thafs what 

the voters decide, to have us go through another plebiscite is an empty gesture and an exercise 

in futility. 

5. Future Status Plebiscites Must be Process Neutral 

H goes without saying that any future plebiscite must truly reflect tha freely determined will of the 

voters, having cast their ballots according to matters of conscience. To assure that end, 

influence from corporations whose tax exemption is tied to the status of Puerto Rico must be 

eliminated both tacitly and factually from the self determination process. 

Further, during the transition from Section 936 to the,_ economic stimulus package, corporate 

and individual contributions on behalf of any economic interest must be prohibited in any political 

campaign or plebiscite involving the island's status. Only in this manner can voters freely exercise 

their right to determine which, if any, status option is appropriate. 

Section 936, an economic failure, must be replaced with an economic development plan along 

the lines suggested by Representative Young: enterprise zones, wage credits, full federal 

program parity and taxation of island residents. 

The truth be told that Section 936 has been an economic failure. It has neither creeted the jobs 

nor the industries to drive Puerto Rico's economic development. The 936 companies 

11 
207 

acknowledge as much when they claim economic success, at a price of $4 billion a year in 

taxpayer dollars, by comparing Puerto Rico's per capita income to that of !'faitil Ala cost to the 

U.S. Treasury of $70 billion since 1973 one would expect that Puerto Ricans would enjoy .a standard of living better than half Mississippi's, but that is not the case. 

Thus, we are pleased that the House Ways and Means Committee has determined to end 

Section 936. Thus, 936 companies will not have an interest in preserving the status quo and 

elections will be free of the economic coercion that has distinguished past contests and 

influenced workers in their choice of status options. 

However, we recognize the need to provide for an orderly economic transition from Section 936 

to new development options. Congress should IQok closely at one such proposal that 

Representative Young has talked of introducing. 

In exchange for 936 he would phase-in full state-like programs for Puerto Rico and encourage 

private sector growth through capital grants for infrastructure development and through private 

and non-profit enterprise funding to spur new industries. 

Young's proposal also subjects island residents to federal taxation. Combined with the $3 billion 

savings from the 936 tax credit, the U.S. Treasury would see no diminution in revenues. Nor will 

Puerto Rican's see any change in their tax l)urden as program costs are shifted to Washington. ', ~ 

During the transition period, to as~ that 936 companies remain neutral, Congress should pass 

legislation prohibiting hard or soft dollar corporate contributions to status plebiscite campaigns in 

Puerto Rico. Ally use of corporate funds or services or facilities or materials should be 

prohibited, either directly or indirectly, to one oi more parties to the contest or in any way 

independent of such parties to influence the outcome of any such vote. 

With 936 reformulated, Puerto Rico will enjoy dynamic new economic growth that will prepare it 

for a new plebiscite, in which either statehood or independence will be the sole options. Without 

the influence of 936 economic interests, the people of Puerto Rico will finally ~o freely 

express their wills and choose the option of statehood that best fulfills the status to Which they 

have aspired, earned and been promised. 

Thank you .. 

12 
208 

PUERTO lliCANS IN CIVIC ACTION 

P.O. BOX 3225 MAYAGUEZ, PUERTO RICO 00111 

TEL.(IOI)I3U721 

Supplemental Sheet 

, Testimony of Miriam J. Ramirez pe Ferrer. MD 

President of Puerto Ricans in Civic Action 

before the Subcommittee On Native American And Insular Affairs 

and the Subcommittee On Western Hemisphere 

OCTOBER 17, 1995 

SUMMARY 

1. Voters overwhelming endorsed three principles: permanent union with the 

United States, guaranteed American citizenship and economic equality with 

the rest of the fifty states. 

2. Commonwealth and Independence ballot language were constitutionally and 

politically unattainable, as they promised statehood without its obligations. 

3. Section 936 companies influenced workers to vote for commonwealth, which 

endorsed 936 in its ballot, by threatening loss of jobs if statehood prevailed. 

4. Despite economic extortion, commonwealth, the status quo, was rejected by 

a majority of voters for the first time in over forty years. 

5. Congress must set constitutionally definitive ballot guidelines and ground 

rules for future status plebiscites whose results will be implemented. 

RECQMMENDADONS 

1. Congress should establish the policy that Statehood or Independence are 

Puerto Rico's only options. 

2. Congress should introduce and pass legislation authorizing a self 

determination process for the US citizens in Puerto Rico 

3. We also demand that Congress ac:cede to the will of the people of Puerto 

Rico, if statehood is chosen. 

4. There is no middle ground between statehood and independence unless 

you're for colonization. 

5. Future Status Plebiscites Must be Process Neutral 
209 

Puerto Rlcans ln Clvlc Actlon 

APPDDIX 

OF 

HSTIMOIIY 

OF 

Miriam J.R.unlrez de Fener MD 

Pr.eident 

Miri- Raairea de Ferrer, M.D. 

before the 

Subco.mittee on Rative -..ricaa and Ia•ular Affair• 

Subca.aittee on We•tera Beai•phere Affair• 

of Iateraatioaal Relation• Ca.aittee 

October 17, 1995 

P.o.a- stts 

Milyaguez·.P..__• 

(lo9)'M....,U. 
Status 

definitions 

STATEHOOD . 

A vote lot statP.hcoct ~ a rnanctl" !O dcm~nd Pueno RICO'S ad:niSSIOII JS I stalt ol 

IlK: UftiOII . 

SLIIehooc · 

Is .tnorKolonoal na1us wil:: lui po~lical d.gndy. 

won auow us 10 ha·lt! 111e same ngnts. berlefiiS and rtspOIIS&bitlt!. olthe 50 states. Is gualoiiiiL>fd per:nanenl Union 

and lht oppontlllty lor econom· 

1 ic ~nd ~!:cat pregrt<..s. I Is l!le permanent QUII31Uet of 

! 311the rogr.:s given by the 

I

I ConstitutiO~ of the United 

SUies ot America - incUIIng I :tte preservation ol OUI cUiurt. . 'S the permanent guarantee Ill 

1 

American ClliZensr.ip, aur two 

languages. anthems and nags. : Is lui partqlalion :n all federal • programs. • • 

i IS llle rigid to VOle ior llle prcsi- 1 dent of the l.nled States IWid 10 : t1ec1 no !r.s IIWI ~ 1'1.-eno : Rican ntprtsentatives and two 

i ~ 10 Congress. . In llle !Jtrase o1 t:~~~rigllls as Mwican CJiZIIIS we .. negtllillf lhe-ol said ... 11011. wh.CII wil be !.ubnlned 10 lite people of Putn~ Rico tot · llte:r ratotoc.1::on. 

210 

COMMONWEALTH INDEPENDENCE 
hu 

211 

rorULAA DEMOCJtf,TJC 

~ rAATY 

nNANCt OCfiCE 

Ylte o•tc~ of t•• ~pco•t-r •a.•~b•r • electla.• lft ~crto 

:!a::.:-:.~ .. :.••t.erat.ed. tor coa~•l•• "'"b operat.lftV abatdlari••~c 

a• ••t Ux taeertt&we ~r•-· botlt •IMler IJ. I.-eat er o • at:at.ut••· •re poeel• •••• Wlt!'ISPI tie ir41M'WOriiC or Pierio RLco • to • .-oftw•ehh alai••· • 

t•• .. iftCeaiivii ire the i•r iD Yi•r &otto• line r•~i~• l• , .. erc,rrsca" op.l'at.t-c. 

Tit• Po,.,.l•r D.-.ocr11ttC' P•rty l• cot~U:tlt:ted to ttle COI\t:ta,ar.::fl ol Co--..wealt• atetu•. II• t•-91 th•c. c.-pan&•• vCch op.-

. t'Atln4 atlltat4&•rt•• ... re de•~~tr•• tl'lle t ad~.t•cr•• 1 «11114 aoeJA 1 

clt••ttt of or~•r aN nabUitr. •• well •• tlaa ajncere. l'llo•••t. 

••v•r•••At •~pporc t~a~ttt~•• uft~er Popular o.ao:ra1lc ada£•1•- l.rlcto•• e&nae o.-ratl'"' loot.ftrap. 

lie are r .. •eftii'WI t;Ofttrlhott:»na fro. co•peatee, e•tc:utl•••• ... ~ ot!'ter lnt•r••t~ ladl¥lcl1111al• to ••lp tM Popular D••ocrattc ••rt.y •••r•)' ~'• coac ot .... ,.lnq tiM o;co•Cn9 elect:lona. Tille 

l'•~•t• or J~le4tl l•r..aactet Ccl4" ~o t"• qo•eraor•lllll'e ~tl'leS 

Wtt~ ••r el64ed7 cl••r ••Jorttr ln th• •~ftate ana ao••• ot '•;rfttefttltl¥ec. wall easqra tA4 ~r•••r••~lon oC • proaper~• 

toltc.lc&l clt .. ce lor ya11r co•tte•Y• 

,..r&errl~ft law ell~• co•paftt•• •! well •• tndl-ld•••• co Co&et~ ~~to 12.soo.oo ••c" to a ~olltteal pare~ or c•n4!4ata 

'd~er&r.~ •• elect:IOA Jaflr. · 

raot ••"erOf'l&tr or )'Oitr c,,.r ..... y. )'ttur•~•r .. and. yl)~tr eoll••-

quea "'" M •r•uectlltotd ""-•• tPII« Pop•lar Daao::ratle Part.)' ••r•• l c.e ••Mata •• No,.,.,b•r •· 

... -·· _", ..... ,.,.,n .. " .. llf,tat;JJI 
212 

• . .• f } 

... 

CON LA ESTADIDAD ·, · 

·=··A 

~~ 936 SE ''lA I . v~ . 

• . i . . 

.. 

ESTADO UBRE ASOCIADO 

11m.;. .

" 

., 

... ' ·!"._ 

. . . . .: ~ 

LO MEJOR DE DOS MUNDO$ 

X 

Un voto por 

el Estado libre Asociado 

asegura Ia Secci6n 936 

I .·, d .- y q creoc1on .. ~ mo~~ 

y ~ejores emp~rg~s . 

;; 

8 

... 

... 

Cll 

Cl 

8 

Ill 

5 

.. Ill 

= .. 

:r: 

... 

0 

a 

0 

... 

.. II 

~ u ... • ... .. ... • Cll u A ! .. ... • .. .a ., t a ... • 

• lol llo 

... Ill 

.... • Ill A .... .. .. .a a o :l o .... .. •... 0 .... lol ... ... 

u. • .. .! ... Ill .1 I • .. e.., .. • 

"'a .. II II a i • e I "' !li ... u Cll ... 

• IC 0 

! lol ... ; ... 

I "' 0 

... u "" ; • 0 

~ "" • " ... Ill 

.. 

.. 

0 

.. 

c 
i 

1 

! 

~ 

"' w 

"' s 

: 

~ 

i 

:;' 

~ 

~ 

r ... I - ~ ~ ~ 

~ 

• n 

~ 

~ 

• 

- Rnonclomlento o bojo costo pao Ia octMdod lndustrlol y comerdol: 

. - Anonclomlento o bojo costo pao Ia obro p(lblea en Puerto Rico: 

. - Rnonclomlento o boJo costo en el sector prtvado en 01801 como 1\Mtsmo, 

ascuelos. unlvenldodes. hospltalel y centro. comeicloles: 

-:. Uno tuerza obrera y protetlonol ollamente copocltodo. .::;,-·· . 

'· «. ;- :.':. c-· .-.• ;:; .. ;....,!;:"'-· ... ~ : ·-t·• . ... : ,: ~ 

9£6 U9!~:J9S Of ep IOtOf U9!:JOU!W!Ia 0~~ . ·~ 

e5!xa POP!PO~sa 01 enb opoWJ!JUOJ 04 oseJ5UOJ 13 

: .:' •. ' .. . J • •. ; • • ~ . . 

'PDPIPDJM Df ep DZDU8~ DJ D optqep 

'10~ ep ~A 14W8P.IOd IOPD~ID OJIIA ~ 81 DA 

.euonJW 06t e.tq01 A toeJdWe OOS't 8J®S . ·. · . . k 

• . -- :·: ·: -~ . ' -. • • ·_ • . : ' .. i +' ' ;.-_ :-:;~;:~ •• :;~~~t:t{~ 

. J~nc.? ?f ~~-- ~.u;t~~p n. l:.) ~sl . ~f l '-:'.9£6·sosaJdU.i3 ep·soaWidW:IOOO•oot ~i : "'J6.1fWf" ~b·r,~~ ... ..:..:· ... :.t .:·.:.., ~'" '~_. ........ .... .;6 ..... •:• , .. i., - ./.•" ;,<~. .:,•r: 1 

·:.eo_ QI.JJI~pt;>, .. ~!! uoo J;I /~- ,·;~' 

81Z 
214 

Congress warned that 100,000 WORKBRS of 936 companies: 

Kill be oat oD the streetl 

OYer 3,500 jobs aDd .ore thaD $90 aillioD baTe already beeD 

affected by closiDgs aDd caDcellatioD of projects, due to the 

threat of statehood. 

CoDgress bas coDfir..d that statehood d..aDds the total 

eliaiDatioD of SectioD 936. 

BEKAREI YOUR JOB 18 1• QABGBR. 
215 

.. • 

... 

.. 

1: 

t 

• 

H 

• 
216 

• • 

.. ~ ....... Ill : 

·a 

. . ..... ·~ ·. . 
217 

.- : . . .. 

. . 

........ . ................ 

..... ................ c 

• t ........... ftiiASMiweeiCMte 

tolofoalcua .......... t 

• 

~ ... 

• 

claarriDos ................... 

........ -;n-n..~ . ............ ··-···lc ... ·-••.aeMAS 

....... J 

.t 

i ....... . ............ .. , ... ......... _.. ! 

... • 

Cl 

• 

... • 

--··-· lft11AS .......... ... •

.I 

~ 

... 

. 'lliiil ESiol loll pa mot todol · 

mco:r::.rau. 

LA ISTADIDAD 

=•• •• 

II 

UCAM. 

lllllli_U 

~ 

CUESTA DEMASIADO · 

. ~ .: ... ". . . . . .• ISUDOX AIOCIIDO 

0 

.s 

r 

• 

J 

VOlA aiP.P.D. 
tires 

telephone 

calla 

cigarretea 

alcoholic 

beverages 

airline 

ticket 

trucks 

218 

STATBBOOD WILL COST YOU 

Federal taxes you would pay under statehood 

18.6 MORE per gallon 

$4.50 MORE per tire 

3\ MORE over the coat of the call 

16 cents MORE per pack 

-rwa, vodka, whiskey $3.21 MORE per liter - beer $1.30 MORE per box 

lOt MORE over the price 

12\ MORE over the price 

"These taxes we all pay them RICB OR POOR. •OBODY BSCAPBS. 

STATBBOOD WILL COST YOU TOO IIUCB. 

Vote Commonwealth 
219 

From·Chlcago to Hartford' ana-:::_ · -· ': 

"~ew York. to Orlando, hundte~- oftl\..b:P.$~§h..;._ 

of PUerto Rican voters· have liiobJllz~~ and. . . . . are cl~arlyvoicing thetr':op~ioli~: .... :-

NOt t Renew.· " · 

· IRC Se~ti0fr~9~6~ NEW YORK POST 

NewYorlc,NY 

June 13, 1993 M-CloY. Cuomo .........S 

lhat people wbo llliocl 011 

jobs 11W arc tied 10 Sectioa" · 936 wiD be foltad eo·~e~k 

""PIO)'IIICftt~ 

lbabb In 1M U.S. 

ioland.,penicularl7 , .. .,cw York... · · ·~-·· ·' 

NEW YORK NEWSDAY. 

NewYorlc.NY '-.· 

.Iurie 13,111t3 

-... without Sccdoil936. 

many COIIIplllia would 

lcawtbc l1lancl, CIUiinl I 

lllmclldous rise ill die 

unemploymeatlllc. wlllcb 

Feacly lllndlllll'lt. AJ 

many u 200.000 poopJ. 

could 1ooc their Jabs-• J 

lll! SAN JUAN STAR j SanJuan, PA 

June 13, 1993 • "Pueno Rican Dar Plllde 'I 

Drawt 0\-er I Million.. f Event dodiCIIIOCI lO fiJ)Itto 

.. ,'10936.· 1 

$ih . 10 parti~pate iD 

tilt :J&tb AllMl J'aeiUj 

~~~ .. -i 

oeblde to dcmonalllll· 

sappan of Sectiaa ~ • 

•. ILHISPANO 

· Philadelphia, PA 

June 10. 1993 

"PPIeno Rico can't ao beet 

ill dtilt Ia Ito ocaaomlc ... lopftieoL. •. 

Mr. ·President and Members of Congress: 

Don't bankrupt Puerto Rico's economy. 

!5!. 

2Q-766 - 96 - 8 

. . j 

... 

... 

0 

& 

!. 

"' "' "' ... 

.. ... 

• ! 

I 

... 

il 

u 

... 

i 
220 

WE DISAGREE WITH TREASURY 

ON I.R.C. SECTION 936 

In hla atatement to the Senate Finance Committee on Aprll17,.regardlng 

l'raident Clinton's proposed changet to Section 936, Deputy Assistant SecrelaJY • 

of The Treuury lor Tax Polley, Mr. Samuel Y. Setslons, made several 1tatement1 : 

· · with which we mpec:tfulJy dllagree. 

Treasury 1tll111hat -A..,.._,_ .. .,.,.., ........ -.-..... .. s.-~NioNOiiladb)'~ 

-........_ thoiCNitonlahdyllldl--'<.,-llo•l<li"fll)'. 

We respectfully 4lsagree. The facts are that... 

~t361nl_t..._...,...... ... _.,lho~...,..,_ 

cmlodln'-tollloo...,..IC. ~ln.......-INinclulltierlnatlllldb)'IOMilnlho 

..., ,_._ata "'ttn. ooN~o-IIIIIOifodurlo&- a..ao.-..._ ,_.. Jllafo 

... ~pkturt......Whrnhalllludl-iiiUw-...alll.-~inllll:tasury stalll that 

-TN,......._..,.••podllcubonoAttorpalllwU. __ .,.,._,_ ,..._..,, 

b)' IJinllllll boMIII1olho IMlcl-la~-~~~INU-apltal .__ 

illctnllve II aulod. 

We resprelfully d.lllgree. The faet II lhaL .. 

Tilt m'lllCin -.lei....., lht QP$11 JII'CI"lllcw al!ioclloft""' ladlriJ 10 .... dlaappt-cllhf b6 fliNit-lotl. 'Dawould 1>1,._ lltJ•Ii .. ""-on tho ••lilll>ility llld lhf-ol cndil lnl'umolllco.wllldi-.Jcllnl\lrftalltctlocal-'c ... rity. llllf.......,aboaH«tl'wtloiUoo'o ....,.,.. ......... ~ 

~~ itspeelfuUy add lh&t 

,._....., .. -Ia·~ ... -ron-..,. clock""""'*" ..................... oqylluocl prlal.vilyonu~~~ w,._.,,., ............. tylllltlwfll<clod-

•"moalctlto..........ac-..-

SinctlhtiDI4~UIIIIIIaa_._t\IIMNoi'-IUoolla .. -...., -11011 

lhoir llullllllllld WrtOINCtin -to eopl*lialod. Mow~ lnd- This 

wnnotawW.awlcol-.1ha¥WJloptol_......,_,.,_,whllfWnllobar-...S 

dmnad<...,...._Jn ... a....-.W-IllylnthlllllltCiico\ Now,weClMDI 

-_poll .... tht _,........ """""'"""""" .. ,_-"""" ..... ....._ ·-. llchnoJoslct trod 

PUERTO RICO PRIVATE SECTOR 936 COALITION 

N 

£ 

. 

1"1 

.. .. 

... 

. 

1"1 

... 

I 

... 

... 

u • 

... 

... 

.i 
221 

OURl\ffiSSAGE TO 

AND THE AD:rvnNISTRA 

ON I.R.C. SECTION 936 ... 

• 11w Puerto Rico Prlvatt SeCIOr 936 Coalition r~y cllsapCs wllh TnuWyo1 

ttaleiiU:IIIIIO tlltSenaerfinanceCommillfton lheeflecttallht~chanpt ID 

SecllonP36. 

1mswy !las IIOtptq>ared 111\Jn-deptllltud)'al the Impact ill~ wlllhlw on tho Puerto Rico economy. Trusury'~flllel'neiiii.DII theaubjeetaruotlounded 

en Ill\ analysis ot the Importance ot Section 9361111 t11e Puerto Rleo ICGIIOIII)'. t36 

cmpor&IICII'II senmte, directly al\d indiriiCtly, 45% ol private anployment illl'llerlll 

Rico, pt)' hall ot aD cozporate IIXe&.lll\d hold ON-third ot toW depoclll .In 1M b&Mqays-. . 

Studln ll'ld aurveys conducted In Puerto Rico .Indicate lllat job IDaa caulld by !he 

AdDillllatntian'a p~ w~ ranee between 55.000 and 100.000 repN.a\diiJ bet-en 11"/o al\d lC% of all pnvatH«IOr cnplo;ynwt~L 'tllue tiUIIIbm boll down 

to 111111)' Puerto Rlcarl fllllllllls whose well-belli& depeNI5 en the outco11W .of this ~· . . . . . . . 

11w ecanOIIIic l)'ltem bued en Section 1136 provlda bmcfitJ to both Puerto Rico 

al\d the United States,;AIId Is a by eletwnt Ill the Pllerto Rico/US. plfllllllhlp. 

11w Admini.l:rltlon'l ftYCI'IUM&isiiiS taraeiS lmpOIIIa dlsprq>ortiCNia burden 01\ 

lhe P.R. !CIJI\0111)' ~ 110 the US. eeanomy. 

The prop-d cNr\alf 110 Section 936 an110t ~~~erely t~~lllcranwltal acljutiiNrlt Ill 

taMf. billa r•ci!Cil chqe Ill oureccnomlutruclllre. Sound paUcy .llllklnrrequircs I fuU undtntalldin& of the der.IYIIIvt tlfecll of IUch a chanp. 

11w rnenut-niJIIIa: objecllvw btlncpu!Wed by the Admlnlltrallon do >lOt warrant 

this dqt!'OUI ~ill Puerto Rlco't eccrardc l)'llea\ and Clll W achieved ill 

-ef~AIId- rltlcywaya. Why lab --rydlalps will> the eco- nomic future of Pilato Rico's U million Allwlcan ciliant? 

~TO RICO PRIVAT£ SECJ'OR 936 COALlTION 

... ' 

Cll 

Cll 

.. 

0 

.. 

I 

.. .. 

~ 

.. 

i 
. ,.. .. . ~ ~ : ·. \ . . . ~ . ~ 

~;~.rn J1 i!lJf!rJf""'(~~ ~'J.,.f 'i!~ i!t ;:1 ,~ ~ 1 J t ~ 1l9 ~ .~ t.l l I a!· ·f; ,~~.tB ~ta.l ,11a-1"S3 

r 

l I 1-lli ~~ .. ~~~~~ 1 · 

•tljfl ~ il' !"' l"'P'J t J .J . 

·;I r 11. 

lJ ! J t ~r~ 11. lft- t• i. 

HIUIII ~~~~~ .fr... . . . -J I f ILJ [ .'fl(fJ r J s -- . 

. !lJ:JJsll. =:-J..'-1 '.·- .. . . . .. '.! !~-~:JliJf! tf::. ;:,:).- .. Iii ''llr..f.r lrr .. . . cri . ,1, r.~~tt 11.~_ .. :' . . ; . . . . . ·-~ .. . . . . . . -~ .. : . "; :.- . : :: ~ 

• . :';'l :: :·. ' !; ,; :~: . -.... . -

, . • Roll Call- Maf 10, 1993, page 2 
223 

El N UEVO DIA · MAITES 18 DE JUli00( 19 9 5 

CARTA ABIERTA.AL GOBERNADOR 

Honorable Gobemador Pedro Rossell6: 

Preocupados por nuesa-o futuro, l!'5 empleados de The Upjohn Manufacturins Company 

esllliiO$ atentos a los eventos n:la<ionados con Ia Secci6n 936 clel C6diso de Renw 

lnternas Federal. La infonnaci6n que rec:ibimos indica que Ia posici6n y estratesia aclllal 

de nuestro Gobierno es Ia de no panieipar activamente eA esfuenos dirisidos a apoyar 

esta sec:ci6n. Nos pn:ocupa elefecto que puede tener esta posici6n sobn: los Conl"'sisw 

de los Eslados Unidos. · · 

Hace mAs de 23 alios, The Upjohn Manufaeturins Company deeidi6 establece~ en 

nuesa-a tierra La empn:sa apon6 sus rec:ursos ~ preparar las facilidades, infraesa-uetura 

y maquinarias. Puerto Rico aport6 su mejor rec:urso; Ia sen~&. A a-avts de estos alios esta 

relaci6n ha producido frutos. no s61o en aspectos econ6micoa, sino tambi~n en cnros 

renglones que han colocado a nuestra Isla en el mapa de Ia manufactura de clue mundial. 

Nuestra eompallfa ha hecho grandes aportaciones en Ia economfa local, por medio de 

S.larios, eompras, pago de impuestos y oa-as eonlribueiones como becas, clfnieas de lalud 

y mejoras a infraestrueturas. Como empleados de Upjohn nos sentimos oraullosos de 

toner un patrono preocupado por desarrollar una fuma laboral altamonte eualifK:ada. 

Esta no s61o ha eonlribuido en aspectos lknieos, sino tambitn ha desarrollado pogramas 

dirigidos al mejoramiento personal, prosramas de asisteneia edueacional y de lalud flsiea 

y emoeional para nosotros y nuestros familiares, eonlribuyendo a formar una mejor 

sociedad y un mejor Pueno Rico. 

Sabemos que nuestro Gobiemo esli eonseiente de que Ia industria local eompite dfa 

il dfa con Ia exa-anjera para man~enene eompetitiva mundialmente. En Upjohn estamos 

eomprometidos con el mejoramiento continuo de nuestra eompetitividad para eonverlimos en un suplidor de rango mundial. Sin embargo, alln con el talento y Ia fuerza 

trabajadora altamonte· capacilada con que contamos, estamos luehando por compelir en 

igualdad de condiciones eon OliOS pafaes, los cuales eslin ofreciendo ineentivos similares 

o mejores a los ofrec:idos por IIOSOl!OS. 

sOiior Gobemada, Pueno Rico 110 es Ia oinica opei6n para Jcs empr.sarios de las compalllas 

acogidas a los benefocios de Clll Secci6n.. Para nosotros. los miles de puenorriquelloa 

que dependemos direela o indireetamente de ella. s61o nos queda D1lir nuestras voces y 

pedirle una vez mu a aquellos qu~ rec:ibieron nueaa-a confianza para ieJir nueacros 

destinos, que ae delienda en forma eMrgica y proac:liva ante el Concreso este csliiiiiO 

para continuar con eJ desarrollo eeon6mico de riucstro pueblo. 

<;ontialmente, 

Emple.dos de The Upjohn ManuriCIDrln& Company 

·Arecibo. Puerto Rico 
224 

·~ . 

An Open Letter to .Puerto Rico's Citizens I .,1 y ;~ • • o •• I 

From Schering .. Pl~ugh Corporation ' 

W ashinaton policymalten- onxiouo "'find nys;., bolance' ' ~- :~.~ Puefto Rican d.unon. Puefto Rico i:.mily lnstitu«, 

the nation's budaet-.,. qain examini01 Section 936 o( the : ~ ......... Rico/USA Foundi.tion, Center for Oiqnools & 

lntemal Revenue Code o( the Unitod Sates. Thistu provision, "; T......,...t, Fodendon of National Volunwy Health 

subswnially reducod in 1991, now provides limited incenti ... U. 1 'A-clatlono, Univenky t>f PUeno Rico Collqa o( . 

U.S. manufacturetS openotinl in Puefto RiCo. It may 10011 be in •• Jl· ·. E.,ineerinc'and l'hamacy, Solvation Amiy, Pannenhip for 

funher jeopardy if new leaislation is propooed. • . ; · -/ V....·me l'llatO llico. Ponce Scheol o( Modicine, Junior • 

Sc;bcrin•·Piouvh aincC 1012 me drhc Ialmd'• lc:edtai ._ . ~~-~~~and man~ _ml ~lty ~~ ~ 

::::,~~;~;.i:,·~~=:.--s::;~; dcbm ~~ ::· ~~~,k;~rtvC ~~ ~ ~~nti it;(&j.jn~t(_ Pwao Step•, clrjzcna. tnclwJ!nr wr up;ifta aM auppljm. 1 "" :. Mrtnl dcnrnde m prgyidlv WMIKM1! wttb gpdum :~ • . . ·: ... _: -tnan'uf*:rutrd er plqbeiJy c;gmpctld\Js; Alii· If tllx benefia are -~ 

We 010 a phannaceuticalllild health care poduc11 c:ompony that ' -~,reduced in Puefto Rico other coudlria oud, a beland MaW conduc11 ill busineso undet the income-bosod section of the ' and Si"'""""' will ha~ pnferable _.,lc advan~ due m • 

,.vilod 199llaw. Under this option, we will....,.,. this year lower openotinl coo11 ond lonr·l<nll tax beneft11 auannteed by 

aboot $4 in income for the Puerto Rico economy for every S 1 eX cana.cu. 

taX benefits provided. -. ,_~. ;:v.thouc·~--competitiv~ and m edftntaaes- d~ite 

.. mutually beneficial relationship with our excellent Pue~ ~-~~labor force:!~ technoiCJIY. ~ 

~ico Ia~ force continues to be Schering,~lough's operatine . ru~~e~~ i~ varied ::i~ Pue:,' Ri:eA=.•:c en::·· 

nnperat!Ve. Ov~ rhe put decade, we have tncreased our made to Section 936 in the Reconciliation Act o/1993 ~ti\OW 

employment he~e by 2SO percent and have spent about as much virtual! all incentives for lll to establish additiOnal capita(, 

.:>n n~w ca_pita! tnve~~nne~c per employee as we h~ve on wages intensi.!e lions on the Island. anJ bencftu. Moreover, tn 1985 we were a foundtng member of opera 

the Puerto Rico Community Foundation and continue to make Indeed, it may become a necessary economic decision to reduce 

very substllntial charitable contributiON to worthy local · . OUr manufacturine presence and to employ significantly fewer 

organizations. Scherine,PJoueh's impact on the Puerto Rico ·~;people in Puerto Rico. 

economy through 1994 has been: HiaiHech capital,intensive. industries such as Schering,Pioueh 

• Creation of 1,842 joba create better and more pennanent quality jobs, pay bettei- wages. 

• A capiml i~vesrment exceeding $300 million and are essential to formine ar\d maintainif\11 larae middle cl•. 

• An economic Mvelopcr of non-merropolitan-a~a regions, But IS one of Section 936's capital,intcnsivc businesses whose 

includine Manad, Lu Piedras and Cidra. annUli fmancial investment per worker can be as mtKh u six 

In 1994, Schering,Pioueh's direct conttibutioru to the local 

economy were: 

• S60 million in payroll and benefiu 

• S75 million in local wndor purchases 

• $45 million in income, rat estate, personal property, 

municipal and employment taxes 

• $13 million in capital expcndi(urcs. 

In total, $193 million. 

Our Puerto RK.:lJ subsidiaries, Scherint·Pioue\l Producu Inc. · 

and Schering-Piough del C.ribe Inc., obo promo<e economic 

growth between the US. mainland economy and Puerto Rico 

<hrouKh: 

S75 million rer year in purchJscs by these operations frOm . U.S. mainlanJ supplien, lncludine Schcrine-Piouib facilities. 

Our support of Puerto Rk:an busineu and civic orpnizatlons 

includes: 

timel the annual fixed investment, we mun have OQC[JtjDf 

I:IIDIImaill· 

... We .ftp ~ Rico"s ckbens,. inc:ludiRI our 'usociatn.and 

-supp~~en, to continue to work IOftlher in the quat for cu.t 

-._m~_: We..,. you 10 pedtioq Puerto Rico · 

ID"ft'DIDtDt officials to unite in support of Section 916 ando 

· the benefib_ it offen to c-nieo openori .. in Puerto Rico. 

.PiiuO help 110 ooainlaiD OUT producriw .. rmenhip with 

P.-oRicol 

._.·!, 

John E. Nine 

President -Technical Opentions 

Schcri01·Pioueh Oxporation ' 

. 'h . . 

-~ 

. . ~ ,. 't• ...... '. 
-Uik'>J· ::·f·' .. ;, ~ ~ 

r. .1=·· ., ~: ··· . 

: .. -; 

' . J• 

. ' ~ , ·-:.... -··r .-1; ~ .·,, · : -· 

225 

-:. ~ :: . 

PIJARMACEUTICAL INDUSTRY ASSOCIATION 

of Puerto Rico, Inc. 

T 

~~~Jr:.:.~· : ·· :: OPEN LtrrER ·'! .;.\ ..;);,;;,. -- -- · .. •,, . • 

, :.·::;·. :'' l'o rim HoNoRABLE PEDRO RossEIL6, GoVERNOR OF PuERTo Rico 

: . . : .. · ' . I 

·::: :;.~ ~~ - - . ' .·-.: .· ,· ~ .. :;: . ~- ·t~~ ........... ,. .. .-.d·alooclolea.cb• ................. ~.._, ...... IJro. 

' ' .w. .. ...,ir~- ... -..--........... ____ ...,..,..._ ... _..,._......,..... __ ..._, 

I ;t. :~~-... ----:*·~~~::::;~-.....-IOGP--~.-.-----

' ~,i6 ~.;,.,.-=:::""'-""ht.:;!e..."':!;.~~::.~~=-":!'.:;.::=:=== ·. 

I ' :.~ ( :=~~:::.:-::::::27~~--~~~~-~-~ ioalo ....... ~ ... _,....sbip_i*_.....,.,_,..... _,._~-..... i*··--·---.,..,...... .... · , ' ' diNcdy MUihatabk ~our purdwc ola wide ftricry oiJOOdl aDd ICI'Yica&ona hcno J.ac. ....,&icrs. Mary~ olodtct jobl~rccraled iD me W\liC'C 11aar •· 

••nMII•oldlcQIIDIM:I'iaCNr«onomyofour•blraocial~. 1' , . . . • 

I ... =~---~.'; .. ..,., ~.--~~ 1500 llllillion . ... to ... ~,;;;-.:=::JJ.~n..-- JIIcWna ..._, ........ -.iclpll.,;~.;~_:1~....,.;_ lia:.c ...... 'llilll ~ ... .., adllct ~ \ ~ .- __.at.....,mco ,~ ... mt Sumuyolsht ,_..,aa ..-dl atta~. · !!": j 

... · . .:1.~\ -:- ~: ~~; .... ,~ .. i£1\!..f:W i,;L"'""l0i.i11&::• !J..:·:- ~,.. _ ·: · _• ., - ···ry ' .. .. . <.......,AIIe•-·• MftnlidUCJMWfCr*-hncdonl e.taw......,._IGIDanlllrfpglitkal~'•CIIIIpllp:•iii_,.., COI'f'Udthc · # , 

-;.. :r:~..,h to voce illanr pw:n II'IIMCT. Wt rapca Cftfl' lnciMdual't risht tocrpa&llil orllcrcpinkln CD poliDcat andacbc:ra.ttcn. bur do DOI'IftCIIIUftll' • 1 :- .. z-:=.~=CIMtonment Ntylnancill conaibudontaur!MI'flbal_,.ue~poUiiaJaniOellftllricdy~-wkbialhckpllimill . : 

.' ~doDM""Dbmoneyawrf•hrahcno.,~:..:a-........,.,tucnoJi-'..,~ ~~~'7:, . ·~ ='='::W:::!:!'!~ru:.c,~~sa~l;tc,.~-:s.~~~~:!r~aac~.:::~c= V .....U,(-....... U13millioainl994). 'IIoio•.,,.-looiamo""'""'Yood_,_,.....__ .... ____ ~- ....... · 

~axbupi6cMt.an ~but. . . am.u' . •. .· .. ~~;j: ~"·:) ·.~ •. " . : · .. !.,; 

-i:;;: ~"'f"-· ......... ...;...;..,_..._, ... --....i...._ ..... .,_.-.. • .; .. C;r i~ ...;.....,.-". } • . • _ ... _ .... _,"""'"""'.....,_, .. - ......... lifo lo ... _ood_~-....... . : ...... ~ m ourpllna, DOW c:GftldNlC 1hc C!Dft ofa.Jf'OWIDIIocdy-cMMiill ...... IDd..nke:IIOilr. . ' 

. ·-i ·=-; ···o;.,_.........,. - ~-:\t l : . _____ . """'"'r ___ CDJtiawNrri' .:. c-....,._ . .... _....... ___ 

. ,_•., . 

' ' flllollhtitfiuMki'OIDw. Danl1ionlto~~..,_,_....___.tolppnllimlldyS4 7MillioaiD19H.. . 

~'"" ~i' · ; r .· n&IIAJUNCa. • . :. 1. . • . 

.. ... i.~,__......._to_, • ...,;a..e ......... ,...._-.__.,._.,..._,"'aio_..._ .. ,__ .. ...,~ · _.._.,ilct._hor.-k:ltrltlildtcl99J~o1Sccdaa916~-poiac.O........,.,..,_bt:k ... --.•._..,wp~y . 

'- ·. ~=dedlke~~~~acwJif'DIIuciiOI.,...._iDDrW.,...iiiiWnoJ.ic:!l•lhc_.ol ..... ..-. ..... apciMioDoldairlt• ·. 

::: ::m-:.na ... h~-==,.":::~--=---=~~.:=:.:::.:,;~._-:.~.:.: :; , ...,...__,._aniDd.,...ct.nphlpluu;bapu-..and::t".::::..a....._.alllftralnacthtry. Taa-.....~rea..,....., lnw -.:. 

i •~d' ........ bdi:n iDab ~._..,. .. .,..,ol-~ ........ -~ .. ~.....,. .. t.e~ ~ ~puWidJf:lftla'llpcnc~Min:l:wtiaJpaliticw; Wr:.U.shatiftlf'IMnS .. JOWOWIIc:onct.ionlrcprdinsthtilluaU'I'OUftdiDt;tbc:S«'Doft9J6 ..... . • ~ wt: bdicw II ...alto 011r aN Pucno lico'• IMcun:, you COMidcr dlat cruW •ltcrt -.cl. , . . . . · · · , ·· 1 

!J i:c: ·~j.· -; , . ·' ··· · . . i 

}J~~* :":i, ~~~~·. · ·.:!~.';· . :.• . · v .. z.~ .. "!!:... ;.~ ~j? I r.,J.''_: y ,· .- - (wv.s. ..... ,, J 
226 

EL NUEVO DIA - WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 27, 1995 

LUIS DAVILA COLON 

OUTLOOK 

THE PILL-BASED COLONY 

This electoral event was shamelessly 

steered, controlled 

and subsidized by a aeries of corporate 

enterprises. 

The New Progressive Party is the only political animal that 

continues to pet a doq that bites it four times. 

Last sunday, the NPP suffered its third consecutive electcral 

defeat at the hands of the same 936 corporation-Popular Democratic 

Party coalition that aabotaqed ita plebiscite bill in the 

conqreaaional hearinqs of 1989-92; that defeated statehood in the 

plebiscite of 1993; that helped destabilize it in the 1994 

referendum campaiqn; and that now, in 1995, has aqain confronted 

and decisively defeated it for control of the national Democratic 

Party machinery and lobbyinq in Conqress. 

On. April 14, 1991, I commented in my column titled, "The PDP, 

Inc,,• that this political entity "qoverns definitively, 

independently of electoral results. Throuqh its contacts with a 

sophisticated industrial~financial-labor-social complex, the PDP 

has dominated the country's politics, even when it was out of 

qovernment.• Prophetic words. The electoral sweep of this 

invincible economic-political ar.ada on Sunday returned Puerto Rico 

to the 1930s, when the country was owned by the qreat suqar 

plantations that controlled the land, the politics and the colonial 

qovernment at its whim. Now, as then, the traqedy of Puerto Rico is 
227 

that the more we approach the future, the more we are submerged in 

the past. The more we become free, the more we are enslaved. 

The great lesson of the Democratic Party primaries of '95 is 

that a cortsiderable part of the electorate still responds -- more 

than we'd like to believe -- to the fear and economic terrorism 

that guarantee the permanence of commonwealth status. This 

emotional insecurity leads us to sidestep the true and rational to 

listen to the voice of fear. In this context, we are going back to 

the future. 

To an electorate that is tricked, manipulated and conditioned 

to accept the unreasonable, to believe the unbelievable, and be 

distracted by the irrelevant, trading a vote for a job. In a 

country whose distinctive mark of 80 years of "progress" consists 

of a change in title of its true owners, from the sugar plantations 

to the pill factories. From Puerto Rico sugar to Lederle, Inc. From 

the Sugar Barons to the holy Industrial Boys of the politics of the 

ostrich. 

After all has been said and written about this primary, it 

will be immaterial whether Celeste Benitez won over Carlos Romero 

Barcel6, or whether the PDP once again routed the NPP, or whether 

there are more Democrats than Republicans, and all of these 

inconsequential diversions of the everyday political schemes. What 

should remain for posterity is that, in 1995, in a country that 

calls itself "democratic," this electoral event was shamelessly 

steered, controlled and subsidized by a series of corporate 

enterprises that enjoy the privilege of corporate tax exemption 

granted by an entire people, and that, taking advantage of ·:he 
228 

benefits given by that people, exploit the opportunity to campaign 

in favor of one group of Puerto Ricans and against another grcup, 

to .insure that the results at the polls would be compatible with 

their private financial interests. 

This crass corruption of the public trust, of free elections 

and the right of our electorate to free determination will continue 

to be a determining factor in future elections unless it is 

outlawed and prohibited by law with the most severe criminal 

sanctions. In a democracy such as ours, where all persons should be 

equal under the law, there cannot be entities that are more equal 

than others. It is a tragicomedy that the NPP itself, that laments 

falling victim once again to this corporate-electoral management, 

is the same government that not so long ago was in bed with tt~se 

multinationals, vowing to the country it would defend the tax 

exemption of these big economic interests to the end. The same 

statahooders who today cry about the intervention of the 936 

corporations in local politics, are the same rulers who have not 

dared to outlaw and prohibit this conduct. in the same unequivocal 

way that Articles 8. 012 and 8. 015 of our Electoral Act· prohibit 

banking and institutions and corporations in the process of 

obtaining government permits or licenses from contributing, 

directly or indirectly, to the political campaigns of any party in 

Puerto Rico. 

If the NPP fails to learn this lesson, it will get the same 

aadicine in the future froa the pharmaceuticals, in much larger and 

aore bitter doses. In 1992, they defeated statehood. In 1994 they 

destabilized the govarriment. In 1995 they destroyed Romero. In 
229 

1996, it will be the turn of [Gov. Pedro] Rossell6 .••• 

Economic terrorism and the blackmailing of employees that took 

place in this campaign reached such levels that even the 

Nationalist Party made the ridiculous threat of violence if the 

Congress dared to eliminate the tax exemption on the billionaire 

earnings of the 936 corporations. Seeing is believing, My Cid . The 

independence movement, which has been the victim most affected by 

the economic terror of dependency on federal funds and the loss of 

tax privileges, repeating the premise of this crass intimidation, 

screams from the trenches of Lares that "eliminating this privilege 

would be to strand an entire people that lifts itself out of hunger 

with revolutionary fervor," If that's the way it is now, when 

Congress announces that the tax exemption on corporate earnings 

will be eliminated, what will it be like when the republic comes 

and federal funds are taken away from the people. Incredible, but 

true. The shout reduced to a squeak. The revolution in the service 

of the tax exemption. From socialism to socialism to beggary. 

Nothing new. The unknown dimension of this colonial and pill-based 

Macondo. 
230 

COMMI'ITEE ON RESOURCES 

U.S. ROUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20515 

TESTIMONY OF 

JOSE ANTONIO CASILLAS 

AND 

EMILIO A. SOLER MARl 

CO-CHAIRS 

OF 

CAMBIOXXI 

A NON-GOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATION 

ON 

THE FUTURE OF PUERTO RICO 

SEPTEMBER 21, 1995 

1324 LONGWORTH ROUSE OFFICE BUILDING 

THE CAPITOL 
231 

TESTIMONY OF CAMBIO XXI, A PUERTO RICAN NONGOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATION FOR POLITICAL EDUCATION, 

BEFORE THE SUBCOMMITTEES ON NATIVE AMERICAN AND 

INSULAR AFFAIRS AND WESTERN HEMISPHERE INTERNATIONAL 

RELATIONS OF mE UNITED STATES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

mE CAPITOL, WASHINGTON, SEPTEMBER 21, 1995. 

HONORABLE CHAIRMEN GALLEGLY AND BURTON, AND 

CONGRESSMEN: 

We are attorneys Jose Antonio Casillas and Emilio Soler Marl, Co-Chairs of Cainbio XXI, a 

Puerto Rican non-profit, non-governmental civic organization for political education. 

We appear before you today to propose to your Committees that --in fulfillment of the popular 

will of 53% of the electorate in Puerto Rico in the plebiscite held on November, 1993-the Congress 

of the United States enact by legislation a Bll.ATERAL COMPACT between Puerto Rico and the 

United States, as a result of a consensus of ideas and will, towards the 21• Century. 

There is an ample precedent for the approval of such BILATERAL COMPACT in the 

decolonization of the Republic of the Marshall Islands and the Federated States ofMicronesia, in the 

Pacific. 

This would be the only democratic, moral and proper response, to the results of the aforestated 

exercise in self-determination by the people ofPuerto Rico, undertaken in the exercise of their "right 

to petition for the redress of grievances", as clearly stated in the Plebiscite Law of 1993. 

The definition of the alternative that won a plurality of 48% of the votes in the plebiscite asked 

for the adoption of such a BILATERAL COMPACT between Puerto Rico and the United States, so 

that our people can develop its future by their own means and resources. 

We are hereby submitting to you as an Attachment, a draft of such a BILATERAL COMPACT 

for inclusion in the official record and consideration by your Committees and all federal agencies 

concerned. It was previously submitted in Testimony Before the Co-Coordinators of the Interagency 

Working Group on Puerto Rico on the Future ofPuerto Rico, at their offices, on June 22, 1995. 

CAMBIO XXI was founded on September 23, 1994 as a non-profit non-governmental civic 

organization to promote education on the political relationship between Puerto Rico and the United 

States. On October 4, 1994, its 40 founders signed a PETITION to the White House and the 

Congress that is included in our single Attachment. 

l 
232 

We also include a memorandum on the implications of United States citizenship of Puerto 

Ricans prepared by Luis Vega, Legal Counsel of our sister organization PROELA; as well as a 

proposal for a new economic covenant between Puerto Rico and the United 

States based on the new BILATERAL COMPACT prepared by economists in PROELA towards a self-sufficient economy in harmony with the United 

States; as well as an analysis by one of our members of public opinion polls showing that voters 

prefer civic orpnizations to make proposals to implement the plebiscite results; and also a public 

information plan prepared by our Executive Director Mr. David Ortiz, aU directed to implementation of the vote. 

We also include an analysis of the 1993 plebiscite published in the prestigious journal ~ 

Histm:I in its edition ofMarch, 1994 prepared by our political analyst Juan M Garcia Passalacqua, 

that we suggest should be included in the Congressional Record for the information of members of 

Congress. 

We are not here to attack others, but only to propose legislation to implement the option that 

won the plebiscite. It is an autonomous status founded on a bilateral compact outside of the Territorial Clause of the Constitution of the United States. At present, it is the only solution that is 

convenient and acceptable to Puerto Rico and the United States. 

In the Summit of the Americas in Miami in 1994, to which CAMBIO XXI was invited as an 

observer group, new economic strategies were adopted for the Hemisphere. Measures such as the 

elimination of restrictions in the maritime shipping laws have begun to be considered, and we favor 

them. Yet, the goals of the Summit can only be achieved succesfuUy in the case of Puerto .Rico by 

our sovereign insertion in the global economy through a BILATERAL COMPACT with the United 

States. 

Our proposed BILATERAL COMPACT would also comply with the requirements of American constitutional law as well as with the pertinent resolutions of the United Nations General Assembly and with the 1978 Resolution of the DecoloRization Committee. 

We arc certain that understanding and generosity wiU prevail, and that consensus wiU be achieved 

to implement the BILATERAL COMPACT we hereby propose by aU sectors of civil society in 

Puerto Rico. 

We assure you of this consensus because our proposal is the result of innumerable consultations with persons of all ideologies, outside of formal or traditional party affiliations. That is the 

strengh of a fourth alternative brought to you by our non-governmental organization, CAMBIO 

XXI. 

The alternative is rooted on a consensus ground of the three mayor political currents for the 

last two centuries; autonomic, independentist and annexationist. Puerto Rico has had a rich internal 

democratic history ii:t which all these three alternatives have been discussed and considered and is 

ready to assume its duty. 

3 
233 

We are accompanied here by other members of our Board ofDirectors, with specific expertise 

in each one of the areas under oversight by your Committees, and they are able and ready to answer 

any questions your may have on our proposals. 

We thank you for the invitation to appear before you on this historic occasion for our people. 

We are ready for questions. 

Enclosure: A.ttachment (80 pages). 

4 
SJJPPLEMENIAL SHEET 

The eoclosed testimony is submitted on behalf of Cambio XXI, a non-profit, non-governmental orpnization for civic and political education, duly registered as such with nwnber 26,535 in 

the Department of State ofPuerto Rico. 

The full names of those persons offering testimony are Former Judge Jose Antonio Casillas 

and Attorney Emilio Soler Marl, with address at 1850 Fernandez Juncos Avenue, Santurce, Puerto 

Rico, and/or Box 5734, Santurce, Puerto Rico, 00906-5734. Our telephone number is (809) 268-

4200, Fax (809) 268-3660. 

Our TOPICAL OUlUNE and SUMMARY is: 

Cambio XXI proposes that in fulfillment of the popular will of 53% of the electorate in 

Puerto Rico in the plebiscite held on November, 1993 -the Congress of the United States~ 

legislation a BILATERAL COMPACT between Puerto Rico and the United States. Cambio XXI, 

in its Attachment, includes a specific proposal of eighteen (18) pages as a suggested working paper 

for said BILATERAL COMPACT to be adopted by the House ofRepresentatives and Senate of the 

United States and sent to the President for his signature and enactment, as a response to the petition 

of the people ofPuerto Rico. 

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, today September 21, 1995, by our Designated Representative, 

D.Wo;TIZ ANGLERO 

Executive Director 

5 
October 17, 1995 

Luis Vega Ramos 

235 

PROELA 

P.O. Box 2864 

San Juan, Puerto Rico 00902 

President and designated representative 

PROELA 

Tel. (809) 767-4501 

Summary of Statement to the Subcommittee on Native American and Insular 

Affairs and the Subcommittee on the Western Hemisphere of the U.S. House of 

Representatives 

On November 14, 1993, Puerto Ricans voted for the development of their 

present status, the Estado Libre Asociado, through a "bilateral compact that can only 

be amended by mutual consent." 

The main issue the winning definition addressed was that of the applicability 

of the Territorial Gause of the U.S. Constitution to Puerto Rico. The voters clearly 

expressed their desire that Puerto Rico not be subjected to Congress' plenary powers 

under that clause. 

A bilateral compact is a contract between equals. Territories cannot make 

bilateral compacts with the federal goverment. Puerto Rico's aspirations for 

mutuality and prosperity, along with its strong desire to affirm its national identity, 

make this type of arrangement a perfect vehicle for its future relations with the 

United States. 

To this day, the US. has entered into a couple of bilateral compacts. Contrary 

to the commonwealth arrangement, these compacts are comprehensive documents 

that delegate specific powers to the federal goverment, instead of general ones. 

When adopted for Puerto Rico, the bilateral compact will give stability and 

permanence to Section 936 benefits by including them within its terms. Reductions 

to incentives will only occur if they are part of a mutual agreement that substitutes 

them "with benefits substantially equivalent to such reductions." 

There is no legal or constitutional impediment to the inclusion of a 

provision in the bilateral compact that preserves the U.S. citizenship of all persons 

born in Puerto Rico. 

The adoption of a bilateral compact wiU solve the problems that the status 

quo creates for Puerto Rico and the United States. Confusion, dependence and 

uncertainty wiU give way to political dignity, self-sufficiency and stability. Puerto 

Rico and the United States must reach the twenty-first century with a relationship 

that is mutually beneficial and a credit to the democratic aspirations and ideals of 

both nations. A bilateral compact is the best way to achieve this goal. 
236 

PROELA 

P.O. Box 2864 

San Juan, Puerto Rico 00902 

Statement of Luis Vega Ramos, President of PROELA, to the Subcommittee on 

Native American and Insular Affairs and the Subcommittee on the Western 

Hemisphere of the U.S. House of Representatives Regarding the Response to the 

1993 Plebiscite on the Political Status of Puerto Rico 

Washington, D.C. 

October17, 1995 

PROELA is a civic organization that for nineteen years has advocated in 

Puerto Rican, federal and international forums for the development of the current 

political status within the context of a bilateral association. We took active part in 

the status plebiscite campaign of 1993. 

Today, we come before these Subcommittees on behalf of the hundred of 

thousands of Puerto Ricans who voted in favor of the Estado Libre Asociado. 

I. THE PEOPLE'S MANDATE FOR A BILATERAL COMPACT 

On November 14th, 1993, Puerto Ricans, exercising of their constitutional 

right to petition the government for the redress of grievances' and their natural 

right to self-determination, voted on the future status of the island. These were the 

results: 

Commonwealth 823, 258 

Statehood 785, 859 

Independence 75,253 

48.4% 

46.2% 

4.4%2 

The triumphant definition stated that the relationship between Puerto Rico 

' Amendment I, U.S. Constitution. 

• Garda Passalacqua, 'The 1993 Plebiscite in Puerto Rico", Institute for Puerto Rican Policy, 1993, 

page 13. 
237 

and the United States was to be developed within "a bilateral compact that can only 

be altered by mutual consent."' Now, in order to implement that mandate, we must 

ascertain the proper meaning of the phrase "a bilateral compact which can only be 

altered by mutual consent."• 

The main issue this phrase was that of the applicability of the Territorial 

Gause of the U.S. Constitution to the current status. In 1990, the Popular Democratic 

Party faced the issue with a resolution that stated that all status options (including 

Estado Libre Asociado) had to be understood as being outside Territorial Clause 

powers.' This resolution, which has not been repealed to this day, was one of the 

bases of the plebiscite definition of Estado Libre Asociado.' 

A bilateral compact is a contract between parties with equal juridical capacity. 

According to international law, this means that the parties have to be sovereign 

political entities; according to U.S. Constitutional Law, it means that neither of the 

parties can be a territory, under a trusteeship agreement or under the Tex:ritorial 

Clause. A political entity subordinated to the plenary powers of Congress cannot 

enter into a bilateral compact with its superior. The. only way to enter into a compact 

witt the federal government is to be sovereign and outside the Territorial Clause.' 

'Commonwealth definition, supra, note 3. 

•The Washington Post, November 19, 1993, page A54. 

• Popular Democratic Party, Resolution of the General Council, November 17, 1990. 

• Medina, Jorge L. '"PPD drafts new definition of commonwealth for the ballot", The San Juan Star, 

1\aesday, July 6, 1993; Martinez, Andrea: 'Sencilla y ganadora' Ia definici6n del ELA", El Nuevo Dia, 

Tuesday, March 6, 1993, page 20. 

' In Matter of Bowoon Sllngsa Co., LID, 720 F.2d. 595 (1983), the 9th Circuit recognized the 

applicability of United Nations' Resolutions 1514(XV) and 1541(XV) to the associated states, forcing 

the United States to comply with these n;solutions. 

2 
238 

II. THE COMPACT OF FREE ASOCIATION BETWEEN THE UNITED 

STATES, THE MARSHALL ISLANDS AND THE FEDERATED STATES OF 

MICRONESIA 

It has been argued that under the U.S. Constitutional system, it is impossible 

to enter into bilateral compacts.' Yet as of this day, there are two examples that 

contradict this argument. Let us take a brief look at them. 

In 1986, Congress, through P.L. 99-239', entered into a "Compact of Free 

Association" with the Marshall Islands and the Federated States of Micronesia. This 

compact was the result of a process of mutual determination, in which the people 

voted to end their trust territory status and "to enter into relationships of free 

association which provide a full measure of self-government for the peoples of the 

Marshall Islands and the Federated States of Micronesia."" 

The compact is a comprehensive document that regulates all areas of the 

relations between the federal goverment and the associated states. Contrary to the 

commonwealth arrangement, it operates by specific delegations of concrete powers 

to the U.S. It clearly recognizes the sovereignty of the associated states over all 

matters not specifically delegated, and limits the sphere of action of the fede~al 

govetment to those included in the document. 

The compact is divided into four titles: Governmental Relations, Economic 

Relations, Security and Defense Relations, and General Provisions. They deal with 

1 See "lnvtntiv~ Shlftslflllnsltip t>s. Tltt Ttrritorill/ C/11us~: Tlrt Constitutionality of Agnrmtnts 

Limiting Tn'ritorild Pown's", 60 Virginia Law Rev 1041 (1974), at 1041: 'The absolute terms of the 

territorial clause seem to imply that Congress is restricted in its choice of relations with such areas to 

the frequently unsatisfactory extremes of annexation or complete independence. Thus, the clause 

appears to be the major legal obstacle to some form of 'free association' as an in-between alternative.• 

This quote did not take into consideration the feasibility of an arrangement of free association with a 

jurisdiction outside of the scope of the Territorial Clause. 

'99 Stat. 1771. 

"Id. at1801. 

3 
239 

everything from foreign affairs, environmental protection and grant assistance, to 

the permanence of Section 936 benefits and defense and security provisions. A 

special conference and dispute resolution mechanism is also included, consisting of 

an arbitration board composed of representatives of both parties. Finally, Section 441 

states that this compact may be terminated by "mutual agreement" and subject to 

the formalities described in the compact." 

The federal courts have made an important clarification concerning the 

nature of the compact. They have established that the options of free association and 

commonwealth are different and distinguishable. Under the first, the associated 

state is self-governing, the sovereignty of the U.S. does not apply and federal laws 

can only apply by mutual consent. Commonwealth, on the other hand, is defined as 

a status similar to Guam's, an unincorporated territory of the United States.u 

One final note, the Compact of Free Association has been given international 

recognition by ~e United Nations, which has accepted both associated states (with 

the strong sponsorship of the United States) as members. 13 

III. A BILATERAL COMPACT FOR PUERI'O RICO 

A BILATERAL COMPACT would tackle and solve the problems facing both 

Puerto Rico and the U.S. For Puerto Rico, it will solve the problem of juridical 

ambiguity by clearly stating the non-territorial nature of the relationship. As it 

enters into the compact, Congress would unequivocally dispose of its plenary 

powers over Puerto Rico under the Territorial Clause. Once Puerto Rico is outside 

the Territorial Gause, it will have all the attributes of a sovereign entity, only 

delegating those powers specifically included in the compact. This recognition of 

" Id. at 1829. 

·•• Mtlttn ofBowoon SlutgSIJ Co. UD, 720 F.2d. 595 (9th Circ., 1983); U.S. 1>. Cof1illgton, 783 F.2d. 

1052 (9th Circ., 1985). 

"S/Rts/704 (1991); Security Council Resolution No. 704, August 9, 1991. 

4 
240 

self-goverment should not limit itself to internal affairs, it must include the power 

to conduct foreign affairs as well. That way, Puerto Rico will enter the twenty-first 

century as a player in the international game and not as an appendage of the U.S. 

Recognizing Puerto Rico's authority to conduct foreign relations, will allow 

new economic opportunities for the island. Additionally, a guarantee in the compact 

to maintain the present level of federal funding for a reasonable amount of years, 

will promote, if used correctly, the Puerto Rican economy. 

The compact should also include a provision stating that non entitlement 

programs funds should be given to the Government of Puerto Rico in a block grant, 

with the assurance that they will be used to develop infrastructure. If this is done, 

the day will come when Puerto Rico will cease to depend exclusively on federal 

funds and tax benefits for a viable economy. 

The establishment of a bilateral compact will also solve the issue of Puerto 

Rico's identity. Knowing that Puerto Rico is a partner on equal footing with the 

United States will reinforce Puerto Rico's identity as a proud, "distinct" people, as 

was recognized by President Clinton in 1992." This will strengthen our belief in our 

own capabilities. 

The bilateral compact also has benefits for the United States. Once Puerto 

Rico's relationship with the United States complies with the international criteria 

for political association, the international charges of U.S. colonialism will be 

dropped. 

The economic provisions of the compact will have the effect of reducing the 

economic costs of the relationship. As Puerto Rico developes a self-sustaining 

economy, the federal goverment will be liberated from providing for us. 

Once the compact is in place, Puerto Rico will not need statehood to have the 

" LeHer from President-elect William ). Clinlon lo Pedro Rosselhl on lhe laHer's inaguralion as 

C..ovemor of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, December 30, 1992. 

5 
241 

powers to fashion its future. Because Puerto Rican attachment to statehood is mostly 

for practical and economical reasons, and not for ideological or cultural ones, the 

moment the U.S. concedes more political powers to Puerto Rico and creates the base 

for self-sustaining economic growth, support for statehood will start to diminish. 

Congress would avert a petition for statehood from a 500 year old, Spanish-speaking 

Caribbean nation. The U.S. would avoid its Quebec. 

The desirability of this relationship has been discussed through the years. 

Scholars and political analysts have written about it." The international community 

has recognized it as a legitimate option. "' Puerto Rican political actors have actively 

spoken for this type of relationship in the island media, in the halls of Congress, and 

in the United Nations.11 The people of Puerto Rico .voted for it. The time has come 

for Congress and the Administration to evaluate this alternative for Puerto Rico 

and take. a position. 

The bilateral compact that establishes the Free Associated State of Puerto Rico 

(in Spanish it would continue to be called Estado Libre Asociado) must clarify the 

'

1 Fem6s L6pez-Cepero, P11erto Rico Sober11110 y AsociiUio, San Juan, Puerto Rico, 1990; Garda 

Passalacqua and Rigau (editors), RepMbliu Asocilld11 y Libn Asocillci611: DoCII,..,taci61t lk 1111 Debate, 

Editorial Atl4ntico, 1987; Aponte P~rez, •u Descolonizaci6n via Librt Asociacion·, Revista dtl 

Coltgio dt Abogados dt Putrlo Rico, Vol. 40, No. 3, August 1979, pages 449-473; Fem4ndez, Juan. 

"Evo/uci6n del Conctplo dt Librt Asociaci6n en las Naciones Unidas•, Rroista dtl Coltgio dt 

Abogados dt PutriD Rico, Vol. 43, No. 2, May 1982, pages 173-203. 

"Resolution of the U.N. Special Committee on Decolonization, September 12, 1978, A/33/23/Rev. 1. 

" Rigau, Statement given to the Subcommittee on Insular Affaairs, Committee on Interior and 

International 

~ 

Affairs, U.S. House of Representatives, June 28, 1990; 

~ 

Statemmt girHn to the U.N. Special Committee on Decolotrization, August 13, 1991; 

Statement given to the Special ]oint Commission on the Status Pltbiscite of the Putrlo 

Rican Ltgisbllure, June 16, 1993; 

Ortiz Guzmdn. Stalt111e111 of the Juwntud Autolll'mista Puertorri1fueiia to the Special Joint 

Commission on the Status Pltbiscite of lhe Puerto Ria111 Ugislllture, JU11t16, 1993 

Vega Ramos, Statement given by the Juvmtud Univtrsitaria Autonomista to the Subcommilttt on 

Insular Affoirs, Concmittee on Interior and lnttmatio~~al Affairs, U.S. House of Representatives, March 

9, 1990; 

---~ Statement given by the · Juwntud Autonomista de Puerto Rico to the Special 

Committee on Decolonization, August13, 1991. 

•status Digno y Pmnanmte•, El Diario, October 14, 1993, page 14. 

Vizcanondo, • LA EnmimdA \.1zcam:~ndo •, El Nuevo Dia, Dec:ember4, 1990, page 49. 

6 
242 

political dignity of the island, empower it to face the twenty-first century and 

guarantee the four pillars of the current relationship: common citizenship, 

common market, common currency and mutual defense. 

In the case of citizenship --as has been noted by U.S. and Puerto Rican legal 

scholars-- there is no legal or constitutional reason why Puerto Ricans cannot have 

two citizenships (the U.S. and the Puerto Rican) if they so choose in an individual 

~" This has been correctly defined by a former advisor to the National 

Security Council and expert on U.S. models of association as a question of "political 

will" as oppossed to a legal issue." Congress must choose between insuring the U.S. 

citizenship of Puerto Ricans or preparing to respond to a statehood petition 

sometime in the near future. 

Regarding the permanence of Section 936 benefits, we believe that a 

mechanism identical to the one in Sections 255 20 and 404" of the Compact of 1986 

should be adopted. This would give stability to our economy and Puerto Ricans 

would have a guaranteed say in any attempt to reduce said incentives. 

Section 404(c) states: 

PROCEDURE IF SECTION 936 INCENTIVES REDUCED.-If the tax incentives 

extended to the Marshall Islands and the Federated States of Micronesia 

under subsection (a) are, at any time during which the Compact is in eHect, 

reduced, the Secretary of the Treasury shall negotiate an agreement with the 

Marshall Islands and the Federated States of Micronesia under which, when 

such agreement is approved by law, they will be provided with benefits 

substantially equivalent to such reduction on benefits. 

"See S14temmt of Hon. Frtd M. Ztdtr II and /Amts D. Borg, and Howard Hills, Hearings, 

Subcommittee on Pacific Lands and National Parks, Committee on Interior and International Affairs, 

House of Representatives, 98th Congress, 2nd Sess., June 12. 1984, pages 98, 126-127; see also Alvarez, 

JO!W! J. "Tht Empire Strikts Out: Congrtssional Ruminations on tht Citiztnship S14tus of Putrto 

Riazns", Harvard Journal on Legislation, Vol. 27, No.2, Summer 1990. 

"See Howard Hills' remarks on the panel "Models of Association with Metropolitan Powers•, 

Second National Conference on Relations between the U.S., American Samoa, Guam. Northern 

Marianas, the U.S.V.I. and Puerto Rico; Washington, D.C.; May 24, 1994. 

"99 Stal 1821 (1986). 

" 99 Stat. 1839 (1986 ). 

7 
243 

Once the Bilateral Compact is approved. Puerto Rico will have the further 

assurance that if and when the people agree to a reduction of 936 incentives. those 

incentives will be substituted "with benefits substancially eauivalent to such 

reduction." 

Some have suggested the utilization of Section 901 of the Internal Revenue 

Code as an alternative to the seriously threatened Section 936. We have no 

fundamental objection to that, but the 1993 mandate' requires us to explore the 

possibility of giving stability to 936. H that were impossible, we would support the 

901 incentive's inclusion as part of the bilateral compact. That way there would not 

be any unilateral alteration of the economical relationship between Puerto Rico and 

the United States. 

We also believe that the exclusion of Puerto Rico from the U.S. shipping and 

maritime laws would liberate us of a tremendously expensive burden. This is 

essential for a successful Puerto Rican entrance into the global economy of the next 

century. 

For the United States, the compact must preserve and protect its legitimate 

interests in Puerto Rico. The determination of what those "legitimate interests" are 

must be the result of negotiations and mutual agreements, which cannot place 

onerous burdens on Puerto Rican sovereignty. Unilateral impositions, like the one 

the Navy is currently attempting in Lajas, must be a thing of the past. Under a 

Bilateral Compact, such situations cannot be allowed to happen. 

CONCLUSION 

The political destinies of Puerto Rico and the U.S. have been intertwined 

since the tum of the century. A product of military occupation, their relationship 

8 
244 

has been characterized by neglect, shortsightedness, indifference, and, in more than 

one case, outright imperialism. This has bred confusion, dependancy and 

uncertainty. 

It might seem as if we have both painted ourselves into a comer. 

But there are always alternatives. Now that we near the new century, the time 

has come for a major overhaul of the current relationship. 

Govetnor Luis Mufloz Marin wrote in 1953: 

Where important cultural differences exist, such as language and historical 

background, the smaller unit should not participate in the goverment of the 

larger one, nor the latter wish its laws to rule in the former unless agreeable 

locally in each case, or contained in the basic instrument of Association as 

essential to its nature." 

On November 14, 1993, the people of Puerto Rico voted in favor of 

developing the Estado Libre Asociado through a bilateral compact. The United 

States, and this Congress, have historically pledged to respect the inalienable right of 

our people to self-determination. As the contemporary global agenda unfolds, 

confusion, dependance, and uncertainty must give way to political dignity, selfsufficiency and stability. A BILATERAL COMPACT is the best, perhaps the only 

alternative for the future. 

Thank you very much. 

"Foreign Affairs, Vol. 32, No.4, July 1953, page 549. 

9 
245 

(qmbioxxi 

TESTIMONY 

BEFORE THE CO,..COORDINATORS 

OF THE 

INTERAGENCY WORKING GROUP 

ON PUERTO RICO 

ON 

THE FUTURE OF PUERTO RICO 

THE WHITE HOUSE 

JUNE 22, 1995 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 
246 

INDEX TO TESTIMONY 

Introduction of June 22, 1995................................. 3 

Letter ofTransmital of February 18, 1995............. 9 

Bilateral Compact Proposal.................................... 11 

Implications of United States Citizenship.............. 31 

A New Economic Covenant................................... 43 

Letter ofTransmistal of March 7, 1995.................... 51 

Public Opinion PoD on Parties and Status................ 53 

Proposal for a Public Information Plan.................. 59 

Appendix 1: Letter of Offer of Input, Petition of 

October 4, 1994, and List of Founding 

Memben .................................................................... 65 

Press Release of January 2, 1995.............................. 71 

Appendix II:Current History Analysis of 

The 1993 Plebiscite: A First Step to 

dccolonization?........................................................ 73 
247 

INTRODUCilON 

Today, June 22, 1995, the members of the Executive 

Committee of Cambio XXI heRby appear and ffie officially 

before the Interagency Working Group our Proposal on the 

Future or Puerto Rico, originally sent by mail on February 18, 

1995. We arc gratefUl for the opportunity to supply an input to the 

Working Group. 

As we stated in our letter of the aforementioned date, this nonpartisan civic organization has officially submitted to the Working 

Group a rree association proposal that fulf'ills all the requisites of 

international law and the wishes of both the electorate of Puerto 

Rico and the United States. The document we arc hereby filing 

with the Working Group covers all these aspects. 

First, we submit a Draft Bilateral Compact of 19 pages that 

can serve as a working document for discussions to make 

extensive to Puerto Rico the Free Associated State (FAS) formula 

that has existed with success in the former Pacific Territories since 

1986. This proposed draft is the product of several years of work 

by distinguished members of the Puerto Rican Bar Association, 

and has been adopted by our organization after ample discussion, 

with participation of members from all ideological sectors. Seen 

on itS face, it fUlfills the mandate of the 1993 plebiscite. 

Second, we sumbit a juridical analysis of the issue of United 

States citizenship under a Bilateral Compact, in light of P.L. 103-

417 of 1994, that makes compatible the existence of a bilateral 

compact outside the Territorial Clause of the U.S. Constitution 

with the grandfathcring of American Citizenship for persons born 

in the Free Associated State as well as their descendants. We . 

2 
248 

hereby endorse the document already filed with you by the 

organization PROELA on that issue. 

Third, we also endorse the document on Development. Work 

and Social Justice: A New Economic Covenat Between Puerto 

Rico and the United States, as submited to you by the 

organization PROELA, as a working document towards a selfsuffkient economy based on the additional powers afforded to the 

Free Associated State. 

Fourth, we include the results of a poll conducted by Precision 

Research Inc. that shows the Puerto Rican electorate favors the 

intercesion of civic organizations in the discussion of the status 

issue, over and above the participation of the political parties. 

Fifth, in the interest of extending understanding of the present 

situation above and beyond party interests, we also enclose a 

Public Information Plan that we deem important in the 

implementation of the ideas included in our proposal. 

In two appendixes, we include our original offer of input to the 

Interagency Working Group, the petition that originated our 

participation, and the list of original members of Cambio XXI (a 

star indicates members of our Executive Committee, a line 

indicates members of the Executive Board). We also include a 

notice in the press of January 2, 1995 on our existence. 

In a second appendix, we submit the analysis of the campaign, 

results and effects of the plebiscite held in Puerto Rico in 1993, as 

published in the respected journal Current History in its March, 

1994 edition, for background information. 

3 
249 

We hope these: materials are useful to your deliberations. 

RESPECTUFULLY SUBMITIED, by the Executive Committee, 

Cambiox::ri: 

David Oniz Anglero 

Executive Director 

CambioXXl 

4 
250 

@nbio xxi 

POSITION PAPER 

ON THE FUTURE OF 

PUERTO RICO 

SAN JUAN, PUERTO RICO 

FEBRUARY 16, 1995 

6 
~bioxxi Box5734 

San Juan. Puerto Rico OD906 

(8()9)268-1200 Fax (8()9) 268-3660 

FclnaJy II, 1995. 

Mr. Jdrrey ,_a. Ms. Maida Hale 

251 

W1lilc a-~ WcD:iDa Group Oil Pilato Riclo 

u.s. J)epMimalt rlc:om-, 6th floor 

~DC.20230 

FAX 202-482-2337 

Dar Mr. FllnUW aDd Ms. Hale: 

This C11p11iD1iaa c..blo XXI, 011 the buis rl our pmious c:ommunic:orions, iDSiiiiDDW lhlll if the 

llllilude rl the WbiJc Houle aDd CoDpa is lhlll the preseat taritorics ue Jill cliJeded towuds illcorporllioa ._ 

llltdlood. it ... be mldc dear by a C-clqressioDa1 teiDiulioa. Said actioa would reorieat polilic:l1 fon:cs tawa111s 

paaib1c aDd ccmaiaa IDlulions. 

Tbe Clll1y- policy apliaas ue jn •• ten • «free associlliaa (kDowD bae .. auiDDDaly with--

e:iply). Tile ~1-n e palilioD bas a1lady beeD presealed "bclon Coapea with abuDdiDt- aDd we 

lllall .. '*to it. 

W1lal bas beaa llliailla flom l1lc ddiJenliOill ia boCb Cclqral aDd the Wbite Houle is a free .-ladla ....... dill falfiDs all the reqgilila rl iaeemlliaaalllw aDd the wisbca rlboeb the e1eacde rl Puerto Riclo 

aDd the Ullilld s.a. 

We 11aebJ tllldally fl!c wid! ,_ _. a prllt*81. 

To l1lc CIOIIIAIJ, p-.. diJCalliOilt ia ea.,r.to a..-fedaallallll:l 011 Pilato RiciDs baYc a direct 

6ct c. the poliliCII CIDIIIIiliaa lliDCC it islw •••jNr wil1l boCb -my with~ aDd with 

bldepe• 4e! e, ..a Aa1lleraDe, it COIIInldicU the Jesallsrlthe 1993 p1dU:ile by pllliq l1lc il1ud oalllc way to 

......... Wbca Pilato RicaDI weed lilr puity ia 1993 it-ahrllys ia the CIIIIICXl ria bilalea1 COIIIJ*I, aDd 

wilboat It, die peyiiiCIIl rlfedaa11llla ~ briDa pallleiiM ddaicntiOil rlthe _, riPucrto Rico aDd 

the r.ten1 n-y ~ ia the laqrua llilto naive the iDcome lhlll it is Jllllllllledit .wid. 

We bereby Jeqaest ..._the eacJc.d )lllliiGiellllill far abilllteq1 COIIJI*IbciXllllidaed with alleDiioD aDd 

rapec:&lbr a civil &SD:ialilllllllllll bas • partiaD ~ &1111 lbat is dedicaled 10 acbicYIJIIcmcc &1111 lbr all a clipiflld .... 

JtESPI!C'I1'UIJY SUBMn"IED, far the Exlcadve Ccamillee rl Judie loll! Alllllaio Cali11as, /f,ay. J.a M. 

Gaida ......... Judp Udl Mqjica ~ AJry. l!lllilio Soler Mlri. aDd loll! Mi1fliD SOIIero M.D., by: 

~~ c.pw:t, I9JIIFI) 

aad NJtic: illllnllllall'laa 

CIC: Houle W.,S aDd Meul aDd Nll!n1 a--CommitleeL 

8 

20-766 - 96 - 9 
252 

BILATERAL COMPACT 

PREAMBLE 

THE PEOPLE OF PUERTO RICO AND 

THE PEOPLE OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; 

Aflirmina that their Goverments and their relationships as Goverments are founded upon 

respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms for all, and that the people of Puerto Rico have 

the right to their sovereignity and self-government; 

Afrarmina the common interests of the people of the United States of America and the people 

of Puerto Rico in maintsining a close and mutually beneficial relationship in a voluntary association; 

Afrarmia the interest of the United States in promoting the economic advancement and selfsufficiency of the people of Puerto Rico; 

Recopizina the common desire to enhance the relationship in accordance with a political 

status based on the freely-expressed wishes of the people of Puerto Rico in November of 1993; 

Recoplzina that the people of Puerto Rico have and retain their sovereignty and their 

sovereign right to self-dcttnnination, and the inherent right to adopt and amend their own Constitution 

and form of govc:mment, and that the approval of this Compact as defined in section 59 by the 

people of Puerto Rico constitutes the exercise of their sovereign right to self -determination; 

Guaranteeina progress and security for present and future genarations of Puerto Ricans, 

within a political status of full dignity, as deimed in the 1993 ballot, embodied in this Bilateral 

Compact, that cannot be altered except by mutual consent; 

NOW THEREFORE, AGREE to enter into a relationship of Free Associated State (FAS) 

defined as a sovereign state which provides a full measure of self-government for the people of 

Puerto Rico and; 

FURTHER AGREE on guiding principles of this Compact: the irrevocable United States 

citizenship to all in Puerto Rico, a common market, a common currency and a common defense, 

fiscal autonomy for Puerto Rico, and protection for its cultural identity with its own olimpic and 

international representation; 

10 
FOkiBEk AGREE thlt this Compact aball protect the tax incentives ofU. S. 

CCll')lllnltiaa in Puerto Rico DOW aiJtina UDder ICCtion 936 oftbe I.R.S., as clefinecl as 1993 

baDoc, lha11 proWio for parity in Ill U. S. IOCill brm:fit proanms inc1udina the Supp1ementuy 

Security IDsunnce (SSI), and sball protect the aaricultural products of Puerto Rico; 

FORIBEk AGREE thlt the ldatitmsbip of Free Auociated State is set forth in this 

Cuupact; md that, cturiq this rdarionsbip, tbe rapec:live rights md I'CipOIISibilities of the 

GovermDeDt oftbe Uuited States md tbe Govcnllllalt of Puerto Rico in regard to this 

relarimsbip derive from md are as set fonh in this Compact. 

Sectloa I 

TITLE ONE: 

GOVERNMENTAL RELATIONS 

Articles I 

Self'-GoverDIIIellt ud Otizensblp 

Tbc people of Puerto Rico, acting through the Govemment established under its Constitution, 

is toven:iga md lelf-aovemiag. 

Sectioa 2 

(a) All Uaited States eitizeas bom in Puerto Rico sball remain eitizeas of the Uaited States 

of America IUbsequemly to tbe effective date of this Compact, aad are also citizens of Puerto 

Rico. 

(b) All penaas born in Puerto Rico ifter the effective date of this Compact are eitizeas of 

Puerto Rico lllld also eitizcm of the Uaited States of America. 

(c) All penaas born to a pareat wbo is eitizm of the Uuited States of America bom in Puerto 

Rico, are citizeosoftbc Uaited States of America md Puerto Rico pursuant to Public Law 103-417 

of 1994 tbat is made put of this Compact. 

II 
Sectioa3 

ArticleD 

International Affairs 

(a) The Government of Puerto Rico has the capacity to conduct its international affairs 

and shall do so in the its Dame and rigtht. 

(b) The International affairs capacity of the Government of Puerto Rico includes, 

among other: 

(I) The conduct of international affairs relating to law of the sea and marine resources 

matters; 

(2) the conduct of its c:ommercial, diplomatic, consular, economic, trade, banking, 

postal, civil aviation, communications, and cultural relations; 

(c) The Government of the United States recognizes that the Government of Puerto 

Rico has the capacity to enter into, in its own Dame and right, treaties and other interna 

tional agreements, to join regional and international organizations, and be a member of any 

regional and/or international organization. 

(d) In the conduct of its international affairs, the Government of Puerto Rico conlmns 

that it shall act in accordance with principles of settlement of international disputes by 

peaceful means. 

Section 4 

The Government of the United States shall support applications by the Government of 

Puerto Rico for membership or other participation in regional or international organiza 

tions. 

Sec:tioD 5 

The Government of the United States and Puerto Rico shall not be responsible for, nor 

obligated by any actions taken by each other in the area of international affairs, except as 

may be expressly agreed. 

12 
255 

Sectioa 6 

At the request of the GovermDCDt of Puerto Rico and aubject to the consent of the receiving 

State, the Govcmmcnt of the United States sball extend consular assistance on the same 

basis u for citizens of the United States to Puerto Rico and its citizens. 

Sectioa 7 

Except u otherwise provided in this Compact all obligations, responsibilities, rights and 

benefits of the Government of the United States over Puerto Rico pursuant to the Treaty of 

Paris of 10 December 1898 are terminated on the day preceding the effective date of this 

Compact and no longer usumcd and enjoyed by the Government of the United States. 

Section II 

Artidem 

Communications 

The Government of Puerto Rico has full authority and responsibility to regulate its domestic 

and intcmationsl communications. 

Section !I 

The Government of Puerto Rico sball permit the Government of the United States to operate 

telCCOIIIlDIJIIIDication services in Puerto Rico to the extent necessary to fulfill the obligations of 

the Government of the United States Wlder this Compact for defense and security. 

Section 10 

ArtideiV 

Immigration 

Any person who is citizen of the United States and/or a citizen of Puerto Rico may enter into, 

lawfully engage in occcupations, and establish residence in the United States and its territories and 

possessions without regard to the Immigration and Nationality Act. 

Sectioa 11 

The Government of Puerto Rico shall have full authority and power to control and regulate 

immigration to Puerto Rico, and shall accord to citizens and nationals of the United States treatment 

no less favorable than that accorded to citizens of other coWltries. 

13 
Section 12 

256 

Article V 

Representation 

The Government of the United States and the Government of Puerto Rico may establish and 

maintain repRSentation and/or missions in the capital of the other for the purpose of maintaining 

close and regular coDSUltations on matters arising in the course of this relationship, and 

conducting other government business. 

Section 13 

The premises of such representative offices, and their archives wherever located, shall be 

inviolable. Official communications in transit shall be inviolable and accorded the freedom and 

protection accorded by recognized principles of international law to official communcations 

between countries. 

Section 14 

Any citizen or national of the United States who, after consultation between the designating 

Government and the Government of the United States, is designatcd by the Government-of 

Puerto Rico as its representative or agent, shall enjoy exemption from the requirements of the 

laws of the United States relating to the registration of foreign agents. The Government of the 

United States shall promptly comply with a request for consultations made by prospective 

designating Governments. 

Section 15 

Article VI 

Environmental Protection 

(a) The Government of the United States and Puerto Rico declare that it is their policy to 

promote efforts to prevent or eliminate damage to the environment and biosphere and to protect 

the natural resources of Puerto Rico. 

(b) The United States will, at least, comply with all standards established in United States 

environmental laws and regulations in all of its activities in Puerto Rico. 

14 
257 

Section 16 

(a) ThcGovemmentofPuertoRicomaybringanactionforjudicialrevicwofanyadministrative 

agency action or any activity of the Government of the United States or for enforcement of the 

obligations of the Government of the United States. The United Statacs District Court for the 

District of Columbia shall have jurisdiction over such action or activity, and over actions which 

rclatc to the activities of the Government of the United States and its officers and employees. 

(b) The Government of Puerto Rico may, in the alternative, bring the action on the matters 

mentioned in this Section before the Compact Court, established in section 50. 

Section 17 

ArtideVIT 

General Provisions 

Except as otherwise provided by this Compact, the application of the laws of the United States 

to Puerto Rico ceases with respect to Puerto Rico, as of the effective date of this Compact. 

Section 18 

A United States citizen who becomes a citizen of Puerto Rico and who docs not rcnoWlcc his 

United States citizenship, will retain his United States citizenship and continue to be entitled to the 

same rights and privileges as any other United States citizen. 

Section 19 

The Government of the United States and Puerto Rico agree to adopt and enforce such measures, 

consistent with this Compact, as may be necessary to protect the personnel, property, installations 

maintained by the Government of the United States in Puerto Rico pursuant to this Compact and by 

the Government of Puerto Rico in the United States pursuant to this Compact. 

Section 20 

Except as otherwise provided in this Compact, the Government of Puerto Rico shall be immWle 

from the jurisdiction of the courts of the United States, and the Government of the United States 

shall be immWle from the jurisdiction of the courts of Puerto Rico. 

15 
258 

TITLE TWO: 

ECONOMIC RELATIONS 

Article I 

Grut Aaistuce, Economic: Developmeot ..., Self-Samdeoc:y 

Section 21 

(a) Inorda'to assist the Goverameat ofPucrto Rico in its efforts to advance the economic sdfsufficicocy of its people aad in recognition of the special relationship that exists between them aad 

the United Statea, the Govc:mmeat of the United States ahall provide annually on a bloc grant basis 

the present level of U.S. funds aad cxpcnscs in Puerto Rico which arc not directly distributed to 

individual raidcnts at the effective date of this Compact. 

(b) The Govcmmcnt of Puerto Rico agrees to assign no less than fifty (SO) percent of said 

amounts annually to capital improvements, infrastructure and the funds will be invested in 

establishing programs geared towards: 

1. Creating the scientific and technological infrastructw'c needed for the production and 

cl.isscmination of intelligence and knowledge, the strategic factors of production of the 

information age. 

2. Creating private sector jobs. 

3. Promoting the usc of cooperative's savings and investments in the creation of manufacturing 

and roductive enterprises. 

4. Assisting in the development of the local private sector and entrcpenuers. 

S. Worker's training and education. 

6. Assisting the really needy who could not reinsert themselves in the job market. 

Sectioa 22 

The Government of the United States shall provide additionally on a bloc grant basis the necessary 

funds annually to the Government of Puerto Rico to fulfill Section 40, and related Sections. 

Section 23 

(a) The Govcmmcnt of the United States shall also provide on a current account basis an annual 

bloc grant of an amount never less than their present level of funding for the purposes set forth 

below: 

(I) surveillance and enforcement by the Government of Puerto Rico of its maritime zone. 

16 
259 

(2) health mel medical programs, including 

rd'cmls to hospitals mel ueatment 

cc:nte:n, IUCh IS MecliciR Uld Medicaid; 

(3) a scholarship ftmd or funds to llllJIPOlt the 

post-secondary eclucatioa of citizens of Puerto 

Rico, IUCh u Pell Gnnls; 

( 4) a nutritional assistance proaram. such u 

PAN; 

(b) The IDI1Uil bloc grant referred to in this scc:tion lhall be made available by the Government 

of the United States promptly after it receives instruction for their distribution from the Govc:I'DIIIellt 

of Puerto Rico. 

Sectioa 24 

Except IS otherwise provided, by mutual apement IS mentioned in Section S2 mel S3 the 

amolDlts stated in Sections 21, 22, 23 Uld 261hall be adjusted for each Fiscal Year by the percent 

which equals the percentage change in the United States Gross National Product Implicit Price 

Deflator, or seven perceut (7%), which ever is more in any one year, using the beginning of Fiscal 

Year 1994 u the base. 

(a) In order to reduce imports and exports COSI8, the application of the maritime shippina laws 

of the United States ceases with respect to Puerto Rico, IS of the effective date of this Compact. 

(b) To compete in the global economy, the Govc:I'DIIIellt of Puerto Rico has full authority and 

respoosibility to enter into interDatioaal aarecmeau and treatises to promoiC its integration with 

North md South America, Caribbean mel World markets. 

Sectloa 25 

ArticleD 

Program Assistance 

The Govanmem of the United States lhall make available to Puerto Rico, in accordance with 

mel to the ex.tald provided in any separate agreement, without compensation and at the levels 

equivalent to those available during the year of the effective date of this Compact, the services and 

rellled propms: 

17 
Section 26 

260 

( 1) of the United States Weather Service; 

(2) of the United States Federal Emergency Management 

Agency; 

(3) those provided pursuant to the Postal 

Reorganization Act, 39 U.S.C. 101 ct seq.; 

( 4) of the United States Federal Aviation Administration 

(5) of the United States Civil Aeronautics Board 

or its successor agencies which has the authority 

to implement the PI'9visions of a separate agrccmcnt. 

ArtideiD 

Administrative Provisions 

Upon the twcntythird anniversary of the effective date of this 

Compact, the Government of the United States and the Government of Puerto Rico shall commence 

re-negotiations on this Compact, which will be automatically renewed otherwise on the twcntyfifth 

anniversary of its effective date, indef'mctcly. 

Section 27 

(a) Title to the property of the Govcrnmcot of the United States situated in Puerto Rico or 

acquired for or used by the Govcrnmcot of-the United States in Puerto Rico on or before the day 

preceding the effective date of this Compact shall, without 

reimbursement or transfer of funds. vest in the Government of Puerto Rico as set forth in a separate 

agrccmcnt which shall come into effect with this Compact. The provisions of this Section shall not 

apply to the use of the property of the Government of the United States for which the Govcrnmcot 

of the United States determines a continuingrcquircmcnt for defense and security under Section 40 

of this Compact, or as mutually agreed. 

(b) Funds held in trust by the G<ivernment of the United States in its official capacity, as of the 

effective date of this Compact such as social security, veterans and other vested benefits shall 

remain available as trust funds to their designated beneficiaries, administered by said Government. 

18 
261 

Seetioa 21 

Except u otberwUe provided, approw1 of tbiJ Compact by the Govemment of the United 

States lhall COIIIlitute a pledge of the full faith mel cmlit of the United States for the full payment 

of the IIIIIIIS ·mel IIDOUDtl lpCCif"J.Cd in Article I mel m of tbiJ Title, or in any Section of tbiJ 

Compact, ar its amendments The obligation of the United States under Articlca I mel m of tbiJ 

Title, or UDder any Section oftbiJ Compact, or its ..,.,dments, sball be enforceable in the United 

States Claims Court, or its IIIIA:CCIIOI' court. which sball have jurisdiction in cases arising under tbiJ 

Section, DOtwitbslanding any provision of any law to the contrvy. 

Sectioa 29 

Article IV 

Trade 

Puerto Rico is not included in the customs territory of the United States. 

Sectioa30 

For the purpose of assessing duties on their products imported into the customs territory of the 

United States, Puerto Rico sball be 1reated in the same manner as on the date before the effective 

date oftbiJ Compact. 

Sectioa 31 

(a) All products of Puerto Rico imported into the customs territories of the United States from 

Puerto Rico sball enter free of any tariffs or duties or any excise taxes. 

Sectioa32 

(a) The Ullited States shall offer Puerto Rico the option to enter as a participant in its own right 

into IDY Trade Agreement that the United States becomes a party to. 

(b) Puerto Rico sball be notified of any negotiation of a Trade Agreement that the United States 

entertains, to be able to offer the input as to its impact and to be able to become a party in ssid 

negotiations. 

"19 
Sectioa33 

262 

ArtideV 

Finance and Taxation 

The currency of the United States is the official circulating legal tender of Puerto Rico, and all 

laws of the United States relating to said currency are made part of this Compact. 

Sectioa 34 

A citizen of Puerto Rico, domiciled therein,shall be exempt from income taxes imposed by 

the GoVCii'IIIDCIIlt of the United States upon fixed or determinable annual income estate, gift, and 

generation-skipping transfer taxes. 

Sectioa 35 

Provisions in the United States Internal Revenue Code that were applicable to possessions of 

the United States as of January 1, 1994 shall be treated as applying to Puerto Rico. If such 

provision of the Internal Revenue Code are amended, modified or replealed after that date, such 

provisions shall continue in effect as to Puerto Rico for the period of effectiveness of this 

Compact. 

(a) EXTENSION OF SECTION 936.- The benefits provided by Section 936 of the Internal 

Revenue Code of the United States, as amended, shall continue in full force and effect in Puerto 

Rico for the duration of this Compact. 

(b) EXCHANGE OF INFORMATION. Subsection (a) shall not apply for any period after 

the effective date of this Compact, during which there is not in effect between Puerto Rico and 

the United States an exchange of information agreement of the kind described in Section 274 

(h)( 6)( c) (other that clause (ii) thereof) of the Internal Revenue Code. 

(c) SECTION 936 INCENTIVES REDUCTION.- The tax incentive extended to Puerto 

Rico under subsection (a) shall not, at anytime during which the Compact is in effect, be 

reduced. 

(d) PUERTO RICO TREATED AS NORTH AMERICAN AREA.- for purpose of Section 

274 (h) (3) (A) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954, the term «North American Area» shall 

include Puerto Rico. 

(e) This section shall apply to income earned, and transactions occuring, after January 1st, 

1996, in taxable years ending after such date. 

20 
Sedioa36 

263 

11TLE 'l'BREE: 

SECURITY AND DEFENSE RELATIONS 

Article I 

Authority and Rapoasibllity 

(a) The GOvcmmcnt of the United States has authority and responsibility for international 

ICCUrity and cleftme matters relating to Puerto Rico. 

(b) This authority and respoasibility includes: ' 

(1) the obliptioa to defend Puerto Rico and its 

people &om attack or threats, as the United States 

and ita citizens are defended; 

(2) the option to strategically deny or fOJeClose 

access to or use of Puerto Rico by military purpose 

of any third country; and 

(3) the option to establish and use military areas 

and facilities in Puerto Rico, subject to the 

terms of separate agreements. 

(c) The Government of the United States confums that it shall act in accordance with the 

principles of 

International Law and the Charter of the United Nations in the ~ercise of this authority and 

responsibility. 

Sedioa37 

The Government of the United States may conduct within the lands, waters and air space of 

Puerto Rico the activities and operatioos necessary for the c:xc:rcise of their authCJrity andrespoasibility 

under this Title by mutual agreement of the government of the United States and the government of 

Puerto Rico. 

Sedioa31 

(a) The Government of the United States shall not, in Puerto Rico: 

( 1) test by detonation or dipose of any nuclear 

21 
264 

weapon; nor test, dispose of, or discharge 

my toxic chemical or biological weapon; or 

(2) test, dispose of, or discharge my other 

radioactive or toxic chemical; or biological 

materials in Ill amount or manner which would 

be hazardous to public health or safety. 

(b) Other than for transit or overflight purposes or during time of a national emergency declared 

by the President of the United States, a state of war declared by the Congress of the United States 

or as necessary to defend against Ill actual or impeding armed attack on the United States or Puerto 

Rico, the Government of the United States shall not store in Puerto Rico any toxic chemical weapon, 

nor any radioactive materials nor any toxic chemical materials intended for weapons use. 

(c) No material or substance referred to in this Section shall be stored in Puerto Rico. 

Section 39 

The Government of the United States may invite members of the armed forces of other countries 

to use its military areas and facilities in Puerto Rico, in conjunctionk with and under the control of 

United States Armed Forces. Use by units of the armed forces of the other countries of such 

military areas and facilities, other than for transit and overflight purposes, shall be subject to 

consultation with and approval by the Government of Puerto Rico. 

Artiden 

Defense Facilities and Operating Rights 

Section 40 

(a) Any needed specific amngements for the establishment and use by the Government of the 

United States of military areas and facilities in Puerto Rico will be set forth in separate agreements 

which shall come into effect simultaneously with this 

Compact. 

(b) If, in the exercise of its authority and responsibility under this Title, the Government of the 

United States requires the use of areas within PuertO Rico in addition to those for which specific 

u:rangemmts are concluded pursuant to Section 40 (a), it may request the Government of Puerto 

Rico to satisfy those requirements. Puerto Rico shall consider any such request and shall establish 

22 
266 

suitable procedures to discuss it with md provide a prompt response to the Government of the 

United States. 

Section 41 

The Govc:mmcnt of the United States shall provide md maintain fixed md floating aids to 

navigation in Puerto Rico at least to the extent necessary for the exercise of its authority and 

responsibility 1mder this Title. 

Section 42 

The military operating rights of the Government of the United States and the legal status md 

contractual arranaements of the United States Aimed Forces, their members, and associated 

civilians, while present in Puerto Rico will be subject to and will abide by the laws of Puerto 

Rico. 

Section 43 

Artidem 

Defense Treaties and International 

Security Agreements 

Subject to the terms of this Compact and its related agreements, the Government of the 

United States, shall assume and enjoy, as to Puerto Rico, all obligations, responsibilities, rights 

md benefits of: 

(a) Any defense treaty or other international security agreement applied by the Government 

of the United States as of the day preceding the effective date of this Compact; and 

(b) Any defense treaty or other international security agreement to which the Government of 

the United States is or may become a party which it determines to be applicable in Puerto Rico. 

(c) Such a determination by the Government of the United States shall be preceded by 

appropriate consultation and formal consent of the Government of Puerto Rico. 

Article IV 

Service in Armed Forces of the United States 

Section« 

Any person entitled to the privileges set forth in Section l 0 shall be elegible to volunteer for 

service in the Armed Forces of the United States, but shall not be subject to involuntary induction 

into military service of the United States so long as such person does not establish habitual residence 

23 
266 

in the United States, its territories or possessi0111. 

Sectioa 45 

ArtideV 

General Provisions 

(a) TbeGovc:mmentofdle United States and Government of Puerto Rico shall establish a Joint 

Committee empowered to considtz disputes IDlter the implementation of this Title and its related 

agreements. 

(b) Disputes that cannot be resolved by the Joint Committee may be referred by any party to 

abjudication by the Compact Court provided for in Sections SO and St. 

Sectioa 46 

(a) The Government of the United States shall not iru:lude the Government of Puerto Rico as 

party to a formal declaration of war, without its formal consent. 

Sectioa 47 

(a) Notwithslanding any other provision of this Compact, the provisions of this Title arc binding 

from the effective date of this Compact for a period of twenty five years between the Government 

of the United States and the Government of Puerto Rico and thereafter renewed automatically 

unless otherwise mutually agreed, in accordance with Section 26, and Sections 52 and S3. 

(b) The Government of the United States recognizes, in view of the special relationship between 

the Government of Puerto Rico, that any attack on Puerto Rico during the period in which this 

compact or its separate agrccmcnts arc in effect, would constitute a threat to the peace and security 

of the entire Caribbean region and a danger to the United States. 1n the event of such an attack, the 

Government of the United States would take all necessary actions to meet the danger to Puerto 

Rico and the United States, at the request of the government of Puerto Rico. 

24 
Secdoa41 

267 

TITLE FOUR: 

GENERAL PROVISIONS 

Article I 

Approval ud Eft'eetive Date 

This Compact shall come into effect upon its sipature by the Representatives of the people of 

Puerto Rico and of the United State~. 

ArticleD 

Conference arid Dispute Resolutions 

Seetioa 49 

The Govcmmcnt of the United State~ shall confer promptly at the request of the Government of 

Puerto Rico and its Government shall confer promptly at the request of the Government of the 

United State~ on matters relating to the provisions of this Compact or if its related agreements. 

Seetioa SO 

If a dispute between the Government of the United State~ and the Government of Puerto Rico 

cannot be resolved by negotiation, either party to the dispute may refer it for adjudication to a Joint 

Puerto Rico-United States Compact Court as provided in detail in a separate agreement. 

Sectioa 51 

Said Puerto Rico-United States Compact Court will be composed by two justices appointed by 

the~dcntoftheUnited 

States with advice and consent of the United States Senate; two justices appointed by the chief 

executive of Puerto Rico, with advice and consent of the Senate of Puerto Rico, and a fifth justice 

selected by these four justices, that must also be confirmed by the Senates of Puerto Rico and the 

United State~. All five judges shall be appointed for good behavior. 

The Compact Court shall have jurisdiction to hear and render final determinations on all disputes 

arising under this Compact and its related agrccmcnts. 

26 
Section 52 

268 

ArticJem 

Amendments 

The provisions of this Compact may only be amended as to the Gover'IIDlellt of Puerto Rico and 

u to the Government of the United States at any time by mutual agreement. 

Section 53 

The provisions of any of its related agreement may only be amended by the Government of 

Puerto Rico and as to the GoVer'IIDlellt of the United States at any time by mutual agreement. 

Section 54 

Article IV 

Definition of Terms 

(a) «Puerto Rico»- means the archipelago composed by the mainland or main island of Puerto 

Rico and the Olher adjacent islands and the waters of the islands situated east of the meridian sixty 

four longitude west of Greenwich that were ceded to the United States by the Government of SpaiD 

by virtue of the Treaty of 10 December 1898, and said name will be understood to include not only 

the island of said name, but all adjacent islands that are known on this date as «The Commonwealth 

of Puerto Rico» in English and •Estado Libre Asociado de Pu~o Rico» in the Spanish language. 

(b) «Free Associated State» is the name of the relationship between Puerto Rico and the United 

States under the terms and conditions of this Compact 

Section 55 

ArticleV 

Authorizing Provisions 

/ The Representatives of the United States and Puerto Rico agree that they have full sovereign 

authority under American and international law to enter into this Compact and its related agreements. 

Section 56 

The governments of the United States and Puerto Rico shall take all necessary steps, of a general 

or particular character, to ensure the conformity of its laws, regulations and administrative procedures 

with the provisions of this Compact. 

27 
269 

Section 57 

Appropriations made pursuant to the Compact or any other provision of its agreement shall be 

made to the Secretary of State, who shall disburse the same through the Agency for International 

Development (AID) or its successor. 

Section sa 

Except as provided otherwise in this Compact, all Civil and other Human Rights protected in 

Puerto Rico on the effective date of this Bilateral Compact cannot be diminished, undermined, or 

reduced in any way, form or manner by either party to this Compact. 

Section 59 

This Compact has both the force and effect of a statute under the laws of the United States and 

of Puerto Rico and the force and effect of a treaty under International Law. 

Section 60 

The effective date of this Compact, in fulf'illmcnt of the mandate of the plebiscite held in Puerto 

Rico in 1993, shall be inmcdiatc. 

28 
270 

PROELA 

P.O.BaKI!IOf7,1JPilse.daa 

Blo Plecll'a, l'lailo1Um018Sl.-a 

To: Mr. Jeffrey Farrow and Ms. Marcia Bale 

White House Interagency Working Group on Puerto Rico 

From: Luis Vega Ramos 

President 

Re: Bllateral Compact Analyaia - Implications on the U.S. citizenship status of 

Puerto Ricans in light of P.L. 103-417, "The Inmigration and Nauralization 

Technical Corrections Act of 1994•. 

Date: February 3, 1995 

....... 

Pursuant to our offer of imput to the W.H.I.A.W.G.P.R., we believe a 

crucial question in your consideration of a b:.lateral compact relation as a 

response to the 1993 plebiscite is the question of the U.S. citizenship of Puerto 

Ricans. 

The recent passsage on Public Law 103-417 can have important 

repercutions on the United · States' response to the plebiscite. The subject of the 

U.S. citizenship of persons born in Puerto Rico and their ability to transmit it to 

their children and grandchildren, within the current status as well as in a 

30 
271 

clitrerent one, baa been one of the IIUijor ia111es of controveny both for U.S. 

goverment ofticials and the Puerto Rican people in recent years. It ia an issue that 

should be addresed by you. 

Congress baa helped facilatate the tranafer of U.S. citizenahip from one 

generation of Puerto Ricans to the other, in the event of a Puerto Rico clearly 

outside of the Territorial Clause powersl. 

We will discuss the content, scope, purpose and implications os Section 102 

of the "'nmigration and Naturalization Teci-Dical Corrections Act of 1994", as it 

was popularly named. But firs~;, we will take a brief look at the nature of the 

current U.S. citizenship of Puerto Ricans bom in and living on Puerto Rico. 

U.S. Citbeasbip in Puerto Rico Today 

We suggest that the 1990 article entitled, .The Empire Strikes Out: 

Congresswnal Ruminations on the Citizenship Status of Puerto Ricans, written 

by Law Professor Jose Julian Alvarez Gonzalez2 be used as background 

material for this discussion. It offers a thorough review of the issue and an 

excellent analysis of the retainability of U.S. citizenship by Puerto Ricans after the 

attainment of full independence. This analysis is equally valid within the status 

of a Free Associated State (F AS), clearly outside Congress' territorial powers and 

1 Article IV, Section 3, U.S. Constitution. 

2 27 Harvard Journal on Legislation 308 (1990). 

31 
272 

in the context of a "bilateral compact that can only be amended by mutual 

consent, -3 as was favored by the Puerto Rican alec:torate on November 14, 1993. 

Puerto Ricans w~ectivelly naturalized by a Coqreuional statute in 

.. .-----

1917.4 This Jr&l!t _.bowever did not iDcorporate Puerto Rico into the United .r 

States.5 Subsequent lePsiation has been deemed of a "housekeepq nature"' 

in the sense that its main purposes were that Puerto Ricans born. after 1917 

became U.S. citizens at birth and that those who had abhored U.S. citizenship in 

1917 could embrace it without much difBcalty.7 

The advent of Commonwealth status in 1952, tbroueh two Conp-easional 

Acta8, did nothing to alter the citizenship status of peraons born in Puerto Rico, 

which has remained the same to this day. 

During the failed Congressional proccass of 1989 to 1991 to celebrate a U.S. 

sponsored status plebiscite iii. Puerto Rico, the issue of the permanence of U.S. 

citizenship under the current status, its empowerment or independence was once 

3 This is a quote taken from the winning definition of th" 1993 status plebiscite. For a full 

translation of ail three status definitions as they were presented by Puerto Rico's political 

par1ies, see "Hemisphere",Vol. 5, No. 3, Summer/Fall 1993, page 39. 

4 39 Stat. 951 (1917). 

s ·aalzac .v. Porto Rico. 258 u.s. 298 (1922). 

8 Alvarez Gonz41ez, note 2, supra, page 325. 

7 ld. There were Congressional enactments on 1927 (44 Stat. 1418), on 1934 (48 Stat. 

1245), on 1938 (52 Stat. 377) and on 1952 (H Stat. 236). This last one is known as "The 

lnmigrstion and Nationality Act of 1952" and with amendments, including the one discussed 

further. is the current applicable legislation. 

a 64 Stat. 319 (1950) and 66 Stat. 327 (1952). 

32 
278 

again brought into the forefront. Of the various analysis made dUI'iq that time 

we think that Professor Alvarez's is the most accurate one. He concluded: 

"The CRS proposal for unilateral revocation of United States 

citizenship9, in the event of Puerto Rican independence (or a bilateral 

compact of association with the U.S.), is almost certainly invalid under 

long-standing principles of United States constitutional law. On the other 

hand, a requirement of election of citizenship, although not as clearly 

invalid, raises serious constitutional and policy issues concerning equal 

treatment ...... In view of the legal uncertainties that other . solutions 

present, of particular demographic characteristics and migration patterns 

of the Puerto Rican people, and of the requirements for true self 

determination, dual citizenship may be the moat workable solution for an 

independent (or politically associated and outaide Tentorial Clause 

powers) Puerto Rico in light of the unilateral collective paturalization of 

1917. • 10 (Text inside parenthesis added.) 

As we have stated before, we believe this is the correct interpretation of the 

current citezenship status ofPuerto Ricans and of the possibility of retaining U.S. 

citizenship in a non-territorial future as a Free Associated State (FAS). 

The 1994 AJDendment 

The dispositive parts of Section 102 of the •!nmigration and Naturalization 

Technical Corrections Act of 1994" amended Section 322 of the •!nmigration and 

Nationality Act of 1952" to read as followsll: 

'Congressional Research ServiCe, Discretion of Congress Respecting the Citizenship Status 

of Puerto Ricans, March 9, 1989. This memo was prepared by Johnny Killian. 

10 Alvarez Gonz41ez, note 2, supra, pages 361-362. 

11 The best way to confront the discussion of this statutory provision is to quote it In fuU, even 

33 
274 

•cHILDREN BORN OUTSIDE THE UNITED STATES; 

APPLICATION FOR CERtiFICATE OF CITIZENSHIP REQUIREMENTS. 

•Sec. 322. {a) A parent who il a citizen of the UDited States may apply 

to the Attorney General for a certificate of citizenship on behalf at a children 

bom outside the UDited States. The Attorney General sba11 illue such a 

certificate of citizenship upon proof to the satisfaction of the Attorney 

General that the followiq conditions have been fulfDled: 

•(1) At least one parent il a citizen of the United States, whether by 

birth or naturalization. 

"(2) The child ia physically present in the United States pursuant to a 

lawful admission. · 

•(3) The child ia under the ap of 18 yean and in the lepl custody of 

the citizen parent. 

"(4) If the citizen parent il an adoptive parent ot the child, the c.hild 

was adopted by the citizen parent before the child reached the ap of 16 

years and the child meets the requirement for beiDa a child under 

IUbparrqraph {E) or {F) of section 101 (b) (1). 

•(5) If the citizen parent has not been physically present in the UDited 

States or its outlyina po8181iona for a period or periods totalinc not less than 

five years, at least two of which were after attaininc the qe of fourteen 

years-

•(A) the child ia residina permanently in the UDited States with the 

citizen parent, pursuant to a lawful adsmission for permanent 

residence, or 

"(B) a citizen parent of the citizen parent has been physically present 

in the UDited States or its outlying poaaesiona for a period or periods 

totaling not leu than five years, at least two of which were after attaining 

the age of fourteen years.• 

It is important to note that for purposes of the Inmieration and 

Naturalization Act, Puerto Rico is statutory defined as beiDa part of the United 

States.12 

If that meant lnclucling such an extensive quote. 

12 54 Stat. 1137, sec. 101(d) (1940). It has been debated to this day whether by this action 

Congreaa extended to Pueno Ricans the protective provlaalonS of the Foutteenth Amendment of 

the U.S. Cc:~stltutlon. See Alvarez GonUJez. note 2 , Supfa. PIIG8S 325-331 tor a brief summary 

of this debate. The Popular Oemoctallc Party in its most recent ofllcial expreaalon regarding 

34 
275 

The House Report that accompanied the lqialation 11 ltated that the 

"purpose• Of this measure is: 

-w remove disparate treatment betweeu. men aDd WOID8D iD their ability to 

transfer U.S. citizenship and to pi'OIDOte tbe adquisitlon of U.S. ciUwnsbip 

by reJaxinl or elbninatlq certain burdenaome and anreuonable 

reqafremenfL" (Emphui.s added.) 

A Free Auociated State (FAS) would be •outside the United ·States• and 

those persons born iD it would be bom outside the Uoited States. 

If one visualizes, as the people of Puerto Rico demanded iD November 1993, 

an Estado Libre Asociado14, clearly outside the Territorial Clause powers of the 

U.S. Constitution, the relevance of this provision becomes obvious iD that it solves 

previous concerns about the issue of citizenship. Let us elaborate. 

this issue (see page 10, infra) demanded that it be clarified that the protections of the 

Fourteenth Amendment are applicable to U.S. citizens born in Puerto Rico. In terms of the 

applicability of the 1994 amendments to the lnmigration and Nationality Act, this debate is 

irrelevant because that Act considers Puerto Rico to be part of the United States, thus making 

the amendments applicable to citizens born in the island before the final disposition of all 

Territorial Clause powers by Congress. 

13 House Report 103·387. No Senate Report was filed. 

14 Although the official translation to the English language is the general denomination 

"Commonwealth", the author prefers the term "Free Assiociated State• because it is more 

representative of the Puerto Rican people's interpretation and aspiration, of what the 

relationship should be. In at least one attempt to enhance the current relationship, a proposal 

submitted to the President of the United States in 1975 by a Puerto Rico· United States Ad hoc 

Commission, it was suggested that the title "Free Associated State• should be adopted as the 

official translation of "Estado Ubre Asociado". It is our belief that if a bDateral compact of 

association is put into place that should be the official English denomination. 

35 
276 

The report states: 

"That ~he Committe mtends to establish a proccedure to enable 

Americans who live and work abroad to naturalbe the children 

adopted or bom to them ill a truly expedltlou :auuuutr ••• .For that 

reason, the Committee in tend• that there be clo•e cooperation 

amon.r Federal a.rencle• involved ao that only one trip to the 

United States is Df!C881181'J' for each family and so that admlnl•trative 

formalities -both before departure and upon anival in the United States are 

completed with minimal delay. Specifically the Committee envisions a 

proccedure enabling the U.S. parent to apply for their children 

naturalization from abroad, :recieve notice ofprellmlnary appaoVal abroad, 

and BJ'l'8DIB in advance for a .m,Je visit to the United States with the 

cbildren to llnalbe tbe naturalization." (Emphasis added.)1.15 

1be Implications 

For purposes of this discussion let us hypothesise that Puerto Rico enters 

into a clearly non·territorial bilateral compact of association (or for that matter, 

full independence) on January 1, 1996. 

It would be clear that, due to what is provided in the new Section 322 (a) (1) 

to 322 (a) (4), all the children yet to be born of any Puerto Ricans in the island who 

are 16 years old or older would have to be certified as U.S. citizens since birth. 

With just one visit to the continental U.S. before reaching 18 years of age, and the 

completion of the burocratic proccess outlined in the legislation and comented in 

the report, the children and grar:.dchildren of those citizens will also have to be 

certified as U.S citizens since birth. 

15 House Report No. 103-387, note 12, supra, page 6. 

36 
Section 322 (a) (5) would deal with cases involvinc the children of 

Puerto RicaD8 16 years old and younpr after the advent of de&nitive disposition of 

all Territorial Clause powers over Puerto Rico by Congress. 

Section 322 (a) (5) (A) euaranteea that any child of a Puerto Rican 14 years 

of age or older would, if legally admitted to the United States for. permanent 

residence, have a right to be certified as a U.S. citizen since birth, once the 

prescribed proc:c:eas is completed. 

Section 322 (a) (5) {B) is of still more relevance to the Puerto Rican situation. 

It states that a citizen grandparent (whose ofFspring in also a citizen) who has 

lived in the United States or ita outlying possesion& for at least 5 years (with the 

only condition that 2 of those 5 yean were after attaining the age of 14) can 

transfer his/her U.S. citizenship to his/her grandchildren with just one visit to 

the United States and' compliance with the prescribed proccedures. Aa was the 

ceae with Section 322 (a) (1) to 322 (a) (4) the child shall be certified as having been 

a U.S. citizen since birth, as ordered by the 1994 Act. 

This would guarantee that the grandchildren of any Puerto Rican who is 16 

or older at the moment of final dispossition of all Territorial Clause powers over 

Puerto Rico, would be able to transmit his/her U.S. citizenship to all of his/her 

grandchildren, thus literally Mgrandfathering" the citizenship. 

37 
278 

In the case of future pnerationa of Puerto BiCIIDII not covered by the 

examples given, they too can benefit from the proccedure designed in this 

lepslation. A citizen parent, after all, can always transmit his/her citizenship to 

his/her children. This law merely states the conditiona to be complied with in 

order for the certification of the citizenship of the chfld to be issued by the Attorney 

Genera1. 16 The Act of 1994 solves a problem existing until now for policy 

members on the future of Puerto Rico. 

The U.S. citizenship of Puerto Ricana today is guaranteed by "long-standing 

principles of United States constitutionallaw.•17 With passage of P.L. 103-417, 

Collgress eased the requirements and proccedure for current generations of U.S. 

citizens to transmit their citizenship to their descendants born abroad. This was 

the express purpose of said legislation. IS 

The majority of Puerto Ricans value their U.S. citizenship for three main 

reasons: 

16 In the long run all of this might be superseded by events. If the already agreed upon goal of 

an hemispheric market by the year 2005 is achieved, it wiD eventually, as Is the case of the 

European Economic Community, bring about the emergence of an hemispheric citizenship, an 

American Citizenship in the true sense of the word. The tree flow of labor may follow with the 

free flow of capital. 

17 Alvarez GollDiez, note 10, supra. 

18 See note 12, supra for the report. 

38 
279 

• Half or the Puerto Rican natioaality resides in the COD.tineutal u.s. Loss of 

citizenship for Puerto Ricans on the island would mean the separation of 

tbouaanda or families, if not more. 

• Puerto Ricans, through the decades as U. S. citizens have earned many 

benefits directly derived from that citizenship. They atroncly wish to retain them 

and it ia their right. 

• Puerto Ricans wish to continue having the international protection they 

derive from being citizens or the stronpat international and military power of the 

world. 

The people of Puerto Rico voted on November 14 in favor of a -Jnlateral 

compact which can only be amended by mutual conaent_-19 This, precisely, wu 

done in order to do away once and for all with the ongoing debate of whether 

Puerto Rico is still a territory under the plenary powers of Conereu or not. The 

General Council of the Popular Democratic Party adopted, on November 17, 1990, 

a resolution which baa not been repealed to this day that stated that all status 

options (including the Estado Libre Asociado) bad to be outside the Territorial 

Clause powers. PDP leaders assured the electorate that the 1993 plebiscite 

definition was baaed on the 1990 resolution. 20 A inajority of Puerto Ricans have 

19 See note 3, supra for the offiCial definitions of the plebiscite. 

20 Se11 Medina, Jorge L "PPO drafts new definition of commonwealth for :~e ballor, The San 

39 
280 

upreued their desire DOt to be a U.S. territory.21 

We coDclude that Section 102 ofP.L 108-41'7 permita tbe traDsferofU.S. 

citizeuhJp to penous born Ia tbe 1abmd after U. enten Jato a clearly DOD• 

That being the case, we think it would be in the beat interests of the U.S. and 

Puerto Rico that the W.H.l.A. W.G.P .R. make the adoption of this pouition on the 

citizenship issue an intrinsical part of any CoqreuionaliU:tion in implementing 

a bilateral compact between Puerto Rico and the United States. 

This would pve Puerto Ricans a creater senae of the stability of their U.S. 

citizenship and or their ability to paaa it to their children. We urre the 

Juan Star, Tuesday, July 6. 1993; Martinez, Andrea. • 'SenciDa y ganadora' Ia definicl6n del 

ELA", El Nuevo Ola, July 6, 1993. It was with thai IIUUranc& that PROELA Md the Jwentud 

Autonomlsta Puertorrlquella actlvelly participated In the Eslado Un Asclc:iad7's winning 

campaign as Is evident In the following: Ga'cla, lvonne. "PDP Integrates youth Into party 

atructure", The San Juan Star, Tuesday, August 10, 1993; Vega Ramos, Luis. "Status Olgno y 

Permanente•, El Oiarlo, October 14, 1993; EFE News Agency. "Exxgen acJaren status no 

colonial del ELA", El Diario, November 11, 1993. See 111so Item 10 of the ltfemorandum for 

the Presldtlnt of the Unn.ti States from the Govemclr of the Commonwe.nh of PuerltJ Rico, June 

17, 1959 and former Governor Hem4ndez Col6n'satatements regarding the meaning and 

Implications of the 1993 status vote tor the Popular Democratic Pllly in Estrada Resto, Nib. 

"Traza e1 rumbo a seguir el PPD", El Nuevo Dla, Monday January 30, 1995, page 7. 

21 The resuhs of the plebiscite were: Estlldo L.lbre Asoclado 48.4%, Statehood 46.2% and 

Independence 4.4%. Subsequently, the INders of the Independence Pllly have publicly 

expressed their intention to let their votes be construed as a demand for a U.S. ~ to the 

bilateral compact pettltion. approved by the ESIIItlo Lbre AsociadD votes, now llllklng It the 

position of 53% of those who voted In the plebiscite. See The Washlnglon Post, November 19, 

1993, page A54. 

40 
281 

Administration and the Congress to explicitly include this matter with reference 

to the Act of 1994 in the text of the compact, since it has already been addresed by 

the last Congress in a favorable way for Puerto Ricans. 

41 
282 

PROELA 

P.O. BOX 2347, UPR Station 

Rio Piedra, P.R. 00931-9998 

Januazy 27. 1995. 

Ms. Marcia Hale and 

Mr. Jeffrey Farrow 

White House Interagency Worklng Group on Puerto Rico 

U.S. Commerce Department 

6th Floor 

WasbJngton. D.C. 20230 

Dear Ms. Hale and Mr. Farrow: 

We are enclostng a copy of a document entitled Develapmellt, Work and 

8oclal.Ja8tlce: A !lew Economic Covelumt BetweeD Puerto Rico and the 

Ualted States. It Is a prellm1nary version of our economic proposal. 

We are prepared to discuss its contents wtth you. We hope it proves 

useful in the Interagency Worklng Group's proceedings toward the fulflllment 

of its responsibility. 

My warmest regards to both of you. 

Sincerely. 
283 

PROELA 

P.O. BOX 2347, 1JPR Station 

Rio Piedra, P.R. 00931-9998 

Development, Work and Social Justice: A New Economic Covenant 

Between Puerto Rico and the United States 

Now that the 104th Congress Is considering the "Contract With America" 

legislation it Is time to discuss the economic, social and political consequences 

of that legislation for Puerto Rico. PROELA bas been working on a document 

that Will present the fundamental principles of a new economic model that can 

be Viable Inside of the new reality that Will be created With the 1mm1nent 

restructuring of the economic relationship between Puerto Rico and the United 

States. 

What follows Is a prel1m1nary version of that document. We have 

decided to release lt 1n time for the January 31st public bearing on the impact 

of the "Contract With America" on the U.S. Insular Areas. This prellminary 

document also constitutes our first proposal submitted to the Administrative 

Interagency Task Force on Puerto Rico, coordinated by Ms. Marcia Hale and 

Mr. Jeffrey Farrow. 

We are unve1l1ng this outline of our proposal for economic development 

With the full conviction that we are helping the necessary discussion of the 

real alternatiVes that Puerto Rico bas for the changes In the near future. 

In hls State of the Commonwealth Address, Governor Rossell6 made a 

call not to unnecessartly alarm the public With regard of the changes 1n store 

or be would be forced to denounce the political situation that affects the 

capability of Puerto Rico to force those challenges. In last year's address be 

had proposed a "new economic model" for the tsland. But. to this day, be bas 

not acknowledged that this new economic model Is only possible With the 

43 

2Q-766 - 96 - 10 
284 

development of the Estado Libre Asoclado, the Free Associated State of P.R., 

wtthtn a bilateral compact of association that Is clearly outside of the 

Territorial Clause of the U.S. Constitution. In IUs most recent address, the 

Governor also omitted that the challenges created by the approval of the 

·contract With America" legislation only can be faced with the Implementation 

of an economic model that pennlts Puerto Rico to participate with its own 

voice 1n the global economy and to enter tnto International agreements. This, 

also, Is only possible wtthtn the context of a bilateral compact of association. 

The existence of NAFrA, albeit its current problems. the recently· 

proposed creation of an economic block spanntng the Americas, the recent 

ratlftcatton of the GATT and the Imminent passage of many of tbe "Contract 

With America" legislation, forces alltnterested to act swtftly and responsibly. 

At this juncture our cMc responsibility Imposes on us that we alert the 

Puerto Rican people of the serious repercussions that the approval of the 

"Contract With America" m.tght have on Puerto Rico and to present a wellthought alternatiVe for the future. This Is more Important now that President 

Clinton tn his last State of the Union Address coincided With the many of the 

proposals presented. The many slm1lartties between Congress' "Contract With 

America" and the President's "New C~nant" VirtUally guarantees passage of 

those reforms. Therefore it becomes necessacy to educate our people about the 

dismantling of the welfare state and the resulttng reduction of federal funds 

transfered to the Island that m.tght be reflected tn cuts on some of the 

followtng programs: Food Stamps. WIC, Housing Subsidies, Plan Eight, Funds 

for Highways and Infrastructure and others. The clear purpose of those cuts Is 

to eventually do away With the deficit that the Federal Government faces. 

Puerto Rico must prepare for them now. 

The new system of federal aids will shift from ·welfare to workfare. 

Permanent dependency will be substituted by tempomry one. People will be 

44 
285 

asked to work for a llvtng. 

Now the moment requires a commitment of honesty and work so that we 

can tell the truth to the Puerto Rican people about the Inevitable changes of 

the near future. 

On h1s last State of the Union Address, President Clinton revived h1s 

offer to the A.mertcan people for a ·New Covenant•. ln vtew of the adjustments 

that thiS and the ·eontract With Am.ertca• W1ll force on the Puerto Rican 

economy, PROELA pi'OpOHS the adoption of a NEW Economic Covenant 

Between Puerto Rico and the United States. 

Th1s New Economtc Covenant, that must be an fundamental part of the 

b1lateral compact of association, W1ll sponsor the creation of a new economtc 

model. Th1s model W1ll be d1rected to utlllze to the maximum, the many 

resources of our ISland, benefiting of the scheme of block grant funding. so 

that we may obtain the conditions that W1ll permit and foment a selfsustaining economy. It must also recogntze Puerto Rico's rtght to participate 

With its own voice, In the international markets. 

The New Economtc Covenant w1ll be based on the follOWing principles: 

• Development. to empower the local private sector. augmenting 

its competitiveness, modernizing the islands Infrastructure, attracting foreign 

investors and ut111z1ng the government as facilitator of job creation in the 

private sector and not as a job proVider. 

• Work. recognizing the need. to invest tbP. govt"ntmP.nt n"l'lnll'I'N"~ 

in reeducating our inactive labor force, so that we may take them out of the 

circle of dependence and reinsert them In the job market. 

• Saclat.lnM:~. R.rr.P.pttng the government's responsibility of 

providing an emcient social assistance system (•safety net•) able to provide 

adequate assiStance to the really needy people, with special consideration to 

senior citizens. children, disabled and helping all of those With the potential of 

breaking out of overcomtng the dependence cycle. AbOve all the government 

must provide adequate education to all our young people, permitting them to 

avoid dependence or .a life of crime. 

45 
286 

The New Economic Covenant which we propose 1s poss1ble only Within a 

non-terrttortal development of the "Estado Ubre Aaoclado" and contains the 

followtng elements: 

* All federal funds wbich are not directly dlstrtbuted to lndMdual 

residents of Puerto Rico W1ll be transferred to the Government of Puerto Rico 

as a block grant. The government W1ll receiVe such grant With the commitment 

that no less than 50'J(, of such funds W1ll be used for ftnancmg the development 

of the Island's infrastructure and to provide for a self-su1Dc1ent Puerto Rico. 

The rest of the funds W1ll be invested in establishing programs geared towards 

the creauon of priVate sector jobs, assist in the development of the Puerto 

Rican industry. promoUng the educaUon for our people and prov1d1ng · 

assistance to the really needy who could not reinsert themselves in the job 

market. 

* The government W1ll possess the capacity to part1c1pate With its 

own voice in the process of economic globalization, entertng into internauonal 

agreement and treatises that promote our the bltegraUon to the Latin 

American and Caribbean markets. This way, an economic structure can be 

designed where Puerto Rico takes advantage oftts ample and h1ghJy educated 

work force in a compeUttve global economy and in the regtonal ec<?nomy. 

* Puerto Rican capital should be promoted so that it can be 

reinvested in Puerto Rico. These incentives must cover both the indMdual 

investors as well as the insUtutional investors including both the small Puerto 

Rican business persons as well as the emergent Puerto Rican export lndustiy. 

SaVing and reinvestment W1ll be promoted for small and medium businesses 

also providing to them and to the Puerto Rico export industry the necessazy 

tools to efficiently Insert themselves 1n the Integrated markets of the next 

century. 

* As part of the development of a Puerto Rican Industry and 

commerce that 1s self-sustaining, the New Economic Covenant W1ll sponsor the 

cooperative acUvity In the sectors of service, saving and Investments. 

manufacture, commerce, dlstrtbution and agrtculture. 

* The New Economic Covenant W1ll sponsor the development of 

an actiVe banking system to facWtate the promoUon and attracUon of foreign 

investment and industrtes in Puerto Rico. At the same time the development 

of this sector W1ll facWtate the insertion of the Puerto Rican industry to the 

international markets, providing financing and expert advice to them. 

* Personal savmgs W1ll be encouraged through the elaboration of 

individual and family reurement accounts which funds can be Withdrawn 

46 
287 

wtthout any tax penalty when such funds are to be Invested In the economic 

and social development of the ISland. 

* . Efforts will be coordinated to attract to Puerto Rico foreign 

Industries of known growth potential offertng them guaranteed local tax 

Incentives and promoting our skilled and productive labor force. Current U.S. 

tax Incentives wtll be matntalned as proviSions of the bilateral compact. This 

will help create many service-oriented industries that wt11 grow thanks to the 

stabillty of the tax exemption benefits of the industries that they will serve. 

* Under the New Economic Covenant it wt11 be negotiated wtth 

the Congress the el1mtnation of the appl1cab111ty of the U.S. Maritime Shipping 

Laws to Puerto Rico. This will promote local and International Investment In 

the lndustJy of maritime transportation, and as a result. importation a:nd 

exportation costs wtll decrease. That will mean lower prtces for Puerto Rican 

consumers and greater opportunities for local manufacturers to place their 

products on their global market. 

These measures have been proposed in the past by other Puerto Ricans 

who believe In the sovereign and self-sustatntng developmedt of our current 

status. PROELA believes that this moment demands a dialogue between those 

who share this vision for Puerto Rico. Recent developments have htghl1ghted 

the importance of this dialogue. which 1s now more necessary than ever. 

In preparing this proposal. we have examined the current political and 

econom1cal relation between Puerto Rico and the United States and the 

mandate gtven by our electorate on November 14. 1993 to develop that relation 

wtthtn a bilateral compact of association. We have examined the proposals 

that make up the "Contract wtth America·. the recent State of the Union 

Address gtven by President Cltnton, the federal economic legislation now 

applicable to Puerto Rico and the approval of NAFI'A and GATI. From this 

examination 1s that we present this New Economic Covenant as an altemattve 

for the immediate future. 

We believe that this 1s the only possible course of action that we can 

undertake to confront the current climate of Insecurity and lack of stabillty 

that is brought by the proposed legislation. The Department of Treasury has 

47 
288 

said that thiS legl.slatlon could cause an esumated lou of 59 mllllon dollars 

per year to the Puerto Rican treasury. Th1.s situauon can only be solved 1n a 

permanent way by reviSing and actualizing the current relaUOnsblp between 

Puerto Rico and the U.S. to meet the challenges of the twenty first century. 

This revision must be 1n the context of the mandate gtven by the Puerto Rican 

electorate 1n November of 1993. PROELA Is dlSchargtng its responsibility by 

gMng publ1city to thiS proposal for a New EcoiiOIIIic Coveaaat can only work 

wtth1n a Bilateral CoalpiiCt of .Veoct•ttoa wl11ch can only be amended by 

mutual consent. 

48 
A =:ARCIA· PASSALACQUA 

~ AtW.JaiiiCORPOIW)() 

Karch 7, 1995. 

289 

Kr·. Jeffrey Farrow & Ks. Marcia Hale, Co-Chairs 

Interagency Working Group on Puerto Rico 

White Rouse/Department of Commerce 

Washington, D.C. 

Dear Mr. Farrow and Ms. Hale: 

I want to offer as input to your deliberations, a very 

important fact that has come to ay attention today. 

Precision Research, Inc. is a local polling firm that was 

the only one to accurately indicate the possible results of the 

recent referendu11 held in Puerto Rico, at the expense of other 

aore prestigious ones (including Sergio Bendixen & Associates, 

the one with which my own political analysis fira and WKAQ was 

associated). For that reason, it enjoys great popular respect. 

Precision Research Inc. did a poll between February 24 and 

Karch 1, 1995 for the weekly El Diario, and included at the 

request of Cambio XXI (a civil society organization for political 

education) three key questions relating to your functions. 

The questions and their results were as follows: 

!.Are political parties effective in their dealings with the 

United States? 

Yes 37.6% No 48.4% Don't know 14.0% 

2. Should political parties be the ones to negotiate the 

relationship between Puerto Rico and the United States? 

Yes 43.1% No 50.9% Don't know 6.1% 

3. Should the people make their own decisions [regardless of 

the parties] regarding our relations with the United States? 

Yes 77.9% No 17.6% Don't know 4.5% 

What these figures indicate is that public opinion is 

solidly behind the White Rouse Working Group on Puerto Rico when 

it extends beyond the political parties and towards the civil 

society, its efforts to gauge the input of the Puerto Ricans on 

the future political status formulas for Puerto Rico. 

I hope this inforaation is useful to you. War11 regards, 
290 

PRECISION RESEARCH, INC 

DR. PABLO RAMOS MELENDEZ 

PRESIDENTE _ 

ENCUESTA SOBRE 

RELACION DE PUERTO RICO 

CON ESTADOS UNIDOS 

MARZO 1 DE 1995 

52 -
291 

ELEMENTOS DE LA 'ENCUESTA 

ELEMENTOS PARAMETROS 

TAMANO DE LA ENCUESTA 724 

MARGEN DE ERROR 4% 

METOOOLOGIA ALEATORIA (AL AZAR) 

PERIOOO DE ENTREVISTAS FEBRERO 24 A MARZO 1 DE 1995 

LUGAR PUERTO RICO 

COMPANIA RESPONSABLE PRE,CISION RESEARCH, INC. 

ENCUESTADOR OR. PABLO RAMOS MELENDEZ' 

53 
292 

CONCLUSIONES 

EL PUEBLO NO ESTA DE ACUERDO EN QUE LOS 

PARTIOOS POLITICOS EST AN ACTUANOO CON EFECTIVIOAO 

EN LA RELACION ENTRE P.R. Y LOS E.U. 

EL PUEBLO NO ESTA DE ACUERDO EN QUE SEAN LOS 

PARTIDOS POUTICOS LOS QUE GESTIONEN LA RELACION 

ENTRE PUERTO RICO Y LOS ESTADOS UNIDOS 

EL PUEBLO ESTA DE ACUERDO EN QUE DEBE SER EL 

PUEBLO DE PUERTO RICO QUIEN TOME SUS PROPIAS 

DECISIONES EN SU RELACION CON LOS ESTAOOS UNIOOS. 

54 

48.4% vs. 37.6% 

50.9% vs. 43.1% 

77.9% vs. 17.6% 
293 

EFECTIVIDAD DE LOS PARTIDOS POLITICOS 

EN SU GESTION CON LOS ESTADOS UNIDO: 

EFECTIVIDAD 

Sl 

NO 

NOSE 

55 

IN DICE 

(%) 

37.6% 

48.4% 

14.0% 
294 

DEBEN SEA LOS PARTIDOS POLITICOS LOS QUE 

GESTIONEN LA RELACION DE PR. Y LOS E.U.? 

OPINION 

Sl 

NO 

NOSE 

56 

IN DICE 

(%) 

43.1% 

50.9% 

6.1% 
295 

DEBE EL PUEBLO TOMAR SUS PROPIAS DECISIONES 

EN SU RELACION CON LOS ESTADOS UNIDOS? 

OPINION 

Sl 

NO 

NOSE 

57 

'IN DICE 

(%) 

77.9% 

17.6% 

4.5% 
296 

PUBLIC INFORMATION 

PLAN 

0-bloxxi 

~5734 

San Juan, Puerto Rico 00906 

(809) 268-1200 Fax (809) 268-3660 

MEMORANDUM 

TO: INTERAGENCY WORKING GROUP ON PUERI'O RICO 

RE: PUBUC INFORMATION PLAN 

Date: February 18, 1995. 

In response to yom invitation to provide input to the IWGIPR we are hereby submitting a 

proposal of public education to the people of Puerto Rico on the present situation re status. 

During the United States presence in Puerto Rico, communications, education and the media 

have been direc:tcd to support the status quo. Efforts have been direc:tcd to support the past relations 

between the United States and Puerto Rico, and for that reason, any efforts to conduct an educational 

project to put reality in an adequate perspective, have failed. 

This situation has not only contributed to the prolongation of the status quo, but has made the 

two major political parties accomplices in that effort, limiting the people's acces to truth. 

This organization, after attending several seminars held in Washington on the territorial question 

in recent yean, has come to the conclusion that on the part of the government of the United States 

there is a determination to change the present relations between our two peoples, towards more 

autonomy and mutuality in the relationship of our two peoples. 

This fact is amply demonstrated in our own Cambio XXI production «Time to Change», a one 

hour selection of the most important lectures delivered at the most recent conference. in Washington 

that has had a very popular reception. More information and education of our people are of vital 

importance to achieve that objective peacefully and orderly. 

60 
297 

Cambio XXI, to that effect, presents this PUBLIC INFORMATION PROPOSAL to achieve the 

goal that our people may understand witbout passion, their present situation and options to solve it . 

.... Towards that purpose, we propose two avenues for action: 

1. THE ROLE OF UNITED STATES FUNCilONARIES 

It is indispensable that the people of Puerto Rico have direct acces to officials in Washington 

that arc dealing with the situation. 

Among them: staffers in the White House, staffers sin the Congressional Committees of 

jurisdiction, staffers of the Interagency Working Group on Puerto Rico, staffers in the Department 

of Justice, the General Accounting Office and the Office of Management and Budget, among 

others. 

Secretaries of the Departments and instrumentalities with jurisdiction over Puerto Rico must 

recognize and announce the plans of change for our islands in the press, radio and television, in 

their own voices and images. This fact will surpass the present stage of denial in our political 

leadership and go directly to the people with the message. 

Simultaneous translation via vidifont is necessary. 

These federal functionaires must offer the local media a clear and specific description of the 

situation and its prospects in a detailed manner, so as to promote understanding. 

These appcarcnces must be planned in island-wide tours to speak to college students, religious 

denominations, professional groups, unions, and civic groups. Cambio XXI is willing and able to 

organize and coordinate those visits if the costs of the visits are assumed by the respective Washington 

instrumentality. 

2. DIRECT CONTACT WITH POPULAR SECTORS 

A massive program of radio talk-shows should be designed with a group oflocal and Washington 

experts that could answer questions and submit themselves to verbal exchanges with listeners, as 

well as television shows with the same purpose. 

Columns in local newspapers shoud address those issues. 

61 
298 

There are, in our organization, sufficient numbers of educated professionals with different areas 

of expertise that can organize and conduct these public discussions of previous studies by the 

General Accounting Office, the Office of Management and Budget, and the lnterangcncy Working 

Group itself, if provided with the necessary information and briefmgs from Washington. 

••• 

Cambio XXI is a non-profit organization. We offer our~ help to the WH/IWG in this 

effort towards creating a healthy public opinion that can understand and support the effort to solve 

the status situation of Puerto Rico once and for all, as a response to the majority will expressed in 

the 1993 vote. 

We look forward to your reactiont to this proposal. 

62 
299 

PET1'110N 

~ COIIl:aJieCl citiza1s we are addressina you to set forth the ·following decalogue of 

ftmd8!!M':I!tal matters: 

I) The people lllld the goVCI'IIIDalt of Puerto Rico, the people of the United States of 

America, many sectors of the international community lllld also important private institutions, 

have recopized the problem of the existing colonial ties in the relation between Puerto Rico and 

the United States. 

2) This problem has taken many years to be recognized lllld it is at this stage of the evolution 

of the world that measun:s have been taken to solve it. In spite of the many sacrifices lllld efforu 

during a long time, the problem yet lw not been solved. 

3) The Organization of the United Nations, realizing the W"gcncy to solve the few colonial 

problems that still exist, has declared the decade of the nineties as the last of the millennium for 

the total elimination of colonial relations. 

4) During the past years the Congress of the United States, together with the leadership of 

Puerto Rican political parties, took an initiative for the possible solution of the problem. Said 

initiative included deliberations lllld studies of the United States National Security Council. 

S) The state Universities and Colleges of the territories of the United States, together with 

the Washington. D.C. Consortium of Universities and with the representation of the governments 

and political parties of each of the territories and the Federal Government of the United States, 

have celebrated two congresses in the past two years to deal with the theme of the solution of the 

problem regarding their American territories: Samoa, Guam, Marianas, Virgin Islands and 

Puerto Rico. 

6) These initiatives and dialogues nevertheless have been paralyzed indefinitely since 

positions have arisen within the United States rejecting the process if statehood is included as 

one of the alternatives. Until now, nevertheless, regarding this position no official 

pronouncement has been made that could be understood by .the voters as truly representative of 

the policy of the United States. 

64 
300 

7) While all this takes place, and since this pronouncement does not exist, the people of 

Puerto Rico have been aliens to this reality. The annexationist politicians of Puerto Rico have 

made the Puerto Ricans see that in case that a majority exists in favor of this alternative in 

Puerto Rico, statehood will be immediately feasible without any objection regarding our 

particular national identity, with Spanish as official language, our own Olympic Committee, 

separate participation in international events, international recognition of professional 

associations as the teachers, lawyers, physicians, notaries and engineers; labor unions, student 

organizations and religious and cultural institutions. They even ask for Latino support of 

statehood in the United States, since as they allege they will have more senators and 

congressmen that will represent their interests, that is to say that Puerto Rico will increase the 

Latino presence and power in the United States. Statehood is presented in Puerto Rico as a 

supposed avalanche of social programs and unlimited economic benefits. 

8) Notwithstanding that erroneous representation, recently through its last collective 

expression, the people of Puerto Rico (in a referendum that took place in 1993 and promoted by 

legislation of an annexationist government) defeated statehood by majority for a second time, 

after another defeat in 1967. 

9) As Puerto Ricans, we are willing to participate in a dialogue for the solution of the 

problem, to ask for a clear and certain expression from the United States regarding alternatives; 

if there is not that clear expression, our people will wrongfully belive that admission into the 

Union as a state is still a feasible alternative. 

10) Once this is stated, we can have a dialogue, and the people of Puerto Rico could begin to 

negotiate with the United States, to solve this historical and fundamental problem of this century. 

Tills dialogue on the alternatives to solve this problem can be effective and successful only when 

there is that clear and unequivocal negative expression on statehood as stated in sections 8 and 9; 

this is essential without delay. Tills document constitutes a petition for the redress of grievances, 

to the aforesaid effect. 

65 
301 

Given at San Juan, Puerto Rico, on 4 of October, 1994, by the Wldersigned (idenfified by 

the highest position they have occupied in their professional lives): 

-Prof. Ivonne Acosta Lespier 

Professor; President of the History 

Section of Ateneo Puertorriquei\o 

Dr. Pablo Ivan Altieri Nieto 

Cardiologist 

cesar Arana Vivaldi 

Architea; Federal Housing 

Administration Officer 

Dr. Enrique Arana Vivaldi - Doctor 

San Juan Prec:int Electoral Director 

for Popular Democratic Party 

Prof. Carlos Herman Amaldo Meyners 

Sacred Heart University College Professor 

Dr. Ahmed Bajandas - Anestesilogist 

Dr. DOminguez Hospital Director 

Lcdo. R. Elfren Bernier - Attorney 

Aide to Governor Luis Munoz Marin 

*Lcdo. Jose Antonio Casillas 

Superior Court Judge; Official 

for Popular Democratic Party 

Dr. Elfren Fabery 

MD - General Practitioner 

*Lcdo. Juan Manuel Garcia Pusalacqua 

Attorney; Assistant to Governor 

Luis Munoz Marin and to Governor 

Roberto Sinchez Vilella 

-Pablo Martinez Archilla 

President Hispania Research, Inc. 

-Manuel De J. Gonzalez 

Editor and Publisher of 

Claridad Newspaper 

Teresa Gonzalez 

PhD Spanish Literature 

-Antonio Hernandez Gierbolini 

Student 

66 
302 

Joyce Kuhn - Business person 

and sales executive 

Lcda. Yvonne Marquez 

Jorge Marquez G6mez 

State Insurance Fund Director 

and Superior Judge 

Manuel Marti Soler 

Iberia Airline Executive 

Josue A Mattos Nieves 

Public School Professor 

and Artist 

-Lcdo. Hiram Melendez - Attorney 

House of ~resentatives Member for 

the Puerto Rican Independence Pany 

-Lcdo. Luis Mojica Sandoz - Attorney 

Law Professor, Public Registrar and 

Superior Court Judge 

Carlos Morales Tirado 

M.S. Puerto Rico History; 

President ofPro-Bienestar de 

Maunabo Association 

Joaquin Mouliert 

Folk Music Composer 

and Artist 

Dr. Dennis Ortiz - Doctor 

General Practitioner 

*Dr. Hermenegildo Ortiz 

PhD Professor, Secretary of 

Transportation and Public Works 

for the Hernandez Col6n Administration 

Lcdo. Mickey Ortiz - Attorney 

*David Ortiz Angler6 

President of Puerto Rico Artist Guild; 

Vice-President of Latin American 

Actors Block 

Cruz M. Ortiz Cuadra 

Professor, Humacao Regional College 

Maria de los Angeles Perez 

Professor, Sacred Heart University College 

67 
303 

lng. Francisco Ramirez Cebollero 

Engineer; sportsman 

Francisco Rcy Vlzqucz 

Public School Professor 

Lcdo. Aldo Segurola- Attorney 

Superior Court Judge 

-Carmen Sierra Reyes 

Aide to Governor 

Rafael Hernandez Col6n 

Providcncia Sierra Reyes 

State Insurance FWld Executive 

*Lcdo. Emilio A. Soler Marl 

Attorney; Director of Puerto 

Rican Nationalist Prisioners 

Legal Group 

*Dr. Jose Milton Soltero 

CardioloJist 

Puerto Rico Committee for 

United Nations 

-Federico Torres Montalvo 

General Secretary Puerto 

Rican Central Workers Union 

Lcdo. Antonio Varcarccl 

University Professor 

Dr. Jorge Valdes 

Pcditrician 

68 
304 

El NUEVO DI.A-LUNES 2 DE ENERO DE 1995 17 

Surge grupo pro status 

Por LA AGENCIA EFE 

UNA NUEVA I8J'IIIl8CiOn civil. "'Cambio 21 -. tiene previsto impulsar de lleno a 

partir de este ailo una definicion polltica de 

Puerto Rico al intqJane en el debate sobre 

las rdaciones de Estados Unidos con Ia isla. 

El grupo tiene como prop6sito principal 

promover que Estados Unidos se exprese 

sobre el futuro politico de Ia isla. principalmente en tomo a las posibilidades reales de 

que se le conccda al pais Ia anexion total 

como un nuevo estado fcderado. El locutor David Ortiz AnsJerO. uno de 

los portavoces de Cambio 21. al ser entrevistado en el propama Frente al Pueblo, de 

Ia Asociaci6n de Periodistasde Puerto Rico 

(ASPPRO). plante6 que los partidos politicos han .atlado en tramiw Ia definicion 

politica del pais y por eso esa iniciativa Ia 

toma ahor.a un grupo civil 

La orpn>zaciOn tiene previsto panicipar 

del pnxeso de discusion del grupo interaaencial de trabajo creac1o por Casa Blanca 

70 

para lidiar con el futuro politico de Puerto 

Rico y ya tuvo representaci6n en Ia Cambre de las Amtric:as. celebnda recientemente en Miami. 

En el prosrama de Ia ASPPRO. el lic:enciado Emilio Soler Marl. otro de los llderes 

de Cambio 21. anuncio que en febrero prOximo someterin al copresidente del grupo 

interagencial de Casa Blanca. Jeffrey Fa- rrow. propuestas sobre el futuro economico 

y politico del pais. basados en Ia vision de 

que se otorauen mayores pocleres politicos 

a Puerto Rico. 

LAS PROPUEST AS ecoiiOmicas estarin a caf!O principalmente del ex secretario 

del Departamento de Transportacion y 

Obras Pilblicas, Hermene&ildo Oniz 

Quillones. precis6 Soler Marl. 

Ortiz AftllerO y Soler Mari aclararon que 

Cambio 21 no busca convertirse en un partido politico. pero conftan en que sera un 

instrumento clave para adelantar cambios 

en el estatus politico del pals. 
305 

LATIN AMERICA 

NAFTA and After: A New Era for 

the United States and Latin America? 

The 1993 Plebiscite in Puerto Rico: 

A First Step to Decolonimtion? 

Haiti: A Nation in Despair, 

a Policy Adrift --A CONVERSATION-WTTH ARIST!DE 

Mexico: Zapatisto Thunder 

Human Rights and 

the Chiapas Rebellion 

Central Americo's Enduring Conflicts 

Church and State in 

Latin Americo 

Colombia: Democracy, O.V.Iopment, · andDrugs 

BookReviThe Month in Review 

.II.IIDUi 72 

PelerHakim 

Juan M. Goroo Passalacqua 

Pamela Constoble 

Lucy Conger 

Human Rights Watch 

Richard L Millett 

Hannah Stewort-Gombino 

John D. Mortz 

On Latin J1roerico 

Country by Country, Day by Day 

97 

103 

108 

111 

115 

121 

124 

129 

134 

138 

141 
CURRENT HISTORY 

WAICII1994 

fOUNDED IN 1914 

\'OL P3. NO. 511 

WilLIAM -W. FIMN. JR. 

AuociiiCEdiiGr ALICE H. G. PIIIWPS 

EditoriOI Almwn 

MELISSA J. SHE!tMAN 

EditorioJ laum 

l.EA.'I~'E P. NOS 

c....hia&EdUon 

VIRGII\'lA C. KSIGHT. NAill" l". l"AliS 

ANDRE\\' M. LOI'ATI 

~&IRon 

U.U.....!)JOSSK· ol Soulh<m ~ Calllomio 

DA\1D B. H. DENOO:< Nev.· ) 'ork Uni\"!TTiry 

JOH!'< ERIQ;S()!'< 

University o( Edinbu<&h 

MARSHALL!. GOLDM.>,." 

WeD<Sie)· Collq< 

NORMA.'< A. GR..o.EB:<ER 

UniYersiry of Virpni.a. Emcrttus 

KENNETH W. GRUNDY Cast Western Rescn-·t" Uni,·tnity 

OSCAR 11."-"DU!' Ha!'-.rd Untvftsiry. EfnC1itw 

Wll.LIAM JOSEPH Wellcsky Colkr:t 

RlCH.-\RD H. LE.~CH 

Duke: linh"Cnif'y 

RAJA!' MENON 

LdUgh Cn'l\-nstry 

. AUGUST\:5 Rl H.~RD !<OKTO!'< 

Boston lini'\"C"rsiry 

NORMAN D. P!UMER UniYersiry of Pmns}i\"ania. Emmnzs 

JA." s. PR\"BYL~ 

Patnsyh:ania Swll' Un ~rs y 

JOH!'< P ROCHE 

Fletcher School of U..· ond Diplomacy. Emmtw 

A. L ROWSE 

AD Souls College. Oxford. Em<titUS 

Al\~r.; Z. RUBI!'<ml!'< 

Universlty of hnnsyk-an'-1 

MROI' SEGAL Univrrsity of lew 

VACI.A\" SMIL 

University of Manitoba 

RICH.-\RD F. STMR H~lnsatut~ 

AJm;RO \'Al.E."Z EL~ 

GeoiJ«"""' UnJ\ · 

President one! Publisbu 

DA.'IIEL M.~ REDMOND 

DA."IEL G• . REDMO!':D Editor and Publisbct. 1943-1955 

DANIEL G. REDMO!'<D. JR. Publisher. 195>1988 

306 

EDITOR ' S NOTE : 

""Chiopos is_ .. boo-the bonk cry lor 

bach the dispouaocd llld the polilicolly --in Mc:lcico. occordi"'IO- Maia> ....,_l.utyCGn- ftt. Whether the politicol ~ dlo< hasloltow.d the uprisin&in IOUibrm -wlll-..&om tbcroric:IOaalonin,._~._thelal~ 

0111 mi&ht .&a the run up 10 the AUpll Jlftlidauial clccaons--on: the catlapica ol ~·· onidc dlis -.Animponmt~bl-politicolqucs. 

---lhc_....,....tond .... milital)•hsw ... 

IICICd 10 the UpriliD&-is lhc facul cX.<\m<ricoS Wuch 

diroaor J""" - ·· aocrpotd -Oft)·. For-., dlis'nl- 10 b< lhc )-o!Chiapa> but lhc ,_. ol cclcbacinc lhc-ol the Nonh 

AmcricallfftCTndc ~lnr<r·~Dialopo<cliftctor ,_. Hokim eqoioins..-11)· . ..... with 

Chiapos. SAFTA •ill mark a~ in Uflilcd 5aca 

rdaions..W.allollalin"-rica. 

~':~":..m~.:n::-~~.!:' ol Ccnml ~ -~that lhc old .. luionship- nq)tct-has mumed • polu:y tn that ftlion. TM same 

holds """ f<>r Han. ,....... Pamela Conmbl< explains 

•ir)·Jc:an-Bcrmnd .o\ristidc is ~-10 b< lorn-cr anttodU«d » ""OUJt<d ptaadcna ... 

-i One bright spot in the Canbbcan . .......... a . is Pucrro 

Rico. ~'bert a SO\~btr Ttlnmdum that I'C'C'tiYed bale 

::'!~~:~~rh ~~::.~~~~ ~;~~~~- c~.a Pusalacqw. atJ!~ WI q&hft' 1h:an smlin& tht issue 

of surus. tht \"NC ha.' opened a 1arpT dtbac on the island·! rclauetnstur •1th the l 'nned Swa chal duatms 

tt'l btcomc dl\'lSt\'C. . 

ThiS month sIS~ a~ u~ a iook • rtaftt ewnts in 

Colomb&a 1njohn Man:·,. c~nuibutton and Hannah 

73 

Scf'\\-an-Gm\b'"'' C'Xam~ lhC' ~ftl. roW of tht Roman Cathrohc Church'" 1~· n-pctn and dlC' rise o( ~-mpbcal protcstanti.Mn and ll" !'«KtpC'iuical impact. 

-W.W .F . 

Coming in .... pril : 

CE TR U A> l.~ 

NO ADVERTIS ING 

Cumnr H!!ltC'n d:':'' i\, 11- 35),,., ~ r-:1 1'1 11 ~:,,-.; :"lh·~~:hh .,-, .. ·r: June . 

july. •nd ~~!II ' b-. Cumnr H l:'il•"" . 'In> . .. :.: ~ l.u1~ :--u,-,., 

Phllacitlph~ . PA JOil7 . CC'f"'TI#Il, ~ ~ Cun,·n! H• .. :,.,.. Inc 

Secood-dMf p.tS~· p:l)Cia1 Ptul.:!. . P<\ .JI'Id .W dn~o•rul m.J.1hn~ ••fitCI.'S 

Posunat1tt. Se-nd .-.J.drn .. "h:lnp.·:- h'(.Wl'T•"'n H::<h'f'\ 1:!.! \ ' l.nr: 

Slrftt. Pha.dd~. r.-\ 0)~ 7 -\ nu.~! :"U ~·•.,:· j':o,or. l.&h" ~ll •"' 

fOR1Jn ~)7 ~~ Carud.t ~ _: .. o\.:-'1 m,iu,k.! l .uuJ un v ••l 

tiiRJ )2+-+C')Q:! jncj," ·J tJl Tit• ,._ . ..,i<• • ,.~· J,• I', ,.,,J,..,. l u,·o.uuoc 

TJtc ~oJ~ .,J.•o\\o Ukl. . r., \W; J.:. "\11 ... , ~oi.·· JtJ.:f ·\1>1 f\lf .({;l. 

P.·US. S~Cl. ( '"" '""' ( .. ""' " '" H .. , ... , .. : -\;..,._ ,. .,,.,.,..,"'· ltW.·, At.l~nof '""""' ""' ~..; ,.. , 4o ;o.i. .., ,. .,.,~,.~., .... m.; , _ .,.,,. 11'"""" G7td 

Lllo: lniJ,•,,·J o•n·lrn• ;.., f'll-\1\'\ • ;.~., .1::,: it:;,•r: ~~ .111o 1: -\ ~~ 

P.~•n·· lnJ,., '''''·•!•In: l ""•"!"'"' \l o, :.•:.:::·· \111 ~ .4.rh.•:. Ml 

Rcqut~ ,.. ... J"ih'l<' •'1"' .. n.•uiJ t-o.· ... ·::: .Ur.·.-::• ""• u"''"' l!it · So 

rt"Spc"n"'"""' , .. .;a .... um.·J 1.•: rn.· h"ll::-t: ,•: u:1 ... •::, n,·J ln.lnuscnpu 

Pnnu·d 1n 1M l nntd :OUIC'> 
307 

"MB95-,_af.--hw•••..thm.~-d.cillaeaf .. """"lUI 

*-blbeWIIIIEa.-..tlbeeo.w.-aflbe'UIIilldS..SIDr.:elbe--.llillelbe 

bala.-'"" •• lbeilllmd..tlbe .... afl'llaiDllk:D." 

The 1993 .Plebiscite in Puel'1iimco: 

A First Step to Decolonization? 

BY jUAN M. G.uaA PASWACQUA 

1

5« Juan Momad Gorda Passalacqua and c.tao lti¥aa 

Luao--Rico y .,., - thti4os: fl ,.xno • .,_..,., y ......- • 198.9 y 1990 (ltio Piodras: EdiiOrial • Ia 

UaMmclod de Pumo Ri<:o. Tomo I (19901. Tomo II 11991]). 

74 

.. the Spmisb-Amaialn w • • but dlis pal oldie 

SIIDI)' bqills with Gaqc Bush's clecdoa 8 paidcnL I 

ID.bis 6m SIIIE oldie Ullloa llldzas. illjmuay 1989, 

Bush llbd the Unital Sala Con&rcss 1D ~ 

PliDC .-bood ID r-ED llico, siDtt pn>oswchood 

c:alldid-. ror die pcmasbip o1 the islmd b.d bun 

wilmllll-Jqa-pen:maaa o1 the-lior 37)UIS. 

In !apoase 10 Ibis iDi1ia1M. poo<OIIIIIIOitWI.h Govcmor lll6d HcnWidez Coi6D i1l¥ilcd !he Iadas of lhe 

SDidloocl md indcpcndma movanaus 10 join him 

in leqiiCSiiDg Conpss ID pus lqislalion IJIPfO"iD& a 

bincliD& plebisci~ on me lbree oplions, wbich !hey did 

in llcaa-dlledjanuay 17, 1989. 

Caapss consiclcml1 "l'llmo Rican Sd-Detmnination 

~ 

N:l" for - man twO yars. ~ House of 

l11lmimollsly app!O\Ied I nonbinding 

plcbiscime, but lhe Saw£ NINnl Raoun:C! Commitlee failed. by I 10-10 'IOIC, 1D approvt Klf~ting 

lqislllion m. would auiDIIIIIically lad 10 Puma 

Ri<:o's -mood if die island's propk 'IOied for it in a 

pkbisc1t£. ~boocl ll.epublican senators Pft'· 

Vlikd ill demanding !hat die proplr of lhe island 

expftSS Ibm will ill 1 1101£ before considering any 

opcian ill Coa&ras·· 

A&cr wimling lhe poanorsbip of Pueno Rico in an unpleada!led landslide in 1992. Pedro RossrU6 of 

die pco-swd1ood New Propssive part)" placed a 

masutt before die island's I.qislative AsKmbly !hat 

set lhe plebisci~ for N_,bu 14, 1993. The bill ,. ... 

appn:~Ved laSI summer • an exm:isr of die First 

Amrndmmt right 1D petition die Conpss for lhe 

mbas of pirvanc:u since Conpss Md faiJrd ID 

~die rr!amdum dw Praident Bush had caUrd 

i>r. AU tluft lOcal politial Jllllia---dlr New l'logJrssive party, die p~ Popular Ormocrllic 

party. and lhe Pumo Rican bldeprndencr palt)'-

lgftrd 1D paniciplte. In die campaign. which bqm 

ahrthe Founh of July, C-aoanor Rossrll6 promised ID 

abide by die ckcislon of lhe majority: his ads proclaimed, "You will spak. l ,.ill obey." 

President Bill Clinton. ll 1 Cong~QSional Hispanic 
308 

Caucus flmaion IIIII in a 0111 ; llllppCIII2d the 

pld>lscite and selHtclallliDaliuu for l'llcno Jtil:o, an. 

me w prospect "CII:ilillg" and JIIOIIIIIal ro acap! 

"anydlin& !hey may cla:ide," and he did JO apiD 

DetWOik. 

spoaking to 

Senator 

1M Hispaic 

Danid 

Cadena 

Pmick 

TelaDuado 

Moynihan 

~ 

<D-N.Y.) 

..trised Ointon - the adminisuatica would ,_ ... cliplomatic imbroglio" should the Salale !~!fuse ID 

bonO! • ftSUlt favoring statr:hood for l'llcno Jtil:o; 

Moynihan also tqMXted1y rold the ptaidmt cillft was DO wrJ the Salale would._ for SlaiCboocL 

1he House Subc:ommiacc on InsW. and lmemational ABair.; held heariDp july 13 on a taOiulion filed 

by~ jost Senauo <D-N.Y.l in support ci 

sdf.detamirwion. I>uriDa the proceediap. tm.dast 

JM OD l'llcno Jtiaal ndio, 5atao iDiisliOd M 

Umgtess would be obJiacd ID n:spcmd ID the pkbiscite. Ill laur bearings bdon: the House Wemm 

ticmisp11m ~.chairman RGbat Tanitdli 

(I).NJ.) said dm i! a majority of l'llcno ltians "~King 

did 1101 lpiC on the island'~ status, "• will haft ro mm the judgment for them" because Plieno Jtil:o 's 

present statiiS was economically and politically umm- ablr for both l'llcno Rico and the United Stales. 

A 0111/Tilu poll conducted in 1M United Swathe 

wed< of November 4 showed 21 pen::mt of respondents favored staiCbood, 24 pen::mt favored independence, aOld 32 pm:mt were for the swus quo. 1he 

Pueno Rican CDttlmullity ill the United Stales. 2.6 

million smmg. demanded dm it be allowed ro panicipou: ill the plebiscite, but "''liS .Cuffed b)· the island's 

pro-swchood goooemment. In an ollicial \IIIU conducted October 15 in N("'• Yoftl City in which 30,000 

Pueno Ricans cast ballots, the commonwealth option 

won handily. 

DEFINING THE OPnONS 

The August 8 N<w Yorl! Times corm:tly saw the 

plebiscite in Puerto Rico as an issut toUching the 

·:identity'' of the island's people, who .,. fim:ely 

proud of their 500-year history as a Caribbean nationality. with a majority concemed about assimilation. The 

first salvos on the island were fued over what the three 

formulas for the poUtical futu~ meant. No ddinilionsonly the bare-bones choices "'statehood," 

"commonwealth," and "independmc<'-were included on the plebiscite ballot, but each of the parties 

p~ted an exten5M elucidation of 1M option it 

suppotted in a btoehurt distributtd at all polling 

lhe pn>-5tatehood camp had no apparent problem 

defining its position as one p~g Puerto Rican 

culru~" (while not insisting on a separate cultural 

identify) and gaining for Pueno Rico the rights of a 

State. Campaign ads at first emphasized "guaruueed" 

statehood. assu~d of a favorable vote in Con~s. But 

this soon changed to a "negotiated" one. with empha75 

lis on a S6.5-billion mmaaJ ma-m the - ol 

fedeal aid for the poor. CI1Ic Island cumndy re<:eNa 

$8.5 billioa a year from Washbipm.) 

for the ~lh Popular Democmic 

peny, a believu in the Esmdo Ubft Asoc:mdo (Free 

Ass«imd State) - for Pucno Jtil:o, the ddinition 

olits formula for the fUture pORd. quandmy. Dott:en 

Hemlock, Wlilin& in thejlD>C 14 SaJ- SIAir, called it 

"COIIltiiOIIWahb's midlife crilis." Would cb£ parry 

ddmd Pueno Jtil:o's pacnt- as a United States 

tariloly, or demmd for the islmd a ·'bilmal compoa" 

outsidl: the Uuital States Constitution's ••ICiitortal 

c:l.use" (since the Uuital Stales CIIIIIIOC enter into a 

~poa wilh alaritory, only wilh aiCIOmip people)? 

Tho laacr optioa bad. bcca ~"b)· Rafael Hcmmdez Col6a. who steered the Popular Democnts for 20 

years bdon: his rcsipalion In 1992, in ratimoDy 

before Coagress in 1!189. bat ...... espoused ill the 

plebiscite campaign b)· Senator Marco Ripu. 

Tho debatt .,.. fueled by a decisicm by the United 

States Circuii Court Ill ll11anta holding tbat l'llcno Rico 

was a tmitoty under the absolute power of~­

Some Popular Danoaats cldcnded outright cokmialism. But the leadmbip opted for a commonwealth 

"encompassed," as it cledaml In the btoehurt for 

votetS, "in a bilataal compoa" between Puerto iOCo 

and the United States "tbat cannot be altaed except by 

mutual apmnent"- ccmmonwakh outside the 

taritorial clause, and one tbat would ~ sovaapty. 

1he party's campolipl before the plebiscite, ilc>wrwr, 

was centaed tiiOWid the cost5 of staiCbood and the 

desauction of the eccmomy the pan)" said statthood 

would cause. It began by empbasi>ing ''Tho Ullion 

That Wotlcs" wilh the United States, but soon abandoned this slopn (under pressu~ from the "bilattral 

pact" wing) ill favor ol "The Best ofT..., Worlds." 

Tho pn>-iDclcpenclaltt sector also had its aoublrs, 

splitting down the middle on !he question ci whether 

ID panicipou: ill the wtt 01 not. 1ts extreme left 

dissolved the pro-Cuban Socialist poupillg and be- came the Nuevo Movimienro lndependentista, which 

advocated abstention from the balloting and ~tained 

th~ right to wage an armed sausgle. Others insisted 

that the 19 Pueno Rican political prtsonm in United 

Swes jails must be released before a ''llid vote on 

status could be held. On 1M other band, the lndependmcr parry called for polling and adopted a definition 

that incorporued a ten-year aansition period of Unittd 

States &iendship and aid-what the prus tenned a 

"soMr!t" independence. 

IssuEs AND JEERS 

F01 the first month of the campaign. the "bilateral 

pact" definition of commonwealth adopttd bj the 

pro-commonwealth camp ,.,,.. assailed b)· statthooders 

as leading toward a Republica Asociada. Cihe tenn 

"~pubUca" raises fears in Pucno Ricans, based on 
.... 

"' 

· Jr1[irHiJ~HJimijJiHiifU~i~nnqt

i m!J M!1HiUH1tUliiii~:IIlHUtll

4 -~- h t .. t~if ra L [ ] .. it.g rf~tlt 

ll .• t ~ l 

mmn~Jm~mtmnn ln1Hn~mu,

Imt!thnmt tntnn~ 1!i!Itif[fta

~~~tU~t!nd~t~ i~~iHi! wa 'Hnt~rr

i . . l~J:J ~2.[§:~ ~~ j J1 '~~:. ~] t~lJJ~ 

~ it~H !i,~~ a. !i,~ tls .. J ~rt J ·fh 1 .. ~rlt
310 

106 • CUIIIINT HISJOIY • -1994 

aiolmd, Puen.o Ricms, who Ulldiliaaally IID1ICd 0111 by 

!be hunclmls of m-cls for polilicll milia. sayed 

homo and pmple weft informed mmnly by teJe,.;slon. 

The final debate bciWCal the tbfte pmy Iadas, 

bdd NOYC!Dber 10. was an Immensely borizlc .&air 

(though the fomw the campaign JllaiiiiCIS chose wu later blamed for the tedium). The pro-cDIIIIIIOII 

spolcaaum. t.fi&ud Hemmdez Apto, the millority 

Iader in the JoaJ Sawc, invoiced Ia paDiG (the 

iatherlmd) mcm than 20 limes, lltelllplinc 10 Slir up 

pro-independence >OtaS md mobilize uticmalist 111ltimatt IIIIOJig younaer \'Ote!S. Govanor llaudl6, 

spaking for the swchoodm, used tbfte of his QJmS 

10 rapond 10 people's far of losing homestads ,;- awll)' b)· pRYious panments because of ptoperty 

axes UDder swehood. CAt last 100,000 such home· 

steads had been awarclcd, and the govanor later 

blamed this issue for his option's defeat.) The Jndqlenclencc leadu, lbmdoning the pmy's forma-left-wing 

zberoric, called on middle-class VOters 10 ~eel 

"depenclencc" on ledaal......ar- funds. Sawor Her· 

nmdc ~ c:micd the riming with his emolional 

linisli (in response 10 11Dssd16's mjUeSI for a mandate 

10 "negotiate statehood"), declaring: "!JI paDiG ""~ 

n<JIIdiL 1JI ,_;..""~-.it. WI,_;..~~·· 

("The fathaland is 1101 negotiable or for sale. It must 

be defended!") 

-.be Popular Dcmoaalic pany closed out tht cam· 

paign on tht upswing. approprialinc all the symbols of 

Ia patri4. The Independence pany called for a -simla- lion of faith in political SCIYfttigruy and ~ of 

what it saw as- dependence and culmral 1m1cxalion. 

!ht New l'rograsM pmy harped on the fact that 

Congress could unilaterl1ly woo~ United States cilizal· 

ship for Pueno Rico's ftSidents. 

Two polls wm issued in the _last days of the 

campoi&n. The one oppeoring in the Novanbcr 10 El 

Nutvo DIG declared the roce a dead hat, with 

comm~th 's late lad reduced to 1 percent, and 

with a tendency among tht undecided 10 opt for 

statehood. Sapo Btnclixm of Los Angela-based AHsores lncotpomcd. a widely respected pollster and 

political analyst. .....X public a crucial poD NOYC!Dber 

11-12 on the Tdanundo te!C\ision network that 

sbcJooftd.IIIIOIIg -.apondents planning 10 voce, CDIIIIIIODwealth with 48 percent suppon. swehood with 47 

percent, and independence with 5 percent. The poDs 

showed that the ~tenlion of IIIX benefits for foreign 

cmpotalions that provide jobs on tht island, the 

avoidance of federal axes, and continued Olympic 

~talion for Pumo Rico wm tht mmn issues for 

pro-commonwalth VOters. MOSt imponant for prc>-

Siatehood voters weft an incrast in we!fan, benefits. 

the fi8ht10 vote for p~idcnt of the United Scates, and 

guanntecd American c:itiunship. 

When the day came, and after a record number of 

77 

.......... , .................. a... ,... ........ Cwaw ..... 123,251 ... .......... 715- ~ 

......... 75,253 u TooiiiV- 1)D1,3n 

Puerto Ricans went Silently to tht poDs and voted, w swusquowas the~

THE DEBB MEANING OF tHE von- The plebiscite was the lim dectoraJ opponunity 

Puen.o Rican voters had 10 fred)· expras 1 ~ce 

in the • maaer of the island's polirical fuam:. (A 

rdnmdum held in 1967-ovhich allbmcd the~~ 

conrmonwalth swus-was lainted b)· blalmt interference b)· UDited States intelligence ..,c:ies docu· 

mented and denounced IS ''hanlc)·-panky" in 1 White 

House memorandum issued during the Clner admiJI. 

istmion.) The pro-statehooci~~K~Wm~tnt. whose candidates had been pining Jaraer and Jaraer proportions of 

tht vott in Puen.o Rican gubematorial declions be· tween 1956 (12 percent of ballots cast) and 1992 (49.3 

percent), and which -expected 10 .-11 50 percent 

suppon in tht November plebiscite. sufertd 1 painful, 

and probably filial. mouse. Sixt)· thousand •-ho had 

backed statehood iri 1992 switched their prd£mlce. In addition, 1 UIOYO · uw.-anl independence was soundly 

~ by'YOU%5 in the plebisci<e. 

The United States Senate, in spite of the presidential 

mandate, had insisted that my inilia!M on change in 

Puerto Rico come &om the island. T1w iniliatM has 

now been talcen. All duet choices on the plebiscite 

ballot IS defuted by the local panies promoting than 

were conceived of IS political conditions outside tht 

territorial clause: Pumo Rico's StaNS, it -..-.. agrud, 

had to chanl"- The American c:itizms residing in 

Puerto Rico bavt filed 1 petition for the ~ of the 

grievance of colonialism, and opened their bid to gtt 

out &om under the territorial clause of the Constimlion 

of tht United States. Bowing 10 tht popular will 

expressed in tht plebiscite, elected pro-independence 

politic:ions. along with tht governor, will join in tht 

etron 10 "clarify," "ckvdop," and "enhance," IS the 

commonwealthers say, the "bilueraJ compact" bt-

.twml Pueno Rico and tht United StateS if logislalion is 

inauductd in Con~. 

The ~ing question is, h""· will Conpss 

~cf7 
Oil 

~!tr.l~Ji. fiRi tr': !l !!-',. r~ llf ~f~J Iti 

f!;!f I. tttl.U'ibf bltll1 ~r hJ t d 

rUt di!ltUHIHhi! liJiti!t !

tlt].l a ... t.~-·~ l·a--~t·s1is··"· gi"11-Jttt li

1

f!r! Hili• tif~ ~Mih•iti. ·1n:~

l'i: t g,~JSis J , (~~"~·· [ (a.lt~_ rr. 

tl!t hdH J~~lrnHh d!!m~ll

f.i~J ~1!1ilhUH~I~fbqHUU1J f

f~t ~~P(il·&'!l;r I'J JhtU ~~

hifJt tih.I t~ 1' !ml 

1 rtihPt[!!lu

l J. f 8 r j ·J rot] ( · '~ s. ·it 11- t g ~~"a. I. l I a

ilif!it ~~d ~~~!ihrJ iiJfrifit

~Jfi~iJ·I eltl ~~ ~~ s.(~r1 ~·t ~~ rf.~ 1

.ta.~~·L·t.!s t~ trJlf i£r~ l&:..f,Ja. s·' 
)~ •• <: 

:\IE.\IOIU.,'DDI FOR 

TilE SPECIAL REPRESE."''iT A TIVE 

FOR Gl'.-\..\1 CO:\L\lO~'WEALTH' '(' -

From: T~resa WyM Roseborough ttr 

Deputy Amstant Anorney General 

Re· ~turual C.Jnsent Provisions in 

312 

The Guam Commonwealth ~gislation 

""'· llt-p.artlltl'lll ul lll,lllt 

Utlirt: ut l..c:!!al Coun~.:l 

\\.6,1/UIIt'lf·"· O.C :.5.•'1 

July 28. I 994 

The Guam Commonwealth Bill. H.R. 1521, 103d Cong .. 1st Sess. (1993) contains 

tw<' secuons n:qutring the mutual consent of the Govenunent of the United States and the 

Go' ernm~nr or Guam. Section l 03 provides that the Commonwealth Act could be amended 

only wnh muruaJ consent of the two governments. Section 202 provides that no Federal 

Ia" 1. ruh!s. :~.nd regulauons passed after the enactment of the Commonwealth Act would 

lf:.'pl:- to Guam wnhout the mutual consent of the two govenunents. The Representatives of 

Guam >nmt that these two secuons are .:rucial for the autonomy and economy of Guam. The 

ronn~r 're.,. ~ or thts Office on the validity or efficacy of mutual consent requirements 

:n.::lud~d rn l~gtslauon governing the relationship between the federal govenunent and non-

,rare .1reas. !..."'- areas under the sovereignty of the United States that are not States.' bave 

T emroncs I hal h .. c developed from rhc <t.I§C of a classical territory 10 !lw of a Convnonweallh with a 

.-on~llluuon "'' lhear o•n adoDuon ud M ·elecu~c go..,emor. resent beini called Territories and claim that that 

:cgal 1erm .&lid 11s omphcauons &R not applicable 10 !hem. We lh<RfOR sball refer 10 all Territories IUid 

Lommon,.ea.llhs •• non·st.ale :ue.u ~nder l_he so'·ereognly of the United Slates or briefly as non-slate areas. 
313 

11< >1 ~c:n ""'"1.:111 We: rhc:r.:h>n: ha'.: ..:arc:r'ull y n:.:xamin.:d rhis issue: . (Ju r Lu ndu,u•n 1, 

1ha1 1t.:s~ dausc:s rJIS( ...:nou) nnsmuu >nal 1ssu.:s and are legally un.:ntorc.:ahle_ · 

In 0ur '•.:"' _ 11 1\ im!X>nam thai the lex! oi the Guam Commonweahh Acl nor .:rear.: 

Jn ~ dlu\OI') .:xp.:e~auons 1ha1 m1gh1 10 m1slc:ad the dec10ra1e oi Guam abour !he 

-:~>n\c4u.:ncc:s ol !he lc:g1slauon. We: mus1 lherefore oppose 1he inclusion in 1he 

c ..,muh>n.,.c:ahh ACI oi any provisions. such as mutual consem clauses. !hat are legally 

unentorccaolc:. unh:ss therr um:niorceability !Or precatory nature) is clearly stated in 1hc: 

Jo.:umc:m •tself 

I. 

The Po"' er of Congress to Govern the Non-State 

Args under the Soverejgmy of the United States 

js Plenacy wjthjn Constirutjona! Limitations 

All territory under the sovereignty of the United States faUs into two groups: the 

States J.nd the areas that are not States. The latter. whether called territories, possessions. or 

commonwealths. are governed by and under the authority of Congress. As to those areas. 

Congress exerc1ses the comb111ed powers of the federal and of a state government. These 

bas1c .:onsiderauons were set out in the leading case of National Bank v. CountV of Yanlcton, 

101 t:.S. 129. 132-33 118801. There the Coun held: 

T ~ our lulowledp cbe tim coiiJJclcl'UJoa of die validicy of IINillal coaseat clausa occurred in 1959 in 

; onnecuon 1111111 proposals co amcad llle Pllerto Rico Federal Rela&i0111 Act. At lbal ti- die Depanmeoc cook 

clio pos11100 chat llle IIISWet co chis quesuoa wu doubcflll butlbal such clauses should DOl be opposed oo dlc 

ound 111a1 lbe~ JO bc~ond lbe COOIUNUOcW power of CODJT'OSI. Ill 1963 llle Deparnneac of Justice opined cbac 

. uch o:auses .... ,. locally eifocuve because Coacress could creale vestod ri&bts ia the swus of a cemco~ chac 

: culd noc be revokecl unilaterally . The Depan-..c adllerod 10 this positioa in 1973 in connoccion wilb chen 

pen<11n' \fi<I'Oftestans 11a1111 DCJOCII110111 1D a memol'lllldum approved by thea Auistan! Attomey General 

ReMqu"'- Oa tbe ou11 of Ibis adVI<o. a IINillal CODICil! clause wu inlerted in Sectioa 105 of the Coveoaoc 

·•un lhO 'onhem !\.tanana lslaocls. The Oepanmeot coaciaued to support llle validity of mutual consenc clauses 

111 ; oMect•on "''Ill lbe Fint 1919 Tuk Fon:e Repon on che Guam Commoawealth Bill. The Oepanmenc 

re'' ""ea. rnts auue Ln 1hc eatiy 1990"s 1n "onnoc.uon with the Pu ... rto Ri"' Statua Rcfeftlldum Bill iD light of 

' -"&mSJn 9ppoHd cg Sgc Sec . En'Aamms. ~77 C.S. ~I. 55 (1916). and coacluded that chere could 

noc be an enforceable ·-nJbt 10 a poliucal swua: IInce that IIIUIUI coasen"'cla11101 were ineffoccive 

because thev would- bUill a subseq~~mc Concrcas. We took die....., poaitioa ia lbe Secoad GII&ID Tuk 

Fon:e Repon 1uued dunnccbe Jut days of cbe Bush Adrftinistratioa in JUIIIU)' 1993. 

!\.luru&l c-1 clalaocs are GOC 1 novel pbeaomeaon: incloed they aatedalc tbe CoutiNtioa. Sectioo I~ of 

lho 'onhv.est Ord!IIMCo conwaed ~~~ • &nlcles of compact. becween the oriainal Sla&a and the people aod 

511101 1ft I he SAid lotnl~. and (lhaJIJ fo ..... er renwn ucWierable. uoi011 by CO- COliMa!." 1lleM articlos 

,. ere '""O'l'OtaiOd euher upreul~ or by reference inco many early lerritorial OtJUiic acts. ~ v. 

Enctobrsshr. 10 L .S. '13 Wall. I ~l~ . .w: 1111:1. The copiouslitiplion uaclcr lhese "ullalcerablc articles" 

focuS>ed l&rJCIY on clio qucsuon "'hccher chc comcories' obligacions u~r them were superseded by tho 

Con11uuuon. or ... hen clio ccmco,. became a Swe. u the resull of the equal footinc doctrine. We bave. 

ho,.cver. noc found an~ cues clc&linc "'llh lhe quesciOII whether !he Concreu bad che power co modify any ducy 

•mposcd on lhe Lnned Swes b~ llloso an1cles. 
314 

It 1\ .:enamly now too late ''' doubt the po~~oer of Cungres~ to !!Ovc:m 

the: Territories. There have bo:c:n some differences of opmion as to the 

panicular dause of the Constnuuon trom wh1ch the power 1s derived. but that 

11 c:xists has always bo:c:n conceded! 

All temtory wnlun the junsd1c11on of the Uruted States not included 10 

any State must necessarily be governed by or under the authority of Congress. 

The Territories are but political subdivisions of the outlying dominion of the 

United States. Their relation to the general government is much the same _as 

that which counties bear to the respective States. and Congress may legislate 

for them as a State does for its municipal organizations. The organic law of a 

Territory takes the place of a constitution as the fundamental law of the local 

government. It is obligatory on and binds the territorial authorities; but 

Congress is supreme. and for the purposes of this department of its 

governmental authority has all the powen of the people of the United States, 

except such as have been expressly or by implication reserved in the 

prohibitions of the Constitution. 

~was anticipated in Chief Justice M.anhall's seminal opinion in American 

Insurance Co v. ~. 26 U.S. (I Pet.) 511. 54243. 546 (1828). The Chief Justice 

explained: 

In the mean time ~ the interval between acquisition and statehood], 

Florida continues to be a territory of the United States; governed by vinue of 

that clause in the Constitution, which empowen Congress "to make all needful 

rules and regulations. respecting the territory, or other property belonging to 

the United States.· 

Perhaps the power of governing a territory belonging to the United 

States. which has not. by becoming a state. acquired the means of self-

• Some derived thas power from the aulhority of the t: nited Stata to Kquire territOty, otben t-om the rae"' 

fact of sovereipl)'. Olhen from tbe Temtory Clause of the CoiiSIIIUIIOD of tbe United StaleS (Art. IV. Sec. J. 

Cl. :1 pursuafttto whicb Coapess baa "Power 10 dispose of and make all aeedful Rules and ReJillatioos 

respcctmg tbe Territory or otbcr Property beiODJLOJtO tbe t.;aued StaleS". ~ L&. Americaa Insurance Co. ' 

!dn!£. ::6 U.S. (I Pet.) Sll. S42 CI82Sl: Mormon Cbursh v. United SWg. 136 U.S. I, 42-44 (1890): 

~ v. Bidwell, 182 U.S. ::44. ::90 (1901). 

AI present, the Territory Clause of tbc Constiruuoa is acncnlly CODJidcred to be tbe source of the 

power of Conaress 10 aovem tbc non-state areas. Hooven & Amson Co. v. ~. 324 U.S. 6S2. 673-674 

( 194S): EJ,amjpjns Board v. Flores de Otero. 426 l:.S. S7:. SS6 ( 1976); H1aiJ v . .89aDs!. 446 U.S. 6SI 

( 1980): !SS also !!!1!21 v. Yi.lllmwJ. 9SS F.:d 1450. 14S9 (9th Cir. 1~). ml· llsnilll J!W llllll!· .fllJ.lil!2w Gooc!s Inc. v. !!!1!21. _U.S._. 113 S.Ct. 67S 1!99:l. (Footnote supplied.) 

- 3 -
315 

:!"'~rnm~nt . may r~sult n~.:~s~rily from lh~ facts. that 11 is not withm lht: 

,un:.diction of any pan1cular stal~ . and is " ·ithin lhe pow~r and jurisdi.:uon ot 

th~ United States . 

. :In legi\lating for them [the: Tc:nitories). Congress exercises the combinc:d 

po11.c:rs otthe general. and of a sene government. • 

The power of Congress to govern the non-state areas is plenary like every other 

legislative power of Congress but it is nevenheless subject to the applicable provisions of the 

Constitution. As Chief Justice Marshall stated in~ v. QJslm, 22 U.S. (9 WheatJ I. 

196 11824), with respect to the Commerce Power: 

nus power [the Commerce Power], like all others vested in Congress is 

complete in itself. may be exercised to its uanost extent, and aclg!owlcdces no 

ljmjJatjons other than are prescribed in the constitution. (Emphasis added.) 

This limiwion on the plenary legislative power of Congress is self-evident. It 

necessarily foUows from the suprenw:y of the Constirution . .s= y., HQdd v . .Yiminil 

Surface Mining and Reclamation Assoc;., 452 U.S. 264, 276 (1981). That the power of 

Congress under the Territory Clause is subject to constitutional limitations has been 

recogruzed in CouniV of Yankton. 101 U.S. at 133; ~ v. Bid.BJl, 182 U.S. 244. 290-

91 11901): District of Columbia v. Dompsoo Co, 346 U.S. 100, 109 (1953). 

Finally. the power of Congress over the non-state areas persists ·so long as they 

remain in a tenitorial condition.· ~ v. ~. 152 U.S. l, 48 (1894) . .s= AW:!. 

Hoo,en & N!iwo Co v. El!m. 324 U.S. 652, 675 (1945) (recognizing that during the 

antermediary penod between the establishment of the Commonwealth of the Philippine 

Islands and the ftna.l withdrawal of United States sovereignty from those islands "Congress 

retatns plenary power over the territorial government"). 

The plenary Congressional authority .over a non-state area thus lasts as long as the 

area retains that starus. It terminates when the area loses that starus either by virtue of its 

.1dm s~ on as a State. or by the termination of the sovereignty of the United States over the 

area by the grant of independence. or by its surrender to the sovereignty of another country . 

. 4. 

20-766 - 96 - 11 
316 

n. 

The R,;,rca!'tlc: :"aum: of Congressional Legislation 

Rs:latin" ''' th,; Gvvernmc:nr of Non-State Areas 

Wh1le Congress has the power to govern the non-state areas it need not exercise that 

po"'er Itself. Congress can delegate to the inhabitants of non-state areas fuU powers of selfgovernment and an autonomy similar to that of States and has done so since the beginning of 

the Rc:public . Such delegation. however. must be "consistent with the supremacy and 

~upe1"'1Sion of Sauonal authority". Qin1Qn v. Englebrecht, 80 U.S. (13 Wall.) 434. -41 

((87:!); Pueno Rico v. Shell Co. 30:! U.S . 253. 260, 261-62 (1937). The requirement that 

the delegauon of governmental authority to the non-state areas be subject to federal 

supremacy and federal supel"'ision means that such delegation is necessarily subject to the 

nght of Congress to revise. alter. or revoke the authority granted. District of Columbia v. 

Thompwn Co, 346 U.S. 100. 106. 109 (1953).' s= alm. United Swcs v. Shawnack, 355 

t:.S. ::!86. 296 (1958). Hmi1 v. ~. 233 F.2d 110, 113 (3rd Cir. 1956), Firemen 's 

Insurance Co v. Wasbinaon, 483 F.2d 1323, 1327 (D.C. Cir. 1973). Tbe power of 

Congress to delegate governmental powers to non-state areas thus is contingent on the 

retention by Congress of its power to revise. alter, and revoke tballegislation.• Congress 

therefore cannot subject the amendment or repeal of such lecislalion to the consent of the 

non-state area. 

This considemion also disposes of the argument tbal the power of Congress under the 

Temtory Clause to give up its sovereignty over a non-state area includes the power to make 

a partial disposition of tbal authority, hence tbal Congress could give up its power to amend 

or repeal starutes relaring to the governance of non-state areas. But, as shown above, the 

retention of the power to amend or repeal legislarion delegating governmental powers to a 

non-state area is an intqral element of the delegation power. Congress therefore has no 

'lll!zmlllml deall wnh lhe Oi11ric1 of Columbia's covemmenl whicb ia provided for by An. I. Sec. 8. Cl. 

I' of the Coes11ru11on. talber dUia wilh the non-slale atUJ u 10 whom lhe Cona.-ional power ia derived from 

the T em to~ C!auae. The Coun. however. held that in this area lhc rules rclatinJIO the ConJrcssional pG'''"' 10 JOvcm tile OtSincl of Columbia and the non-stat<l atUJ an: idcnlical. IDdced. lbe Coun relied on c:aocs 

dcalon1 "''111-..we anaa. LJ .. Homb!!cl<le v. I2slml!l· 8S U.S. (II Wall.) 641. 655 (1174), ucl 

Chottttoagp v. Kipa Couqry. :391.:.5. J65 119151. where it held dw Coaar- CJD dclcple i&a lcpslalive 

aulhont~ llftder An. I. See. I. Cl. 17 of lhc CODSiirulioa 10 111<1 Dillrict, subject 10 lbe power of Concress alan~ 

hmc oo rev••· aller. or revoke dw aulhori&y. 

• C ""lfCSJ hu nercited thil power with respect to lhc Oialricl of ColumbiL The ACI of Fcbnw)· ::! I . 

! 17! . II) S1a1 . .a! 9 pvc 1he Oi11ric1 of Columbo• virtual lfrrilorial JtaliiJ. wilh a a aovemor appoinl.t by the 

Prcsodcnl. • le1osla1ove usembly WI included an elec1ed boule of clelcpla. ucl a cleleple iD Con1ress. The 

187! Aco wu repealed by 11111 ACI of June ::0. !17.&. II Sial. 116. which abropled amoaa olhen 1he provisions 

for ohe ICJosluove usembl~ uod a delcpac in Consrcsa. and establish<lli, a JOWftlDIOIII by a Commillion 

lf'POIRted by lhc PreJodcnt. 

• 5 -
317 

authorit~ w.:na!:t l.:gislation und.:r th.: T.:mll•ry Clau~ th<lt ~~oould limn the unlcth:n:J 

..:~t:rcis.: of its powt:r ttl :unt:nd or re!J(al. 

The same result flows from the 'onsideration that all non-state arl!as are subJeCt to the: 

authority of Congress. which. as shl'wn above. is plenary. This basic rule does not IJ(rrnll 

the: cr.:ation of non-state areas that an: only panially subject to Congresstonal authority. Th.: 

pl.:nary p~.•wer of Congress over a non·state area persists as long as the area remams in that 

..:ondiuon and t.:nninates only when the uea becomes a State or ceases to be under United 

States sovereignty. There is no intermediary status as far as the Congressional power is 

concerned. 

The two mutual consent clauses contained in the proposed Commonwealth Act 

therefore are subject to Congressional modification and repeal. 

m. 

The rule that legjslatjop s!eleptjpg govemmeptal powers to a non·statc area 

must be subject to amepdmem and repeal js but a manifestation of the eneral 

rule that one Congress cannm bind a subseqyent Congress excm wbere it 

creates veste4 rights eoforceable uos!er the Due Pmc:css Ciausc of the Fifth 

A!nendmem 

The rule that Congress cannot surrender its power to amend or repeal legislation 

relating to the govenunent of non-swe areas is but a specific application of the maxim that 

one Congress cannot bind a subsequent Congress and the case law developed under it. 

The rationale underlying t1w principle is the consideration that if one Congress could 

prevent the subsequent amepdment or repeal of legislation enacted by it. such legislation 

would be frozen permanently and would acquire virtually constitutional status. Justice 

Brennan expressed this thought in his dissenting opinion in Upjted States Trust Co. v. ~ 

kr5CY.. ~J I U.S. I. 45 (1977), a case involving the Impairment of the Obligation of 

Contracts Clause of the Constitution fAn. I. Sec 10. Cl. 1): 

One of the fundamental premises of our popular democracy is that each 

generation of representatives can and will remain responsive to the needs and 

desires of those whom they represeni. Crucial to this end is the assurance that 

new legislators will not automaticaJly be bound by the policies and 

undertakings of earlier days.... The Framers fully recognized that nothing 

would so jeopardize the legitimacy of a system of govenunent that relies upon 

the ebbs and flows of politics to • clean out the rascals • than the possibility that 

those same rascals might perpetuate their policies simply by locking them into 

binding contractS. 

• 6-
318 

:'li•IIIC:Ihc:lc:". I he ma\1111 that <~nc: C.\•ngn:'~ .:arm<~l hind tuurn: Cunj!r~s~. ·like t:' en 

lc:gal nrlc:. ha~ 1!\ limns. A~ c:arly o~s 11110. Chief Justrcc: Marshall c:xplainc:d in Fletcher·, 

~. Ill U.S. lb Cranchl 117. 135 ell! lUI: 

The pnnciple assened is that one legislature is competent to repeal any 

a.:1 which a former legislature wa~ competent 10 pass: and that one legislature 

.101nno1 abridge the powers of a succeeding legislature. 

The corTeetness of this principle. so far as respects general legislation . 

.:an ne,·er be .:ontrovened. But. if an act be done under a law. a succeeding 

legislature cannot undo it. The past cannot be recalled by the most absolute 

power. Con11eyances have been made. those conveyances have vested legal 

estates. and if those estates may be seized by the sovereign authority. still. that 

they onginaJiy vested is a fact. and cannot cease to be a fact. 

When. then. a law is in its nature a contraCt, when absolute rights have 

vested under that contract. a repeal of the law cannot devest (sic) those rights. 

The powers of one legislarure to repeal or amend the acts of the preceding one are 

limited in the case of States by the Obligation of Contracts Clause (An. I, Sec. 10, Ct. 1) of 

the Constitution and the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, and in the case 

of Congressional legislation by the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment. This 

pnnciple was recognized in the Sjnkjng·fund Cases, 98 U.S. 700, 718-19 (1879): 

The United States cannot any more than a Stare interfere with private 

rights. excep« for legitinwe governmental purposes. They are not included 

within the constitutional prohibition which prevents States from passing laws 

impairing the obligation of contracts, but equally with the States dJ!a.m 

prohibited from deprivjog persons or comorations of pngrty wjtbout due 

process of [aw. They cannot legislate back to themselves, without making 

compensauon. the lands they have given this corporation to aid in the 

.:onstruction of its railroad. Neither can they by legislation compel the 

corporation to discharge its obligations in respect to the subsidy bonds 

otherwise than accordinc to the terms of the contraCt already made in that 

connecuon. The United Swes are as much bound by their contracts as are 

Individuals. (emphasis supplied.) · 

S5:J: ;Wg D!2!!m v. Agencjes 0pposc4 to Soc Sec Entrapment, 477 U.S. 41, 54-56 (1986) . 

. 7. 
319 

IV 

D1e Due: Pmces< Clause: dos:s nm Preclude: Congress from 

Amending pr Rc:ps;ahng the tw(l Mutual Consent Clauses 

'T11s: question therefore IS whs:ther the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Ams:ndmc:nt 

precludes a subsequent Congress from repealing legislation for the governance of non-state 

areas .:meted by an earlier Congress under the Territory Clause. This question must be 

an\wered 10 the negative. 

The Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment provides: 

:"'o ~ shall .. . be deprived of life. libeny, or ~ without due 

process of law. (emphasis supplied.) 

This Clause is inapplicable to the repeal or amendment of the two mutual consent 

clauses here involved for two reasons. First, a non-swe area is not a •penon• within the 

meaning of the Fifth Amendment. and. second. such repeal or amendment would not deprive 

the non-state area of a propeny right within the meaning of the Fifth Amendment. 

A. 

A non-state area js not a penon jn tbe meaning of the Due Process Clause of the 

Fjftb Amendmem 

In South Carolina v. Kaqcnbich. 383 U.S. 301 , 323-24 (1966), the Coon held tbat a 

State is not a penon within the meaning of the Due Process Clause of tbe Fifth Amendment. 

~ Wg. a1ilwnl V , w. 871 F.2d 1548. 1554 (lith Cir.), WL. ~. 493 u.s. 991 

(19891 r"The State of Alabama is not included among the entities protected by the due 

process clause of the fifth amendment"): and Sl.jl!C of OJc!aboma v. federal Energy 

Regulatory Comm , 494 F.Supp. 636. 661 (W.O. Old. 1980), lff:.d, 661 F.2d 832 (lOth Cir. 

!9811. WI.~. mb..lllml. ~ v. Federal Energy Regulatory Comm .. 457 U.S. 1105 

1198:::1. 

Similarly it has been held that creatures or insuumentalities of a State, such as cities 

or water improvement districts. are not persons within the meaning of the Due Process 

Clause of tbe Fifth Amendment. Cjty of Sault Ste Marje Mich. v. AIJdou, 532 F. Supp. 

lSi. 167 (O.O.C. 1980); El Paso Countv Water Improvement District v. mWC/US, 701 F. 

Supp. 121. 123-24 (W.O. Tex 1988). 

The non-state areas. concededly. are not States or instrumentalities of States. and we 

have not found any case holding directly that they are not persons within tbe meaning of the 

Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment. They are. however, governmental bodies. and 

. 8 . 
320 

Ill<' r.Uillll:lk "' St•n!h C4r" h11.1 ' K.!!Zs;nt>.•..: ll . JlSJ t..: .S. a! 301 . appc:ar~ t.• he 1ha1 11 11 

l'lttth.:' .10: nul pru!c:.:!t:d h~ !h~ Due Pnxe" Clau'~ nf !he Fit'!h Amendmem . :\lurcmc:r. 11 , , 

~ell ~,rabli,hed !hat !he poliu.:al 'ulxll\1'11''" ul a Sra1.: an: no! ..:onsidered pc:rson' prutc:..:tet.l 

J' .l!!llflSI rhe State b) !he pl't'I\ISI(Ins of rhc: Foune.:nth Amendment. · Nc:wark ' · 

-.;.,.~ Js;r~s:y . ~6~ C.S. 1~:. lt.ln t IQ:J•: ~ v. ~layor of Baltimore. ~89 U.S . 3t>. ~0 

• l'-'33o . Sputh ;\lawmb Pml(!Sill ~tllhOOI\ ' . Township (!f Washington . 7QO F.:!d 500. 505 . 

,.,- •nih c.r. (t.l)!t>l and !he: lUihonttes lhc:n: Cl!t:d . The relationship of lht: non-stale areas to 

1he Fc:<.ter.JI Go,ernmc:nt has been analogized to that of a city or county to a State. As slated. 

· the C<1un held 10 "''auonal Balik ' . Coumv of Yan!cton, 101 U.S. 129 . 133 (( 880): 

The 1emtones are bu1 poliucal subdivisions of the outlying dominion of the 

Coned Stales. The1r relauon 10 !he general government is much !he same as 

1ha1 "'h~eh .:ounttes bar 10 !he respective Stales ... 

:\lore recently . the Coun explaaned !hat a non-state area is entirely !he creation of 

C ,mgress and ~ompared the relauonship between the Nation and a non-state area to that 

bt:t.,.e.:n a State and a cny. Unned States v. . 435 U.S. 313. 321 (1978). It foUows 

!hat. sUlce States ate not persons wuhin the meaning of the Fifth Amendment and since the 

~11i11ci!l subdiviSions of States ate not persons within the meaning of the Founeenth 

Amendment. the non-state areas ate not persons within the meaning of the Due Process 

Clause of the Fifth Amendment. 

.B. 

L:mlauon relaung to the oovernance of non-state areas does not create: anY rights or 

;tarus protected by the pye Process Clause against repeal or amendment by sybsegyem 

tegulauon 

As c:xplaaned e:ulier. a subsequent Congress cannot amend or repeal earlier legislation 

11 ,u.;h repei!l or amendment "'ould violate the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment. 

· 1f ;uch amending or repealing legislation would deprive a person of propeny without 

Jue pro.:ess of law. It has been shown in the preceding pan of this memorandum. that a 

non->tate area 1s not a person with the meaning of the Due Process Clause. Here it will be 

, hov. n that murual -:on sent provtsions in legislation. such as the ones envisaged in the Guam 

C..Jmmon~~oealth Act. "'ould not .::re:1te pro~ny rights within the meaning of that Clause. 

L:gislation concerning the governance of a non-state area. whether called organic act. 

ic:der.JI relauons act. or commonwealth act. that does not contain a mutual consent clause is 

.:larl~ subject to amendment or repeal by subsequent legislation. A non·state area does not 

acquire l vested interest in a pan!cular stage of self government that subsequent legislation 

.:ould not dimmtsh or abrogate. While such legislation has not been frequent. it has occurred 

on .:onnecuon wuh the: Distnct of Columbia. s= Pistdct of Cplumbja v. Thompson Co., 

3Jo U.S . 100. 1~-0S t 19S31: iiiPI1 n.6. Hence. in the absence of a mutual consent clause . 

. 9-
321 

ll!!!tslatinn .:un~c:rning the: ;!•" .:mmc:nt •'' .1 11<'11-,t;at.: .1r.:<t '' '"l'IC:cl Ill a'ntc:mlm.:m Pr rep.:;~ I 

hy ~uh,c:quent legislation 

Thi~ leads to the 4uc:suon '4"hc:thc:r the addllu.Jn of a mutual consent lau~c:, i.£_ ul a 

provision that the legtslauun shall not he: modtfied or repealed "''tthnut the .:onsc:nt ol,the 

Gl•vc:rnment olthe United States and the Go~ernment or the non-state area. ha~ the effect of 

.:reating in the non-state areas a spc:c1fic statu~ amounlln!! to a property right withrn the 

nu:arung oi the Due Process Clause. It IS our .:onclus1on that this question must be ans,.·ered 

in the negative because Ill SO\'erc:tgn governmental powers .:aMot be contracted away. and 

(~) because a specific poliu.:al relauonsh1p docs not constnute · property" "'·ithin the meanmg 

oi the Fifth Amendment. 

I. As a body politi.: the Gll\ernment of the unated States has the general capacit~ to 

enter into contracts. Upjte4 Sta,tes v. Iin&Q. 30 t.:.S. (S Pet.) liS, 128 (1831). This 

power. however. is generally limited to those types of contracts in which private persons or 

corporations can c:ngage. By contrast (sovereign! ·governmental powers cannot be 

contracted away.• North ;\merican Com! Co v. l:pjte4 Sta,tes, 171 U.S. 110. 137 (1898). 

More recently the Supreme Coon held in connection with legislation arising under the 

Contract Clause (An. I. Sec. 10. Cl. I l of the Consutution tba1 "the Contract Clause does 

not require a State to adhere to a contract that surrenders an essential attribute of its 

sovereignty. • United States Trust Co v. Sew Jeocy , -'31 u .S. I. 23 (1977).' In a similar 

context Mr. Justice Holmes stated: 

One whose rights. such as they are. are subject to state restriction. 

cannot remove them from the power of the State by malting a contract about 

them. Hudson Wau;r Co v. McCarter, 209 u.S. 349, 357 (1908).1 

Agreements or compacts to the effect that the Congress may not amend legislation 

relating to the government of a non-state area without the consent of the latter. or that federal 

legislation shall not apply to Guam unless consented to by the Government of Guam would 

unquesuonably purport to surrender essential poweo of the federal government . They are 

· CI.Ses arising under the Contraci Clause boldin1 tllat a Slate cannot <OOtract away a sovere.gn power >re 

also applicable to the contracts mad• by the federal Jovemment because the Contract Clause imposes more 

rigorous restrictions on the Slates than the Fifth Amendment 1mposes on the federal govemment. bJm2n Benefit Gua!'!!!ry Com. v. R.A Gpy Co .. -167 L' .S. 717, 733 11984): :"lttjonal Raj!road Pmenur Com. '. 

A.T. & S.F. 8 ... ~70 U.S. ~51. -'7:-73 n.:.S 'l'l8$1. Hence . when slate leJislalion does not violate the 

Contract Clause. analo!ous fedcnl legislauon 1s all the more pemussible under the Due Procen Clause of 1he 

Fifth Amendment. 

• Ci1ed v.:ith approval w1th respcect to federalle~1slauon 1n ~ v. ZQ4 L .S. ~.J.D . 308 

( 111151. 

. 10 -
322 

lh.:r.:l .. r,· 111'1 hnuhn;: ••n Ill<' l'mh:d Sl.tl•'' .unl ,;uu~t•l '"nl.:r a prup.:n~ tlll.:r.:'l prol.:.t.:tl "' 

lit.: Ftllh ~m.:mhno:nt .. 

!\h•re go:no:r:llly. the Supreme: Co>nn hdo rn Bowen '. Ags;nc1o:s t)pppss;d to St~<.. sc,. 

Entr:u>ms:nt. ~77 U.S. ~1. 55 tlf.llibl. that ths: contractual propeny righh protected by th.: 

Dns: Pn..:.:" Clan\C: <>f the: Fifth Amc:ndmc:nt are the: traditional private t:ontracntal ri~hts. 

,u,h .t' rh•"c: .Jrt~llll! from bond~ or tn•urance contracts. but not arr.mgemcnt• that a;~ ran nl 

.1 re!,!nlaw~ prl'!!!rant \uch as a Statc:·s pm1lege to withdraw its panicipation in the: Social 

So:.:unt~ 'Y~tc:m "'uh respect to its employc:es. Specifically. the Coun stated: 

But tho: ·contractual nght" at 1ssue in this case bc:ars linle. if any. 

resemblance to rights held to consmute "propeny" within the meaning of the 

Faith Amendment. The termination provision in the Agreement exactly 

tracked the language of the statute. conferring no right on the State beyond 

that contamed in§ ~18 itself. The provision constituted neither a debt of the 

L'nued States.~ fml: v. United States.~- nor an obligation of the 

t:nued St.ltes to prov1de benefits under a contract for which the obligee paid a 

moneury premtum. ~ Lxn£b v. United States,~· The termination clause 

"'as not un1que to this Agreement: nor was it a term over which the State had 

any bargaining power or for which the State provided independent 

consideration. Rather. the proviston simply was pan of a regulatory program 

over wh1ch C<>ngress retamed authonty to amend in the exercise of its power 

to prov1de for the general welfare. 

Agreemc:nts that the Guam Commonwealth Act may not be amended without the consent of 

the Go,emment of Guam. or tlw future federal statutes and regulations shall not apply to 

Guam without .the consent of the Government of Guam clearly do not constitute conventional 

pn' ate ;ontracts: they are elements of a regulatory system. 

In the past the Depanment of Jusuce at times has concluded that a non-State area may 

!Ia'.: a 'e~tcd onterest in a specific status which would be immune from uoilaterial 

C,lD!!ressiOnal amendment or repc:~l.' 0 We cannot continue to adhere to that position in 

·c....,, •uch u L:.l!£11' Lp!!e!l State•. :q: L:S.. 571 f 193-ll. and f£m '· \dnjted States. :9-l L.S. 330 

· I~)~ 1 • .are no& o:ont~ to thas conch111on. Bolh cases anvolved commercial •1reements (Lxn£!!: insurance: 

~ <.o,omment bondsl In Lm!l the Coun held that Congress could not amend the contn.:t merely to save 

:none~ · unleu. oDdeed the actton falls withtn the iederal police police power or some other paramount power.· 

:o: L S . .u 579. ~ tnvolved bonds ouucd ~~~ the Unned States under the authority of An. I. Sec. 8. C'l. : 

~~ the Consttnllton. to borrow money 011 the credit of the united States. The Coun held that Congreso did DOl 

h.-• the IX>'" er to destroy the credtt of lhe L nned Stales or to render il illusory by unilaterally abrogating on< 

ot the P"otal tonns of the bonds to .... mone' While the Coun held that the United States had broken the 

.1~reement. at ne"'enheinl held lhal f'la&nttfr could not recover because. u the result of regulations validly 1ssued 

":· lh< L nttcd Swes. ne had not suffered any mone1~ry dama~es. 

Cl n.:. 

·II· 
323 

, o.:-. ••I rh.: ruhn!!' ''' rho: Supr.:rno: C.•un !hat 1.:!!1\laroon ..:om.:c:ming !he: govc:man.:c: ot a non-

-r;.~t.: area ·~ nccc:~sanly \UI'>tcct ll> C•>n\!fC:\Sil>nal ;unc:ndmc:nt and repeal: that govc:mmt!ntal 

1"-~<hc:\ .uc: m>t per;ons w tthm the: meanmg ••t the: Due: Procc:ss Clause: that govc:mmental 

P""' .:1" .:annot b.: .:ontracted away . and espc:ctally the c:xposition in the recc:nt ~ case. 

rhat the: property nghts protected hy the: Due: Process Clause: are those arising from private 

Ia" •Jr ~ommc:rcral .:ontracts and not those: ansrng from governmental relations.'' 

Sc:wons I 03 and :o:! therefore do not create vested property rights protected by the 

Due: Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment.': Congress thus retains the: powc:r to amend 

rhc: Guam Commonwealth Act unilaterally or to provide that its legislation shall apply to 

GU3m without the consent of the government of the Commonwealth. The inclusion of such 

pro~rsions . therefore. in the Commonwealth Act would be misleading. Honesty and fair 

.lealing forbid the mclusron of such illusory and deceptive provisions in the Guam 

Commonwealth Act .. J 

Finally. the Department of Justice has indicated that it would honor past commitments 

wtth respect to the mutual consent issue. such as Section 105 of the Covenant with the 

:-Jonhem Manana Islands. in spite of its reevaluation of this problem. The question whether 

the 1989 Task force proposal to amend Section 103 of the Guam Commonwealth Act so as to 

limn the mutual consent requirement 10 Sections 101, 103, 201, and 301 constitutes such 

pnor commitment appean to have been rendered moot by the rejection of that proposal by 

the Guam Commtsston. 

II os sopticuu 111u tile camu~~~~USCet ID wlucb Congress c:aa effeclively qree aot 10 repeal or amend 

lo,osl<on were discuued ID 1be conle~l of <QII!II!CTStol conlraciS . .l!!!l!!ml. 477 U.S. a1 52. 

: ~- 111s tnoe. deal! wub lepalaaaoa lllu t~pressly reserved lhc riJhl of Coo11reu to ameod. while the 

proposed Gll&lll C<>ftiiDODweallb Act would e~prasly preclude lbe rigbl of Con.-s 10 amend wilboul lbe 

:onsau of lhe Go~emmall of GIWII. Tbe underlyiDI aareemenu. however. are nol of a pri~are con1recrual 

II.INre. &114. hence. are - property wnlunlbe tDeuuna of 1be Due Proccu Cl-. We c:&IIIIOI perceive how 

!he' :an be <onvened 11110 'property" by the addillon of a pro~ision lhat Conaras foreaoes lbe riJhl of 

Jtneftdrtwnl 

· Tbe <oac:hwon that Seclaon :0: of !he GIWII Commonweallh Acl Cinapplicabilil)l of fuNre federal 

ltJIIIallon to GIWII wnhoullbe c-1 of Gll&lllt would nol bind a fulure ConJreu obviaaes tile need to 

tumanc rbe .-aNUon&lny of Sec11oa ::0:. In~ v. !!!lis. 306 U.S. I. "-16 (1939). Uld .!.lJWI!I 

2YW • Ro<Jr. Royal Cos l07 1.:.5. ,Jl. ,r..71tl939l. tile Coun upbeld I"Jislalioa lllu dlllde tile 

orfecu~eocu of re~~~~&&oou .,....... oa !he &IIP""'al of loboocco farmen or milk producen affecled by lbcm. 

The Coun held lballlul apptOVal wu a I"Jillmale coodition for makin11t11e I"Jialation opplicable. Similarly. it 

: ovid be ari'Jed IIIU tbe .,..val of federal I"Jislaroon by the Govemmenl of Gll&lll is a I"Jilimale condilion for 

ma&tlll uw ICJisluoon apphcallle 10 GIIUD. Since. u swed above. a fu1ure Cooareu would aot be bouad by 

Secuon :0:. we need - decade tile ~- whelher lhc requiremenl of approval by tile G~enunenl of Guam 

tor um, li.&Nre federal su.tu&e and repi&UOft 11 csccssive and inconsistent with the feclaal sovereipry over 

Guam. 

. 12. 
:xige Ia mayoria absoluta 

'" rt:ro c:; "'•a• 0. El "'IMta Dla 

........ clc .. ... •• ~ JNI'ItiC las ouu ta

Alr~t~vlu 1011 maron&- LAJ DtrU doe '""""

Undtptll4t!IN r EJ•* L.ollr1 AII:ICiadoJ ~~~~

tL PlltsiD£1\Tt ilcl Panicle PQ911111 De· mil". 1&1"14 al JIO'\IYVI de Ia 111i010N c1e1 I'I'

mocralico. t.Cieucl Hcrnlncln Ap~Gc, rncl~ 11vi en tJ Se-n-. 

k .mi)Oril lbol:.~l&. 50 1111:1 ~!'0;- debe IJCr UN £1.. DIRIGE:'\TE at»dobbniU ol>dd que 

t'"'Ctlldl ttl d PI·~ J'lcliOGIO IIUt M efiC• ptV)"CoCtO cld J'l,bioalo .• .., hi lniHo CIOfiiO ~

~Wfil tl 14 dt no>'klltlln. L;'$illa<i6a cuslquiua• t 111 ha -iolldo Ia uu

··P111 eua uN ,PIICdl .. blu •• lolm11n~ clc t~6n c1ct ditlaao cnlr& 10& p.:orudc-1 polltoro< pa

~~~~lieU fl'll IU ml,wla. No ,..., Ill plura- llq.ar I UIIOt -..SO. tloclonlft. ti4acr I..SW Hc,.lNin -'&oliO. • · .. u.-lo de p .,Gbcmadal """"' 11~-.:llo rnrib • Ia ~ ,...._ '!'ll "'"""? w ua -•lnno q

la:Lrl un pro,«to clc olcl>Jcil' que r.voruc II conlrola cl porudo ric ~o. ,..,. ti:Ubl~ l

Dl•n:idlc '" Ia formula cut ,.u b ro••·~ . , ~ P"""•• ~11\1 oon let •o'"' rn Ia l..qiol

to OlD< ... hb-. cl qu• ml• WIIM o!.l<fl&l locno · IUn • IPUIIIO. . . d mandata de it 1 Wall.inctOft 1 n•J.OCW n . • · H...,ar..SU ~ MhiD q~t ltlD clac4o

PIOredO clcJtr IIIIC clcfiDir6 en rlcUIIt las diiPOif: ·~! tl. Cor~(' Ocllttal clc Ia colec1ivida

don• do clrcho rut111 poliiiCD. , . • .......... !'. panoapa o no to Ia consulu ..,b

•tcxlo Ia q .. ,. beblo on cl C..r.puo fuc q..e 1111~ Diio que ,DO tc pcrfllt llnl Run;,a d

fv:tl d SO aU.s uno·. RCllrdO Hrm4nclu Afo!:k! .; ll~~t~..,IIUI • wbct d JIIOJCdO dt plct>:lciU~ que aW-6 n d \ . • •t.a Ru~ dtt Corucjo - M .. 11u ~ 

Conllt'O lwia UD pu 4t ab ·. . op.T.tun-, punlvali.a6. • . • 

lfcm.ladct A&o-.11:1 indicO 11uc I.Jtllar ck pluit• • · t:u.•ndo tr It P.~~~•o ri It ~1\.1.1 4t "

licbd n recoe.oca QUC d pl:biw:itl'IIIUC propooo •wo)n ,.,dlr:dr tu con•r.producrntc, iltdicO qu

Jlto\:Cilo II UD P150 en ~Ill 1CnC de tOCIIIGI De •poe cto fO opD"Irao' · : btd>O, llo=dlol ~ ta~pedo ll_ut ~~~~ t;uc •. . •·Me ftlo, rcuolcoclt coo dirrRnla pupo< 

ICfXIC til tl CoD11'10 d PutblO tilllt 'lit A* el Janido )' llO p~~Ci!tl lOIII It uu clocitiOn lnl<

'"""'rto e1111 ~~~~rotlt allaolvl&. dt 11•11 " ,,_ 4tL"bcrati•• , ••• comlla

•tlldo.., ca l•"•(f •u ..,.. ... ct•lft b caolMI -~~~~~~~-. 
325 

~ CRS Congressional Research Service • The Library of Congress • Washington, D.C. 20540-7000 

Trant~U.twn - Spanish 

Source: El Nuevo Dfa, date unknown 

Absolute Majority Demanded 

Pepo Garcia 

The Chairman of the Popular Democratic Party (PPD), Miguel Hernandez Agosto, 

indicated that an absolute majority, 50 plus one, should be a requirement in the planned 

plebiscite that would be held on November 14. 

"So that one can talk in terms of status, it has to be a majority. It cannot be a plurality," 

Hernandez Agosto indicated. 

Governor Pedro Rossello sent the Legislature a plebiscite bill that favors plurality in the 

formula. In other words, the one that gets the most votes gets the mandate to go to 

Washington to negotiate a bill that will define in detail the provisions of that political status. 

"Everything talked about in Congress was that it be 50 plus one," Hernandez Agosto 

recalled concerning the plebiscite bill that died in the Congress a few years ago. 

Hernandez Agosto indicated that talking of plurality is recognizing that the plebiscite that 

Rossello proposes is a step in a series of events. In fact, Rossello has anticipated that after it 

is negotiated in Congress the people have to approve it with an absolute majority. 

"All of this is imposing a formula against the will ofthe majority, because the other two 

formulas are a majority. The other two formulas (independence and the Commonwealth) total 

more," added the spokesman of the minority ofthe PPD in the Senate. 

The Commonwealth leader indicated that the plebiscite bill "has been treated like any 

other piece of legislation" and the tradition of dialogue between the political parties in order 

to reach some voting agreements has been violated. 

"Doing it this way is a mechanism controlled by the government party, which establishes 

the rules because it has the votes in the Legislature," he pointed out. 

Hernandez Agosto indicated that he still does not know when the General Council of the 

group will decide it if will participate or not in the referendum on status. He said that a 

meeting is not being planned immediately. 

"The meeting of the council will take place at a timely date," he noted. 
326 

CRS-2 

When uked if the delay in a deci.ion could be counterproductive, be indicated that "that's 

why I say timely.• 

"I am meeting with different grou~ in the party and you can't make a decision before 

having a deliberative proceaa and on-going communication." 

Trorulated by 

Declra- HtuiiiiiDrad 

CRS • LArap4ge &rolca 

o-mber B. 1996 
Hon. Angel M. Cintr6n Garcia 

Member At·Large 

Mayority Whip 

Clulimum 

Commi/lu on COfUUifiD Affairs 

Commillee on Banking Affairs 

Select Commillee 011 Ethics 

327 

Legislative Assembly 

House of Representatives 

The Capitol 

San Joan, Puerto Rico 00901 

Position Statement 

by 

The Honorable Angel M. C1ntr6n-Garcfa 

Majority Whip 

House of Representatives 

Government of Puerto Rico 

regarding Section 936, 

as requested by 

The Honorable Eni F.H. Faleomavaega 

at the Joint Public Hearing in Congress 

on October 17, 1995 
328 

Every few years, the Possessions Corporation System of Taxation, specifically, 

Section 936 of the Internal Revenue Code, comes under close scrutiny by the Congress of 

the United States. Why is this? 

As a tax credit it is obviously a source or lost revenue under the present system; 

$19 bmjon (!!!)over the next five years, according to estimates by the Congressional 

Budget Office. Still, it is safe to argue that tax credits have always been an essential 

element of our system of taxation. Most, if not all of these credits have always been 

included in the Internal Revenue Code as a way to incentivize, either corporations or 

individuals, to act in a certain manner, so as to achieve the legislative objectives of such 

given provisions. Thus, if there ever came a time when those objectives were finally 

achieved, some people would then feel justified to conclude that it was money well 

"spent11• 

So, what was the legislative purpose or objective that Congress had in 1976 

when it created Section 936 or the Internal Revenue Code? 

The report on H.R. 10612, which later carne to be known as the Tax Reform Act 

of 1976, said, and I quote: 

[to] assist the U.S. possessions in oblllining etriJlloyment-protlucini 

investments by U.S. corporations, while at the same time encouraging 

those corporations to bring back to the United States the earnings from 

these investments to the extent they cannot be reinvested productively in 

the possession. 

Nineteen years later, is it possible to say that Section 936 has been effective in 

achieving such an objective? Let us look very closely at its track record, before 

submitting an answer to this question. By the mid 70's, Section 931 of the Internal Revenue Code, the predecessor of 

Section 936, began to be criticized as an insufficient stimulus for empl~"yment-producing 

investments in Puerto Rico. Quite frankly people started to realize that it had stopped 

being effective as to that end. No longer was the economy of Puerto Rico growing at the 

pace of previous decades, when our GNP grew at an average annual rate of 5.3 percent 

during the 1950's and 7 percent during the 60's. 

Yet, it is significant to point out, that even throughout those years there were 

some signs that not everything was right during such a period of significant economic 

growth. For instance, during that same period government employment grew almost as fast as in the manufacturing sector. Meanwhile, total employment had increased, albeit at a much slower pace than GNP. Nevertheless, unemployment decreased significantly 

until it bottomed out at an all-time low of 10.7 percent in 1970. What may initially seem a bit incongruous was in great part a result of the massive migration that had taken place 

throughout those same years. 

Still, it was not until 1975 and '76 that the Puerto Rican economy began to take a 

significant downward trend. Among the various factors that contributed to this decline, were: 1) the energy crisis that began in 1974, which had an even bigger effect on a developing island economy like that of Puerto Rico; 2) the recession that affected the 

U.S. economy and the subsequent rise in the interest rates; 3) as well as an increase in the 

competition that the traditional Puerto Rican manufacturing industries, which were mainly labor intensive, started to get from low-wage foreign countries. 

Another factor that further complicated matters was the significant decrease in the 

number of people leaving for the mainland, with the simultaneous effect of increasing the 

numbers of those looking for employment opportunities in a very sluggish economy. 

It was definitely a period of some turmoil. For example, there was a significant 

decrease in the total number of people employed; with a 45 thousand job net reduction in 

1975 and another 21 thousand in 76. This drop was noticeable in all sectors of the 

economy except in the public sector, which bucked this trend by increasing its numbers 

1 
329 

for both years. Thus, the unemployment rate jumped from 12.2 percent in 1974, to 15.3 

percent in 1975 and to 19.4 percent in 1976. 

Amid all of this, Section 936 was introduced with the clear purpose, as I have 

already indicated, of promoting investments by U.S. corporations in order to create jobs 

in Puerto Rico. While clearly helpful for promoting the growth of Puerto Rico's manufacturing sector in the past decades, Section 936 was probably more effective in 

stimulating its transformation; from one dominated by labor intensive industries, to one 

spearheaded by those that basically rely on capital and technology. 

This evolution rested on both real and tax-related advantages. The real 

advantages were that Puerto Rico began to develop over the years, quite advanced 

financial, transportation and telecommunication networks; as well as a well-trained, 

inexpensive --when compared with the ftfty states-- and productive workforce. Section 

936 provided an incentive for U.S. corporations to utilize these advantages. However, its 

greatest attractive were the tax incentives it had to offer. 

Yet, what kind or errect did this have as to the realization or the congressional 

objective that underlay the adoption of Section 936 in the first instance? Namely, 

the creation of more jobs in the Island. Let us see. 

Between 1977 and 1979, 20 thousand jobs were created in the manufacturin~ 

~- In 1978 there were approximately 145 thousand people employed in industries 

dedicated to manufacturing, accounting for 20.1 percent of total employment in the 

Island; a percenta,~e since UneQualed or unsurpassed. At the same time, ugemployment, 

which had been at 20 percent in 1977, decreased to 17.5 percent by 1979. 

Nonetheless, manufacturing was not the only economic sector spearheading the 

growth in the economy and even more importantly, a decrease in the unemployment rate. 

Rather, it was the public sector that increased at an eyeg faster rate during that same 

period. 24 thousand new jobs were added to that sector throughout those same three 

years. By 1980 government employment accounted for 24.4 percent of total 

employment in Puerto Rico. 

In the years that followed, the economy experienced another severe downturn, for 

which the recession that hit the U.S. during the early 80's was mainly to blame. By 1984 

the economy began to pick up again, continuing such a trend for the rest of the decade. 

Yet, the economy only managed to grow at a very modest average annual rate of 

1.8 percent. Manufacturig~:, which had undergone a sustained increase for the first three 

years of Section 936, took a downward trend those fll"st few years of the decade. It 

managed to recover but on a very irregular and minor way for the rest of the decade; 

showing only a net increase of approximately 14 thousand new jobs in the sector. On the 

other hand, the share of manufacturing as to the total number of people employed, shows an average annual rate of 18.4 percent for the decade; with a high of 19.1 percent in 1984 

and a low of 17.4 percent in 1989. These statistics show the sta~:nation of this sector of 

the economy for much, if not all of the decade. 

Meanwhile, public sector employment grew in net numbers for the decade, as over 17 thousand jobs were created within government. The share of this sector as to 

total employment remained practically stable, as it accounted for 23.1 percent of those 

employed by the end of the decade. 

It was the service sector which experienced the most impressive and sustained 

growth throughout the decade with almost 50 thousand jobs being created during this 

period. By 1989 it had a 21.2 percent share of total employment. 

Still, the number of those who remained unemployed remained intolerably high 

for most of the decade, averaging 19.2 percent for those ten years. Nonetheless, the 

unemployment rate did manage to come down from a high of 23.5 percent in 1983, to a low of 14.4 percent in 1989; only to increase again in the years that followed because of a mild recession in the U.S. economy. 

2 
880 

It is also notewonhy to point out that the net mir:ration of Puerto Ricans to the 

mainland picked up dramatically in 1982, averaging almost 35 thousand persons per year 

for most of the decade. 

The early part of the nineties witnessed a continued decrease in the share of the 

manufacturinr: sector as a percentage of total employment; reaching a low of 16.4 percent 

in 1994. For example, between 1986 and 1993 net employment in 936 companies 

increased by only 1.285 jobs. Certainly a very paltry figure. 

Government employment continued to oscillate in a somewhat irregular manner, 

decreasing its share to 21.7 percent of total employment by 1993. 

On the other hand, the service sector kept experiencing a slight, yet steady 

growth; achieving 24.1 percent of total employment in 1994. Definitely this sector was 

becoming the largest employment provider in the economy; outpacing all other sectors, 

by experiencing quite steady, albeit unspectacular growth. Since 1970 it had managed to 

grow by 43.2 percent. Still, it barely surpassed public sector growth by only 0.6 percent. 

Meanwhile unemployment both increased and decreased during the 90's; with a 

decade high of 16.8 percent in 1993, to a decade low two years later of 13.9 percent. 

Definitely the improving economic situation in the United States had a substantial effect 

in the upswing of our economy by mid-decade. 

Does this "picture" so far illustrate any significant effectiveness on the part 

of Section 936? 

Supporters of Section 936 would argue that in order to measure the effectiveness 

of the Tax Credit, one ought not look at the paltry record of job creation by the 

manufacturing sector, but take into account the growth registered in other sectors of the 

economy. Yet some of these barely showed any kind of sustained growth since the 

inception of Section 936, with the possible exceptions of both the service and public 

sectors. 

That is where the often mentioned and quite overhyped multiplyinr: factor comes 

into play. These people would argue that it works as follows: that for each 936 

employment created, more than two "indirect" jobs are produced in other sectors, 

especial! y in the service industry. 

Is the multiplyinr: factor really this effective? It may be difficult to say; yet, in 

reality, the actual multiplying factor is probably lower than what they contend. 

Still, where does Section 936 of the Internal Revenue Code mention the 

creation of such "Indirect" jobs as its legislative objective? 

You can search ... BUT IT'S NQWHERE TO BE FOUND. 

It is pitiful that they continue to defend Section 936 on this premise. Nonetheless, 

if this unintended effect had been successful is one thing, but we are talking about an 

Island that still suffers from high unemployment rates. Thus, the creation of these 

"indirect" jobs has not been in such numbers that would allow us to categorize 

Section 936 as an effective job creation mechanism for the economy of Puerto Rico. 

Supporters of Section 936 may also counter with the argument that many of the 

jobs created are much better paid than what used to be available in the job pool before. 

This may somewhat true with regards to those jobs created by those 936 companies 

which are capital intensive, but not necessarily so for those jobs created in the service or 

in the public sector. 

It is important to point out that even in the case of many of the capital intensive 

936 corporations it may not always hold true; as on many occasions they also try to lower 

labor costs and circumvent some of the benefits required by law to regular employees, by 

hiring temporary workers instead. 

Then, is it possible that this supposedly positive development really have such 

a widespread and noticeable effect in our economy? 

DEFINITELY NOT SO. 

On the contrary. At most, the effect has been quite negligible; as Puerto Rico's 

per capita income grew more slowly between 1970 and 1990 than that of the United 

3 
331 

States and even less so than Mississippi, the poorest state in the Nation. Mississippi, as 

opposed to Puerto Rico, was able to close the gap with the rest of the states during this 

period. 

Even more appalling, 64 of the 78 municipalities In the Island show a yearly 

per capita income of Jess than $4,000 dollars according to the 1990 census. Of those, 

28 of them have a per capita income of Jess than $3,000 dollars. And in 71 out of the 

78 municipalities, one (1) out of every two (2) persons live under the poverty level. 

THEBE IS NO OTHER WAY TO PUT IT. BUT TQESE NUMBERS ABE 

DlSGRACEFJ!L. 

Now that you are a bit more aware of our present socio-economic conditions 

and of the track record of Section 936, DO YOU STILL FIND SUFFICIENT 

JUSTIFICATION FOR MAINTAINING SECTION 936 IN THE TAX CODE? 

ABSOLUTELY NOT. 

Still, let us look at another negative consequence of maintaining this "tax haven" 

in Puerto Rico: the cost to the U.S. Treasury in lost revenues. 

Increasingly, Section 936 has become a subsidy for capital intensive firms 

and for those engaging in sophisticated tax planning. 

In its first five years of existence Section 936 accounted for an average loss of 

$1.3 billion a year. It was such a terrific deal for the pharmaceutical industry, that one 

after another set up operations or expanded existing plants on the Island. They also 

transferred their patents and trademarks to Puerto Rico. This meant that every time they 

developed new drugs, they wrote off those costs on their U.S. tax returns. Once they 

began producing the drugs, they also claimed the profits tax-free in Puerto Rico. 

As Senator Dole once said in 1982 ... and I quote: "A dearer case of havine 

your cake and eatin& it too. has seldom existed in the U.S. tax law." 

By 1984 these corporations were escaping payment of over $2 billion in income 

tax. 

In May 1985, President Reagan issued a report calling for an overhaul of the 

tax code "based on the principles of simplicity and fairness." The report proposed 

replacing the tax credit with a wage credit. The White House pointed out that 

although the original intention was to create jobs, companies were obtaining tax credits 

far in excess of the wages they paid. 

The llliUl11 noted that employment levels "have been flat" and that while "the 

credit rewards generating Income in the possessions, it provides no direct incentive 

to generating employment." It also indicated that the existing credit is very costly and 

inefficienL That back then in 1985, the average tax benefit per employee for all Section 

936 corporations was more than $22 thousand; almost double the average wllge of $14, 

210. 

Still, it pointed out, that fourteen 936 corporations, presumably all 

pharmaceuticals, received tax benefits In excess cif $100,000 per employee. It 

continued by saying that those fourteen companies accounted for 4 percent of the 

Section 936 corporations for which employment data was available, but at the same time derived 29 percent of the tax benefits. 

Regrettably, President Reagan's wage credit proposal was not accepted; 

nonetheless, provisions in the Tax Refonn Act of 1986 reduced to some extent, some of 

the tax advantages 

~ 

that Section 936 offered these corporations. 

the average annual wage compensation for workers in 936 corporations was $17,725; with the highest compensation being in the pharmaceutical industry having 

an average wage rate of $26, 471. The average revenue cost per employee for all936 

corporations was $26, 725 and for the pharmaceuticals it was over $81 thousand. 

The high revenve c:gst per employee in the pharmaceutical industry results 

from the fact that while that industry received the largest share of the tax benefits, 

55 percent in 1987, it only employed 18.2 percent of all Section 936 workers. The 

4 
332 

subsidy per dollar or wa~s paid was more than double the average, at $3.08 per 

dollar or wages paid. 

Whether measured as a subsidy per employee or per dollars wages paid, the costs 

of the tax credit, especially in the pharmaceutical industry, are undeniably too high. 

Between 1985 and 1990, the lost tax revenue continued to climb, from $2.5 

billion to $3.2 billion. This year it is estimated to be quite close to $4 billion per year. 

So as you may see, even with the various amendments to the section over the 

years, there seems to be no end to this revenue loss trend. 

To give you a few examples as to tax exemptions that some of these 

corporations enjoyed ONLY IN 1994: 

Johnson & Johnson ... $247 million 

Bristol-Myers Squibb ... $187 million 

Pfizer ••. $184 million 

Merck •.. $168 million 

and soon. 

Also keep in mind, that this was after the changes brought about by the Omnibus Bud~:et 

Reconciliation Act of 1993, which was supposed to curtail some of the tax avoidance 

~ by these corporations. 

This is the reason why Senator David Pryor (D-AR) has said that "the American 

government has given the pharmaceutical industry a blank check to pillage the 

federal Treasury through the [S)ection 936 tax credit." Certainly, the revenue costs 

for this Tax Credit are tpo excessjye, especially after taking into consideration its lack of 

effectiveness. 

HOW MUCH LONGER ARE YOU WILLING TO MAINTAIN SUCH AN 

EXPENSIVE AND INEFFICIENT INCENTIVE IN THE TAX CODE? 

DON'T YOU WINK THIS SITUATION IS MOBE THAN INTOLERABLE 

FOR YOU AND ESPECIALLY FOR YOUR CONSTITUENTS? 

CAN ANYONE TRUTHFULLY CONVINCE YOU OWERWISE? 

This year, largely in part because of the resolve of this 104th Congress to tackle 

the budget deficit, we have seen various interest groups and organizations from across the 

ideological spectrum, like the Cato Institute, Heritage Foundation, Progressive Policy 

Institute, National Taxpayers Union, Citizens for Tax Justice, and many others, address 

the problem of what has been denominated as corporate welfare. For example, Cato's 

report, which called federal aid to corporations "a major contributor to the federal 

budget crisis", argued that every major Cabinet department has become "a conduit for 

government funding of private industry." 

All of these groups have issued recommendations favoring the elimination of 

many, if not""all, of these corporate subsidies and tax breaks; so as to narrow the budget 

deficit and help the economy. Obviously Section 936 is always mentioned as one of its 

most blatant examples. Even Congressman John Kasich, the House Budget Committee 

Chairman, expressed his desire to address the problem of Section 936 within this budget 

process before a national television audience earlier this year. Ms. Linda Chavez, former 

Bush Administration official and weekly columnist for the USA Today, said, and I quote: 

[w]iping out corporate welfare won't balance the budget alone, but it 

will certainly help. And more important perhaps than the actual 

dollars it saves will be the message it sends: Companies. no less than 

individuals. haye to learn to stand on their own. 

Still, all the various problems of Section 936 are compounded when one takes a 

closer look at the negative side-effects that it has had on many communities in the United 

States. In essence, many of these 936 corporations, especially many in the 

pharmaceutical industry, have decided to close many operations in the mainland U.S. so 

as to establish "runaway plants" in Puerto Rico; which allows them to maximize the 

benefits afforded by Section 936. 

5 
333 

Basically, the U.S. government is providing a tax break to a company if it 

terminates the jobs, say, of 800 workers in Elkhart, Indiana, who may earn an average of 

$13 an hour and replaces them with $6 an hour workers at a plant it builds in Puerto Rico. 

This is the case of American Home Products Corporation in Elkhart, Indiana; one like many others, which on October 1990 announced that within one year it intended to 

close the Whitehall plant in Elkhart and transfer some of the work to Puerto Rico. Just over a year earlier, they had informed their stockholders, that the "completion of a new 

facility in Puerto Rico [would] enable Whitehall to. achieve significant cost emciencies 

while maintaining the highest manufacturing standards." Among the products to be 

manufactured in Puerto Rico were Anacin, Dristan, Denorex and Advil. A year later 

American Home Products closed its Elkhart plant permanently. At the same time, its 

Puerto Rican subsidiary has already allowed the company to escape payment of million 

of dollars in taxes, not to mention saving millions of dollars in salaries. 

Yet, the case of this American Home Products plant in Elkhart, Indiana, is very 

illustrative in another way, as it clearly shows the power and organization of the pro 936 

lobby. Let me explain why. 

In 1990, at the end of the lOlst Congress, Congressman John Hiler (R-IN) a 

five term conservative Republican, formerly described by the Almanac of American 

Politics as a staunch supporter of President Reagan, submitted a bill regarding a 

denial of tax benefits to 936 companies with operations in Puerto Rico that could be 

identified as "runaway plants." Definitely, most of the 936 pharmaceutical companies 

and the Puerto Rico U.S.A. Foundation lobbying group felt threatened. As always, they 

oppoSe to the very end any amendment that might curtail some of the attractiveness of 

Section 936. 

Thus, not only did they lobby hard enough to succeed in having the legislation 

shelved in committee, but also provided substantial contributions to the campaign of the 

challenger to Congressman Hiler for the election in November of that year. They were succesful in that endeavor also, as current Congressman Tim Roemer defeated Mr. Hiler 

in a very close election. Obviously Congressman Roemer has not been interested in 

following the lead of former Congressman Hiler in submitting similar legislation to the 

U.S. House of Representatives. 

Let me remind you, that now is the time for action ... THIS IS YET ANOTBER 

GOOD REASON WHY YOU OUGHT TO ELIMINATE miS WASTE AND 

INEQUITY FROM THE TAX CODE. 

But who are these truly unconditional and indefatigable supporters of 

Section 936? Why do they defend the Section with everything they've got? 

You probably can divide the Pro-936 lobby into two basic groups. One, basically 

composed by the 936 corporations (primarily the pharmaceuticals), their banking and 

fmancial partners, their lobbyists and the very powerful Puerto Rico U.S.A. Foundation; 

the other, by the pro-commonwealth Popular Democratic Party. 

Both support the same goal: maintaining the political and economic status quo, 

albeit for very different reasons. The private sector front, as the frrst group could be described, defends Section 

936 for one basic reason: to preserve their extremely profitable livelihood any way 

possible. 

Just to give you an example of the basic arguments that these companies have 

used in their lobbying efforts; on April 1985, in a letter by a vice president of a 936 

corporation to former Treasury Secretary James Baker expressing concern about the 

proposal to repeal Section 936, four arguments that were central to their lobbying 

efforts were pointed out, these were: 

one ... that it would be unfair to take away the tax break from companies that had 

built plants in Puerto Rico because of it. .. 

two ... that the Puerto Rican economy was flourishing because of the tax break ... 

6 
three ... a warning that this flourishing economy would collapse without the tax 

break ... 

and four ••• a not-so-veiled threat that if the provision was repealed, the 

companies would pack up and move to some other part of the world. 

Let me point out a couple of things. First, as wealthy corporations who have 

taken advantage of such a generous tax break that can only be measured in the billions 

of dollars, they are far from being In a moral high ground so as to be able to make 

demands based on an argwnent of tax fairness. 

Would they be able to sell their case to the overburdened American middle 

class taxpayer? 

I DON'T THINK THEY STAND A CHANCE. 

Second, in the other three arguments they seemingly imply two very outrageous 

assertions: one, that the livelihood of the Puerto Rican economy is completely dependent 

on Section 936 and two, that these corporations would only stay in Puerto Rico so far as 

Section 936 remains in the books. 

I would simply remind them that Section 936 ~ a very useful tool in the 

development of the manufacturing sector of our economy. Nonetheless, the employment 

rate in this sector, which is the one that usually provides the highest paid jobs, has 

gone down rather than up. That js the payoff since 1976 from the $35 billion in 

profits U.S. companies have been permitted to keeg tax-free. 

Still, it is important to recognize that not all the companies in the manufacturing 

sector can be grouped together; as there are some who do not even benefit from these tax 

incentives. Not even all the 936 corporations can be considered homogeneous, as there 

are many of them (supposedly around 84%) who utilize the wage credit, while the rest of 

them (primarily the pharmaceuticals and some of the other capital intensive industries) 

are the ones that utilize the income based credil 

I would also remind them that our economy is definitely far more dependent on 

the well-being of the American economy than on the continued existence of these tax 

incentives. In addition, the Puerto Rican economy is far from being what it could and 

should be. Statistics show how much our Island has to go before it reaches a level of 

economic development comparable with that of Mississippi, the poorest state in our 

Nation. 

Sadly, for the past several decades the economic model has centered too much 

on the promotion of the manufacturing sector, rather than on the furtherance of a 

more balanced development of our economy. Such a policy would have provided 

much more stability, as well as the capability to weather the periodical downturns of the 

U.S. economy that have brought forth such negative repercussions to the Puerto Rican 

economy in the pasl 

Would these corporations leave Puerto Rico if Section 936 is amended or repealed? 

Maybe some will leave, but most of them would probably stay, because Puerto 

Rico provides them with many advantages that other locations both in the U.S. and in the 

region do not, such as: 

1) a trained, inexpensive and productive workforce; 

2) well developed fmancial, communications and transportation networks; 

3) a prime geographical and cultural location that serves as a link between the 

U.S., the Caribbean and Latin America; 

4) its legal system (including a U.S. District Court for the District of Puerto Rico); 

5) political stability; and 

6) many other incentives. 

Those who may decide to leave, would probably be among those 936 corporations that 

came to Puerto Rico .!liilx to take advantage of the income based credit provided by this 

section of the Internal Revenue Code. Still, that is a risk or a possibility we are willing to assume. 

7 
The other important group within the pro-936 lobbying front is the procommonwealth Popular Democratic Party. They support the continuation of 

Section 936 furely for political purposes. 

Why. 

Because Section 936 Is only appUcable to U.S. territorial possessions, not to 

states, or to territories In transition to eventual statehood. 

But how do they sell their position to the people of Puerto Rico? 

Basically they use the same arguments put forth by the private sector front. First, 

they try to have people believe that the current socio-economic and political situation of 

Puerto Rico "is the best of two worlds"; as expressed by their campaign slogan for the 

1993 Status Plebiscite. That is why they seem to exude a sense of conformity regarding 

the socio-economic condition of Puerto Rico, as they only seem to talk about all that our 

Island has achieved since the late 40's and early 50's. It is unfortunate, though, that they 

seem to hide the ineffectiveness of their outdated economic development model for tbe 

past 25 years, by including statistics from tbe more prosperous 50's and 60's. 

On the other hand, they never provide any lUI alternatives for true economic 

growth, so that Puerto Rico can discard forever such persistent problems as: 

1) our double digit unemployment rate; 

2) an ever growing gap in per capita income with the U.S. and more significantly, 

with the poorest state in the Nation; and 

3) a persistent talent drain, as many of our better prepared professionals are 

leaving for, or staying in the United States because of more and better paying 

opportunities. 

What do they suggest instead? 

A "reformulation of Section 936", as they proposed in their definition of 

Commonwealth for the 1993 Status Plebiscite. They told the electorate, that a vote for 

Commonwealth was a vote for the permanence of Section 936, and for the reformulation 

of the incentive to pre-l993levels. Then, in tbe primary for tbe chairmanship of our state 

Democratic Party, held this past 24th of September, they said that a vote for Ms. Celeste 

Benitez was a vote to demand Conaress to leave Section 936 as is. They even had her 

declare her intention to run for that position at a press conference held in tbe front lawn of 

a 936 pharmaceutical corporation. 

Obviously she won; particularly with tbe help of most of the 936 cm;porations in 

the pharmaceutical sector, who openly asked for such a vote from their workers by 

providing them with such propaganda. How many of these workers would have dared 

to vote otherwise after being pressured by their superiors and forcefed such blatant 

misinformation? 

Just recently, Mr. Hector L. Acevedo (President of the Popular Democratic Party 

and National Committeeman of our state Democratic Party) and a few of his supporters, 

held a picket line outside a hotel where the Senate Majority Leader, the Hon. Robert 

Dole, spoke to those gathered for the Annual Convention of the Council of State 

Governments. The reason: his pro-commonwealth Party's opposition to any possible 

change of Section 936, regardless of its lackluster track record and concern over the 

current budgetary constraints that beset our Nation. 

Theirs Is a Party that always demands from Washington an ever increasing 

amount of federal largesse without feeling any responsibility of providing something 

in return. 

DEFINITELY, IT IS WELFARE MENTALITY AT ITS VERY WORST. 

That is why Governor Pedro Rossell6 has worked very hard to develop a 

more self-suftldent and balanced economic model. One that is beginning to bear fruit 

with a remarkable and sustained growth of the economy in the tourist, commerce, 

construction and service sectors. 

8 
336 

The most telling statistic is the persistent downward trend of the unemployment 

rate, which fell to 12.8 percent this past November. Such continued rhythm of growth 

has not been seen in Puerto Rico for over twenty-five years. 

Still, Governor Rossello believes that in order for Puerto Rico to close the 

gap with the rest of the Nation at an even Caster pace, we need Cor Congress to 

substitute Section 936 with an economic development plan that provides tax 

incentives based on job creation and new business investments. Such a program not 

only should apply to the territories, but also be made available to all jurisdictions within 

the U.S. that are still developing and that still suffer from: 

I) unemployment that exceeds twice the national average; 

2) per capita income that is less than half the national average; and 

3) over half its population over the poverty line. 

The aim of this new economic development program is to provide these 

jurisdictions with an opportunity to achieve desired levels of development. The 

JIDI&[lUil would not be permanent, but instead should terminate automatically when 

the jurisdiction's economy achleyes such levels as the other states apd territories. 

This alternative would allow Congress to terminate Section 936 with the least 

sacrifice to the people and the economy of Puerto Rico. At the same time, it would 

establish an efficlegt and tara:eted job creation incentive that would apply to any 

U.S. jurisdiction at Car less cost than the proa:ram it replaces. 

This program has incorporated many elements of President Reagan's wage 

credit proposal and of former Congressman Kemp's enterprise zone concept. 

It is supported by the business sector, including most of the manufacturing 

companies; Governor Pedro Rossell6; Resident Commissioner Carlos Romero-Barcel6; 

the pro-statehood New Progressive Party; and the Republican Party of Puerto Rico. 

PLEASE ALLOW FOR PUERTO RICO TO STAND ON ITS OWN FEET. 

SO THAT WE STOP BEING A HEAVY FINANCIAL BURDEN TO THE 

FEDERAL GOYEKNMENT. 

THIS IS THE WAY!!! 

Earlier this year, Congressman Don Young of Alaska proposed submitting a 

bill which called Cor the phase-out and replacement of Section 936. 

In its place, he envisioned the creation of empowerment zones with a possessions 

enterprise fund and special economic incentives for private sector led development 

together with a one-time grant for infrastructure development; and, a phase-in and 

eventual parity in federal assistance programs paid through the voluntary application of 

those federal taxes that do not currently apply to Puerto Rico and the other territories. Even though the concept of the "Young Plan", also officially called the "United 

States-Territorial Fiscal Equity Act", has received attention through testimony in at least 

three House Committee hearings this year, Congress seems to be establishing a profound 

congressional policy which is as important as the actual enactment of the measure: territories seeking parity in federal programs must be willing to share the same tax 

burdens as citizens in the several states. Don Young's proposal underscores the growing perception by Congress that 

Section 936 is au !petfectlve and ovedy expensive prop-am that does pot address the 

social apd economic needs of tbe territories and that something should be done to 

provide them with an opportunity Cor true ecopornjc development. 

In conclusion, I would like to stress that Section 936 neither buoys the Island 

economy during recession, nor provides an engine of job creation that fuels the long-term 

growth of the Island economy as a manufacturing center. Definitely, Section 936 is a 

grossly inefficient way to promote investment, especially when analyzed under the 

current budget deficit reduction debate. 

At tbe same time that manY Americans are beiua: asked to make substagtjal 

a<UWitments rqardlna: mapy oC their social welfare benefits. it is impossible to allow 

these coa:poratjoru; to continue a:ettioa: such a free-ride at the expense oC the middle9 
337 

'class taxpayer. Thus, as Congressman Scott Klug (R-WI) recently said, and I quote: 

"If we're willing to make tough decisions on domestic programs, we also ought to 

make tough decisions on government subsidies for corporations." YOUR 

CONSTITUENTS WILL BE GRATEFUL. 

FOR YOUR SAKE AND ESrECIALL Y FOR OUR SAKE ... IT IS TIME FOR CONGBESS TO ACT NOW!!! 

10 
338 

POPUUIR DEMOCRATIC PARTY 

GF.NERAL COUNCIL 

TO nt.e CONGRESS OF nt.e UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: 

WUEREI\S, the Popular Democratic Party received a mandate in 

~!lC~ '"'oo .-~.:::~.:.:::~:: '::-:- ct-rpngthen and enhance the Commonwealth r~lationship •to a maximum degree of .autonomy compatible wlU, its 

pcr:::tanent union with the United States"; 

WUEREAS, our party platfotlll establishes that "to determine 

t!le manner in which this mandate is to be implemented, we will 

:nitiata, immediately after the election, . a dialogue with the 

Government of the United States and with the leaders, who in 

Puerto Rico represent the other status formulas, to discuss the ~~nner in which to consult the will of the People; 

Wla:R£1\S, the covern111ent of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico ~nitiated this process and, as a result, the u.s. House of 

~c;. :esentatives approved a bill to conduct a plebiscite which 

cont.:~ins general definitions of the status formulas and provides 

Co~ a subsequent process of negotiation and implementation of the 

-..inning formula, and the relevant committees of the u.s. Senate 

approved a bill which contained detailed definitions of the status 

Cor~ulas and a self-executing provision automatically to implement 

the results of the plebiscite, but the full Senate did not 

~n::ider this bill: 

WI~. the political leaders of Puerto Rico overcame their 

l1!fercnces and achieved a c~nsensus for holding a plebiscite; 

WI!EnEAS, because the Congressional leadership did not o·,crco~e t!1e Cund.'lmental conceptual differences between the House 

·•nd the :icnate bills, Congress adjourned without enacting a plcbiscitt! law; 

. WIIJ::JU!.AS, the last opportunity to hold a plebiscite during 

th1s fo•ar-year term is during 1991, given that this will be the 

"'Ost ir-~portant collective decision ever faced by our People, the 

!'lubisc!.tary c;~mpaign must be distanced from the primary and 

'?l!neral election processes and consequently the status plebiscite c~nnot be held during 1992; 

nt.EREFORE, be it resolved by the General Council of the l'opul;~r Oer.~ocratic Party to: 
339 

3ection 1.- Demand from the Congress of the United States 

compliance with the mandate of the People of Puerto Rico to 

develop and enhance the Commonwealth relationship through the 

holding of a plebiscite in 1991. 

Section 2.- Insist, to make this possible, upon a formal 

agreement of the Congressional leader3hip, (that is, the 

Speaker, the Minority leader of the !louse, Majority and 

Minority leaders of the Senate, and the chairmen and the 

ranking members of the relevant commi ttces of jurisdiction) 

which harmonizes the substantial conceptual differences 

between the House and the Senate into a single consensus bill 

by no later than February 19, 1991. 

~ection J.- Require that such bill assure the full exercise 

of the right to self-detecmination under the laws of the 

Commonwealth of Puerto Rico on the basis of status formulas 

of equal political dignity, to be proposed to the People of 

Puerto Rico by the Congress of the United States of America, 

but not subordinate to the plenary power of Congress under 

the territorial clause of the Constitution. 

Section 4.- Emphasize that the consensus bill must contain: 

(1) Adequate guarantees that the Governr.~ent of the United 

States will implement the political status 

democratically selected by the People of Puerto Rico: 

(2) Clear definitions of the essential principles of each 

status formula; 

(J) Provisions to assure that the process will result in a conclusive resolution, by providing for a second 

election between the two leading status formulas in the 

event no option receives more than 50 percent of the 

vote in the first election. 

Section 5.- Require that the New Comrnon·.;eal th relationship 

be based on the following principles: 

(1) The preservation of our distinct character, ·>ur identity as a People, our language and our culture. 

(2) Constitutional guarantees of ·the irrevr.cahi l.i ty of th& 

United St~tes ciLl•cnship of Puerto Ricans; 

(J) Recognition of the sovereignty of the People of Puerto 

Rico, as provided for in the Constitution of the 

c.,mmonwealth of pu .. rto Rico; 
(4) 

(5) 

161 

(7) 

340 

Recoqnition of the Commonwealth's authority to engaqe in 

international relations and a procedure to enter into 

international aqrcements :. 

A special procedure to accord the Commonwealth broader 

self-government to strenqthen our authority to provide 

Puerto Ric~n solutions to Puerto Rican problems; 

Parity with residents of the several states in federal 

assistance proqrams, tn.rougn an eqult.cSiJl.:= -cuutri::;uticn 

by the Government of Puerto Rico and in a ·manner 'which 

preserves the fiscal autonomy and tools of economic 

development of the Commonwealth, without the application 

of federal t~xes; · 

Recognition of the permanent union between Puerto Rico 

and the United States, based on the compact which 

originated the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and which 

C3n only be altered by the mutual consent of the People 

of Puerto Rico and of the Congress. 

Section 6.- Specify that if the ·Congressional leadership 

introduces a consensus bill by February, 19, 1991, the 

Popular Democratic Party will participate in a plebiscite in 

1991. If the consensus bill is agreed to a later date, the 

plebiscite will have to be held after 1992. 

Subscribed, today, llovember 17, 1990, Teatro La Perla, Ponce, 

Puerto Rico. 
341 

PDP drafts new. definitio~ 

of commonwealth for ballot 

Benitez offered post 

to lead campaign 
342 

JOINT STATEMENT 

THE HONORABLE DON YOUNG 

CHAIRMAN 

COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES 

AND 

THE HONORABLE BENJAMIN A. GILMAN 

CHAIRMAN 

COMMITTEE ON INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS 

UNITED STATES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JOINT HEARING ON THE 1993 PUERTO RICO STATUS PLEBISCITE 

This joint hearing, by two subcommittees of the Committees on Resources and International 

Relations, represents the first substantive step by the 104th Congress in response to the 

Puerto Rico Legislature's request for congressional action based upon the 1993 Puerto Rico 

status plebiscite. Despite the diverse and conflicting interpretations of the plebiscite's 

outcome, certain conclusions are required with respect to the Puerto Rico's relationship with 

the federal government based upon the information and record before the Congress. In our 

view the following.Jegal and political realities must govern future measures taken by 

Congress regarding Puerto Rico: 

I. Under the Territorial Clause of Article IV, Section 3, Clause 2 of the Constitution of the 

United States, the Congress has the authority and responsibility to define the interests of the 

United States and determine Federal policy regarding the governance and political status of 

Puerto Rico. This authority is augmented by the Treaty of Paris (1898), which transferred 

sovereignty over Puerto Rico from Spain to the United States, specifically providing in 

Article IX that "the civil rights and political status of the native inhabitants" of Puerto Rico 

"shall be determined by the Congress. • Executive Branch measures such as the 

Memorandum of the President dated July 25, 1961, and the Memorandum of the President 

dated November 20, 1992, reflect the evolving understanding in past administrations with 

respect to the 1950 Puerto Rican Federal Relations Act (48 U.S.C. 731b) and other 

Congressionally determined measures establishing local self-government for Puerto Rico. 

However, such procedural and administrative arrangements do not define finally federal 

policy or determine a permanent political status for Puerto Rico. Similarly, U.S. Supreme 

Court rulings such as IIii.!Iil v. ~. 446 U.S. 651 (1980), recognize the continuing 

authority and responsibility of Congress with respect to Puerto Rico under the Territorial 

Clause, and also reflect Congressional intent regarding the nature and scope of local 

constitutional self-government established under 48 U.S.C. 73lb, consistent with U.S. House 

of Representatives Report No. 2275 (See Historical and Statutory Notes, 48 U.S.C.A. 731b). 

However, while federal judicial decisions such as Hani.i establish the correct ruling as to 

Puerto Rico's current status, this does not resolve fundamental policy or future political 

status issues, and Congress retains the authority and responsibility to determine and take 

appropriate action to promote federal interests with respect to a permanent political status for 

Puerto Rico consistent with the democratically expressed wishes of the people concerned. 
343 

2 

2. The decision of the United States in 1953 to cease transmittal of information to the United 

Nations under Article 73 of the U.N. Charter, as well as the measures taken by the federal 

government consistent with 48 U.S.C. 731b and the principle of government by consent, 

reflect the approval by the people of Puerto Rico of a local constitution, as amended and 

approved by Congress in an exercise of its Territorial Clause authority. However, as an 

"unincorporated territory" of the United States, as defined in the "Insular Cases, • ~ v. 

~. 182 U.S. 244 (1901), Puerto Rico is not fully self-governing, and has not been 

incorporated into the United States constitutional system of permanent union and federalism. 

U.S. citizens in Puerto Rico do not have equal legal and political rights with citizens in the 

states of the union, including the right to vote in national elections, representation or 

consent regarding federal laws and policies made applicable to Puerto Rico by Congress or 

the President in the exercise of federal powers, or constitutionally guaranteed citizenship. 

For these reasons, the United States has an on-going moral, legal and political obligation to 

provide bona fide and internationally recognized options for full self-government to the 

people of Puerto Rico, and then, to respect their freely expressed choice. In addition, 

Congress must determine if continuing Puerto Rico's present status of "unincorporated 

territory" is consistent with the interests and obligations of the United States, particularly as 

a majority of the voters in Puerto Rico now advocate a change in political status. U.S. 

interests and obligations regarding Puerto Rico include the ultimate determination by 

Congress as to disposition of the territory in a manner which promotes the U.S. national 

interest, fulfillment of U.S. obligations under applicable treaties to respect the right of the 

residents of Puerto Rico to self-determination, and promoting attainment of full selfgovernment. The latter can be accomplished based upon separate Puerto Rican sovereignty 

(independence or free association as defined in a bilateral treaty), or a relationship under 

U.S. sovereignty through complete integration into the U.S. constitutional system on the basis 

of equality (statehood). 

3. Until a permanent political status for Puerto Rico is achieved, Puerto Rico will remain an 

"unincorporated territory," an indefinite status subject to the discretion of Congress, and 

subject to change as may be determined by Congress from time-to-time. While Congress and 

the federal authorities may alter, amend or reform the legal and political relationship between 

the federal government and the territory, either unilaterally or by mutual consent, no present 

Congress can bind a future Congress to any unalterable or irrevocable pact, compact or 

mutual consent agreement. Congress can not relinquish, abdicate or place permanent 

restraints on the exercise of its constitutional authority and responsibility under the Territorial 

Clause, and any provision of law or agreement which might purport to do so would not be 

binding or enforceable should a later Congress provide otherwise by law. Even if there 

might be some form of liability or alternative remedy for an unincorporated territory 

aggrieved by Congressional action to modify an existing legal or political arrangement 

between the federal government and any such territory, the measures adopted regarding an 

unincorporated territory by Congress acting under the Territorial Clause will never be 

unalterable or irrevocable in any sense that is legally enforceable, and to represent otherwise 

would be misleading. 
344 

3 

4. As long as Puerto Rico remains an unincorporated territory with local self-government, 

the Federal programs and benefits provided by Congress may be changed or modified at the 

discretion of Congress. While Congress may determine to increase some benefits to promote 

development, even if U.S. citizens in Puerto Rico are given parity with citizens in the states 

under some programs as Congress deems appropriate, such equal benefits are neither 

permanent nor guaranteed. As a political matter, ending exemption from federal taxation is 

necessary before full parity is likely, but even then it is important for all concerned to 

understand that as long as Puerto Rico is subject to the Territorial Clause there is no 

constitutionally based or legally enforceable right to parity of benefits, equality or even 

guaranteed citizenship. 

5. In light of the foregoing, the Congress has a duty to clarify the legal nature of -- and take 

practical steps to improve -- the current relationship between the United States and Puerto 

Rico. Congress also must provide a mechanism and procedure through which it can 

determine the measures which the federal government must take to promote establishment of 

a permanent political status for Puerto Rico in the future, based on an informed process of 

self determination in Puerto Rico. In addition, Congress should consider measures which 

promote equal treatment of U.S. citizens in Puerto Rico under the laws of the United States, 

and to the greatest extent practicable given the current political status of Puerto Rico, remove 

all forms of discrimination and disincentives to full participation in the legal, political, fiscal 

and economic life of this nation. 
345 

TESTIMONY OF 

ARTl RO J. GARFFER, JR. 

BEFORE THE HOl"SE OF REPRESE~TA TIVES 

JOINT SUB-COMMITTEE ON WESTER~ HE\11SPHERE 

AFFAIRS AND :"JATI\'E .UIERIC\~ .\~D I~SLLAR AFFAIRS 

REGARDING IMPLDIE~TATIO~ OF ~0\'E:\IBf.R 14TH, 1993 

PUERTO RICO ST:\ Tl'S PLEBISCITE RESl'L TS 

OCTOBER 1995 

Chairman and members of the House of Representatins joint 

subcommittee: 

My name is Arturo J. GarfTer, Jr. I had the pm·ilege and honor to 

participate actively in the activities that lead up to he November 

14th,l993 plebiscite. I had the opportunity of educating the people of 

Puerto Rico and several l 'nited States Senators and Congress 

members on thebenefits and responsibilities which are entailed in 

statehood for Puerto Rico. I sen·ed as Director for two pro-statehood 

youth movements and founded a third monment. 

Today I testify before you, one year and clenn months later, on 

behalf of young professionals and college students in Puerto Rico and 

throughout the United States mainland, who wish to have their views 

and opinions heard, as seen through their eyes. I will offer an 

analytical response to the :"1/onmber 14th plebiscite, which calls for 

enhancing our colonial status. 

On November 14th, 1993 the leaders and followers of the Popular 

Democratic Party resulted victorious only within the context of the 

definition of the word and not within the political-mayoritarian 

context 
346 

-2-

which is generally accepted as a dear mandate on which to act. On 

this day, 48.4% of the voters placed their trust on promises made by 

the leaders of the Popular Democratic Party, which ·are outlined 

" 'ithin the definition of the winning formula. It is interesting to note 

that the ltaders of the Popular Democratic Party were not willing to 

defend their status option before this joint committee, until very 

recently. 

It is to my understanding and countless others,' that only two dear 

results stemmed from this process of self-determination; first, that 

51% of the \'Oters opted-for an end to the colonial status of Puerto 

Rico, and wcond, that 95•1. of the voters favor, in one way or 

another, tbe lfnited States political and economic form of 

gonrnment. However. the leaders of tbe Popular Democratic Party 

han stated that the 48.4% of the voters have clearly given them a 

mandate to negotiate fin key points, which were the basis of their 

status option. Thus, this leads me to begin a logical argument against 

such proposed assurances. 

It is imperative to keep in mind, that all rwe key points presented by 

the Popular Democratic Party in its "winning" status formula, that 

of enhancing our colonial status, raise serious questions concerning 

potential conflicting relations between the Federal Government and 

our state government. 

First, under tbe provisions of the "winning" formula, it calls for 
347 

-3-

negotiating a bi-lateral compact between the gonrnments of the 

United States and Puerto Rico. Hence we must ask, can the 

government of Puerto Rico negotiate bi-lateral compacts within the 

jurisprudence which interprets Article X of the United States 

Constitution (Territorial Clause)? Would the United States 

government allow for grtater autonomy for Puerto Rico. which 

would include no more SenatoriaUCongressional jurisdiction or 

control over Puerto Rico? Would this compact allow for economic 

treaties to be drawn up between Puerto Rico and member states of 

the international community. without consulting with the United 

States Congress? Would the l · nited States gonrnment be willing to 

transfer Federal Agencies which exercise their pOlnrs in Puerto 

Rico. such as Immigration and Naturalization. Customs. Anti-Drug 

Agencies. just to name a few. to some form of parallel "sovereign" 

Puerto Rican Agency? Would the t :nited States be willing to pay for 

the use of land on which l 'nited States military installations are 

located in Puerto Rico? How will such a compact affect the United 

States hegemony and foreign policy in the Caribbean and Latin 

America? I am no legal or constitutional scholar. but I can say with 

certainty that a bi-lateral ~ompact would be counter productive for 

both United States and Puerto Rico interests. I do not believe the 

United States government would even contemplate considering such 

a proposal. 

Second. under an enhanced colonial status. generated by a bi-lateral 

20-766 - 96 - 12 
348 

-Jpact, is our l"nited States citizenship, which is a legislated one and 

not a constitutional one, guaranteed or could it be revoked as in the 

case of the Philippines ? Does the Organic Act of 1917 (Jones Act) 

secure and guarantee our rnited States citizenship as expressed in 

the definition of the winning formula? Thus we must assume that the 

Organic Act of 1917 was implemented as an articulation of United 

States domestic polic~· to e\'Cntually extend to Puerto Rico the 

benefits and responsibilities of statehood, and not as a guarantee of 

l · nited States citizenship under a colonial status. 

Third, recently \lr. Bill .\rcher, Chairman House Ways and Means 

Committee, along with \tr .. John Kasich, Chairman, House Budget 

Committee, han recommended the gradual phase-out, over a ten 

year period, of federal tax exemption programs, of which Section 936 

of the Internal Re,·enue Code forms part. llnder Section 936, United 

States multinationals in Puerto Rico are exempt from paying federal 

tax. This allows for these company's to abuse "transfer 

pricing"policies and intangible income transfers, and thus contribute 

to the federal deficit, and finally augment the inmense federal 

financial fiscal. Since 1982, under a Democratically controlled 

Congress, Congress has threatened and made us aware of the fact 

that Section 936 is "standing on its last set of legs". Eventually, a 

Republican controlled Congress, with the interest of the nation at 

heart, has been forced to consider :\1r. Archer and Mr. Kasich 

recommendations. 
349 

-5-

We must ask ourselns, would it be prudent and in the interest of the 

United States gonrnment to negotiate the continuation of Section 

936, as the leaders of the Popular Democratic Party wish, when 

future plans are in the making as to the allocation for the use of 

revenues collected from l'nited States multinationals presently 

enjoying tax-exemption? Would it not be more acceptable to the 

United States and Puerto Rico to support GO\·. Pedro Rossello's 

creative proposal which legislation would be applicable to any state 

or teritory of the Lnited States, since its application criteria is based 

on national unemployment and ponrty indexes, in substitution of 

Section 936. 

Fourth, proponents of the Popular Democratic Party han promised 

to obtain parit)· in two federal programs C\utritional Assistance 

Program, \1edicare and \ledicaid) and han another. Supplemental 

Securit)· Income extended in its totalit) to l,uerto Rico. Taking into 

consideration the Congressional bickering on \ledicare/\1edicaid 

and cuts to federal programs. how can the Popular Democratic 

Party's promises fit in to the Lnited States Congressional reforms? 

We must also ask, could 3.6 million l' nited States citizens, who do not 

pay federal tax be entitled and granted parit)· and extension in such 

federal programs? On many occasions. I ha\'e had the opportunity to 

meet and ask several different Committee Chairmen, why was 

Puerto Rico not allotted parit)· in funding? I ha\'C always been 

answered, "son, you must understand, Puerto Rico is not a state". 

So, what argument is the Popular Democratic 
350 

-6-

Party leadership going to resort to in order to obtain parity is 

beyond any rational understanding. 

On a somewhat related note. Congressman Young's efforts toextend 

federal tax to l'nited States territories, is commendable in its 

"illingness to ~n e as a first ~rious step towards statebomJ, but it is 

important to remembu that the War of American lndepef}de"~e was 

fought on the premise of no taxation without representation. ·r.,erto 

Rico can not be taxed if it is ool offered political equality and ~~oal 

representation. 

fifth, " ·ould the l 'nited States government be willing to protect 

Puerto Rican agricultural products exported to tbe United Sta~es 

mainland, ennthough economic barriers around the world are 

collapsing and an effort for globilizing the economy is taking place, 

as nident by ~AFTA. G~~ IT Agreement, EEC etc. 

These q~estions wltich I .pose as a logical path to logical answers, are 

objectin and realistic. Once these questioos are answerei;l, we will all 

conclude that the Popular Democratic Party's leaders, 'through idle 

and irresponsible promises, are idealistic in nature and not realistic 

within the ramifications of the existing relationship between the 

l'nited States and Puerto Rico. 

The Lnited States Congress must once again foment the Jeffersonian 
351 

-7-

tradition of gonrnment for Puerto Rico and not resort to the 

Hamiltonian tradition of extended ci\·ilian gonrnment to a territory 

based on printe enterprise and domestic economic interests. 

I must emphasize that it is my generation and those to come that will 

eventually inherit the outcome of these hearings, and I can only hope 

that what we inherit is what is long onr due: statehood for Puerto 

Rico. 

It is my deepest w·ish to see the people of Puerto Rico enjoy the 

benefits and meet the responsibilities of statehood as the 51st state of 

the Union and thus end our colonial status which has lasted 500 

years. My recommendation to this joint committee, is to answer these 

questions which I have expressed here toda~· and most importantly 

relay this joint committee's answer to the people of Puerto Rico 

expeditiously. I do not believe it will be to difficult, for the answers to 

these questions lay within the questions themselns. 

In the year 1998 Puerto Rico will be celebrating its 100 year 

relationship with the United States. The Cnited States can no longer 

afford to be the sole possessor of a colony entering the next 

millennium. The Popular Democratic Party's partial success at the 

polls during the 1993 plebiscite have only prolonged the eventual 

arrival of statehood for Puerto Rico, which I am confident will be 

before the end of this millennium. 
352 

I wish to conclude my testimony here toda)·, \lr. Chairman, with an 

excerpt from former Senator 0'\lahoney's speech on \1arch 8, 1951 

regarding Alaska's admission into the l 'nion: 

Senator 0'\lahoney asks: "But has it not been proposed 

that they should bt gnnted a Commonwealth status by 

Constitutional Amendment'!" 

Senator 0'\lahoney reply's: "Yes; such a proposal has 

been made, but common"·ealth status is a dnice developed by the 

British to bold the empire together without granting the people of the 

Commonwealth representation and \'Oting power in the British 

Parliament; which tries to govern its Empire. The American ideal of 

political freedom on the other hand has always been based upon the 

principle of full equality. The American concept of government is not 

one of empire, but of freedom." 

Thank you for your attention. I am now anilable to answer any 

questions that this joint committee may have. 
Oc:lober11,1995 

HoDonble EltoD GlllctiiY 

House ofltepecawMs 

Uailed Scares Coapu 

WIJbiDatoa D.C. 

llE: Pucno Rico SI&IUI 

Dar Sir. 

353 

I wilh 10 CllpfW my opillioa concerDa the s&alu.l ofPuerto Rico aDd the curreat hariDgs on the 

lllllUr. 

(1) hicw the lul plebilite vateilla rau1ts au tie. 

(2) It 936 is elimiuled, and I tbilllc it should be completely, the votc1 for 

Commoawaltll SI&IUI wwlcl dwindle 10 DOthiq. 

()) Tbe U.S. lbau1d aaiwly ~ statcbood. Like Hawaii aDd Alulr.a tho 

CICOIIOIIly ofl'usto lUco wou1cl soar u tho 51st State md u a lteppina sccme to 

tho ecpndina OCOIIOIIIica lllld maricds in SllUth America. 

(4) Tbe U.S. would bcadt &om this taxbuealld ncwDIItketrelationabipsiD South 

"'-ic:a. 

(S) 11 would improve our world imase u & non-colonial power. 

I bcpD cloiDa busincu ill Puerto Rico abour tbRe years qo and was astouDded It the potential 

Cor ~ d8velopmall there llld the skilled and educated work force in place. Also as a aapply side cc:onomic:a advocale, I belicw IWebood for Pucr10 Rico will help our N&lional 

Boaom LiDe naadl ~thin c:itber Commonwealth or Jndcperldence status. 

We IIIUSt do sollllldlins JDd aot keep thae U.S citizens in limbo any longer. We ca1111ot afford to. 

lletwcb. 

~ 

- C.jll~ Emmcu c. Hudson 

Ill Barton Sprislp Rll, Suile 400 

AultiD, Tau 71704 
354 

PVIRTO RICO HOUSI or UPRISil'n'AnYES 

CNITOI. IUII.DIMJ SAN IUNf, fVUTO IICO C111111t 

..,. 

-~~ --a...o.,....~ ... _ ---......... 

October 16, 199S 

HoDOnble E1tua a.DcalJ 

Coclpas of tbc United Stlta 

Wub.i.a&lOft, D.C. 

It would be illtlnltiq to Clllllider tile WJ&ita H- poliliOII oa tbc five propoAIJ coacained 

in the dcfillitioll of <=-MMt~~. raultiaa &om tbe public heariDp on the stabll 

plcbillcitc beld lA Puato RIA:o ill 1993. 

fiRST: 1'1 tile Wlalla Ho- ellllonl111 tile dat• to t .. ripe to 1...- pntectlo.ut 

Cariffl •• Pllftto Rln• qrtc.&t.nl prodllctl? 

In a reccnl 1J111eCiD1 widl Jeffrey Parrow, Tbe White House of&cr ia ~ of 

Puerto Ric;an lfl'aln, l iuilted OD Ill IDIWW but, he evaded it by Mkiq inJIICad 

for altcnuilivtll dill - DOl propoted to t11e e~ec:tontc durina the plebilcitc. 

The Wbite H- alaoald be aked why it did DOl iadude this promise ill the 

Frae Trade Apeemeat and iC it is considerina praposilla 111 ameaclment 

SECOND: 1'1 tile Wlalta Ho•• tadonlq tu claim ror parity Ia Ftderat pr•nlacladed Ia liM Co-oawcattla deOIIIItloa? Ill uswer is that tile lllldus 

questioa is IDiialy a caqn:ssioaal iswe: even tJaouab, it is a well-laaown c.:t 

that parity in fedcnl pmcrmas is Ill iauc CODI:a'llillJ a budpt bill ~ by 

tile B.xecuciw: ad lllbmitted by die Praideet. The White Hou~e did not 

include lbc fuDda 10 fiDIIIce it 

THIRD: 1'1 tile Willie Ho•e Ia faYor of restorlaa '36 IMaeftll to tWr orlpul, 

totally ea..,t statw'!' U 10, why did the Eaccative, willl the lppi'OVIII of 

Coaan-, reduce lbe beuefill from 1~ to ~? Ale they wiOiaJ to 10 back 

on their clecision? 

FOUR.m: 1'1 tile Wlalte B••• wlllllll to ttate tut tlla U.S. Gonrua111t canaot 

Impose aay tlllll ot taus oa P11erto Rlcaa 101payen? 
355 

October 16, 1995 

pqe2 

PIFlH: r. tiM Wlllte Bo- wUUq to llate , ... , Collp'- llu ...Uaqals11ed Ita 

pawn to lqlllate cl~a .. a Ia Ita relatloa wltla Puerto Rleo, tbu 

lnalldatl .. g.s. y. Tuu that atat• tlaat Collll'etl ca .. ot rellaqalala the 

IO'ftrtlpiJ ol till Ualted Statu? If so, UDCia- what COIIIIitutioall clause does 

it bue its c:laim tlalt Coqrea c:aa aad IIIII JeliDquPbcclllaat power? If tile 

Commonwealth wu crclled by ID Act of Coapeaa, Ia it suSPiliDI that 

Coap:u c:aDDOt dJaocby liiDCIId ita own lawa? Evco under the assumpti011 that 

a ~ exist~ (wblcb aa:onling 10 vast jurisprudence can oaly Cllist between 

IO'ftftip Jlllioas), IIIII COIII1I bavc doc:ided lhll, beiDa Ill tile IIDIDC level U 

lawl, tbcy c. be llllit.nlly deroptccl. llllJ*ICded or ameaclecl by Coap.u. 

evea if doing 10 COIIICiturel a moraiiDIISpaioa. 

The IIIIWCI1 10 lilac q1lellioaa II'C verJ importmt far the People of Puerto Rico. 

liJicaely hope tbcy - lllldR:ucld duriJia lbD COIII10 of the ~· 
356 

October 13, 1995 

Rep. Elton Gallegly, Olairman 

Sub-Committee on American Indians and Insular Affairs 

United States Coneress 

1522 Longworth Building 

Washington, D.C. 20515-0001 

Dear Rep. Gal1egly: 

The Coalition for Protection of Puerto Rican Culrure and Nationality has enacted the enclosed 

Resolution to demand action by the Nwral Resources Committee to resolve the status issue of 

Puerto Rico. 

Once more the People of Puerto Rico have ex~<ed their desire for more self-government and 

sovereignty. Apathy will only reinforce and prolong a colonial relationship that is no longer 

acceptable nor beneficial to either the United States or Puerto Rico. Puerto Ricans have waited 

nearly one hundred years to resolve this situation. It is time that the United States puts is own 

interests aside and listen to whaJ: the People of Puerto Rico have communicated through the results 

of the 1993 Referendum. 

Hence, we request that the resolution enacted by our members be included in the written statement 

to be submiued to the Natural Resources Committee 3l the time of the hearing on Puerto Rico's 

Starus scheduled for October 17, 1995, and in lieu of our presentation as a mainland Puerto Rican 

group deeply committed to resolving this issue. 

#ii2r 

Rafael A. Oniz 

Coordinator 
357 

by the 

Coalldou for Protection of 

Pllcna Rican Culture and Natiouality 

Samt Paul, Minnesota 

WHEREAS, tbc People of Puc:no Rico have executed their universal ri&Jit to self.Oetemrination by means 

of a Rderaxlam; IIIII 

WHEREAS, tbe Pl:oople of Pueno Rico have clearly voted in favor of an enhanced form of ,;elf-government 

in lhc 1993 Refaeudum; IIIII 

WHEREAS, the laden of the three political parties in Puerto Rico supported by President George Bush in 

his 1989 State of tbe Union Address have souibt to put closure to the CUIIent colonial status of 

!be island; IIIII 

WHEREAS, IIWlY political and non-political orgllllizalions in Puerto Rico have petitioned the United States 

Conpess oo multiple occasions to allow more ,;elf-government for the island-colony without 

success; and 

WHEREAS. the refusal by tbe United Swes Congress to allow a form of government in Puerto Rico vested 

with sovereignty is in cte. violaDon of International Law, and has led to regrettable violent 

acts by many Pueno Ricans lhrou&hout this century; and 

WHEREAS, tbe United States Ccmgress has a moral responsibility to uphold and respect the wishes of the 

People of Pueno Rico and the millions of voting Puerto Ricans residing in the fifty states of 

the Union. 

NOW, THEREFORE. the Coalition doe$ beRby petitions the formation of a Joint Status Committee 

composed of repre5CIIWives from the United States and Puerto Rico that will negotiare, 

suucture and draft a clearly defined Bilateral Pact of Sovereignty berween the two nations that 

coroplies with requiremenu sec by International Law for a true Free-Associated-5tate, and that 

!he Pact is l"'lified by lbe People of Puerto Rico. 
358 

Angel A. Valeacia-Apoote 

Attoruey At Law 

PO Bo11 361917 

Saa Juan, Puerto Rico 0093~1917 

The Honorable Elton GaUegly 

House of Represcutatives 

Congress of the United States 

Co~ee on Resources 

Sub.:ommittee on Insular and International Affairs 

I ~22 longl\Orth Office Building 

Washington. DC. 205 I 5 

Dear Congressman GaUegly: 

October 16, 1995 

FoUowing are some thou@hts that I would like to share with the Committee 

holding hearings on the results of the 1993 Puerto Rico's plebiscite. It is important that 

this hisaoric C\·ent be \iewed in its correct historical context. 

The 1990 Rnolution oftbe Genenl Council oftbe Popular Democratic Party 

It is weU kno'~~>'D that the commonwealth option in the 1993 plebiscite was 

championed by Puerto Rico· s Popular Democratic Party. The law which enacted the 1993 

plebiscite pro\ided for the parties promoting the several formulas to "define" the 

formulas· meaning. This Party approved a resolution in 1990 at a Ponce, Puerto Rico 

meeting '~~>hich demanded from the United States Congress the foDowing terms for a future 

plebiscite: (a 1 a new commonwttalth '~~>ith constitutional-guarantees of irrevocable 

American citizenship.( b) recognition of Puerto Rico's sovereignty, (c) authority to enter 

into international agreements '~~>ith other foreign countries, (d) equal footing with the other 

States of the Union '~~>ith regard to assisaance programs of the Federal Government but 

without the pa)ment offederaltnes. and (e) permanent union between Puerto Rico and 

the United States tbtougb a bilatual pact that could only be changed by IIDitual 

agreement bet'll.een Puerto Rico and Cougress. 

The "commonwealth" definition in the 1993 plebiscite stated that Commonwealth 

guaranteed: (I) irrC\·ocable American dtizensbip, (2) fiscal autonomy, (3) separate 

Olympic personality in the international arena. ( 4) restructuring of Section 936 of the IRS 

Code. (S) equal footing in participation ofassiSiance programs ofthe Federal 

Go\·ernment. and specifically. the Supplemental Security Income and the Food Stamp 

program. and ( 6) permanent union ben1•een Puerto Rico and the United States through a 

bilateral pact that could not be altered but for I!Ditual agreement between Puerto Rico and 

the United States. 
359 

2 

As you "'iii note. the commonweahh option definition bad its footprint in the 1990 

resolution that was commonly referTed to in Puerto Rico as the resolution for the 

"associated republic." 

The I..Alopbole for Secession 

Nobody should doubt that the only guarantee for permanent union and American 

citizenship in our CUI'Tent law is that enjoyed by tbe States in statehood. But, what if 

another type of "permanent union·· is negotiated and enacted into a treaty or a law? Wbat 

if the United States agrees to "'tat the Popular Party in its commonweahh option 

definition is promising~ 

This l)pe of permanent union would have a tax incentn e IRS 936 Code-type that 

could not be altered by the Congress. Thus. Congress would be renouncing its authority to 

change unilaterally a United States law. Concerning the fiscal autonomy feature, Puerto 

Rico would have veto power over the United States laws. Accordingly, Puerto Rico 

would have the authority to accept those federal tax laws it wants to bonor and refuse or 

cancel those it chooses. Puerto Ri.:o would be in the same footing as the balance of the 

States with regard to assistance programs and would fully participate in the Supplemental 

Security Income and tbe Food Stamp programs. but \\ould not pay federal taxes. In 

essence. Puerto Rico "'ould become the first .:oa.ti:derate state because all the above 

"permanent union·· guarantees would be framed in a ·"bilateral pact·· that may be changed 

"'ith the parties· acquiescence. Hence. the '"'permanent union·· agreement would be 

permanent for the duration of the agreement. HO\\~·..-er. once tbe .,ilateral pact" is 

mutually changed. the permanency of the "permanent union" guarantee may be anything 

but permanent. Then. what about tbe children born after tbe '"'permanent union" bilateral 

pact changes to something not permanent? May the .:hildren of the ''permanent union·· 

American citizens born after the bilateral pact .:eases be guaranteed irrevocable 

citizenship? If the future means that the '"Jlei'TOaDent union" bilateral pact dissolves by 

mutual consent and Puerto Rico goes its o"'n \\3Y as a separate sovereign country, are the 

children of that count!)' guaranteed 'irTevocable citizenship." Assuming it does. how 

would Congress guarantee the equal protection of the laws to these citizens? 

The seed of secession is planted into the commonwealth bilateral pact. It is only 

bidden beneath the falsehood of '"Jlertnanent union .. to mislead the loyal American citizens 

Puerto Ricans are. The loophole would be there to use. The loophole for secession would 

be there waiting for an opportuniry. The superpowers retained by Puerto Rico would 

parallel those the Confederacy wanted to save for its state-members. 

But a bitter war was fought to settle that question. Thousands of Americans shed 

their blood to preserve the Union as we know it. To agree to the ''permanent union" 

commonwealth proposal would be to admit a confederate state into the Union. Thus. 

Puerto Rico may have all the goodies but leave if it feels like in the future. It would be 

dangerously opening a loophole long closed. 
360 

3 

Thus. the commonwealth option definition. was artfully used in the plebiscite to 

derail the aspirations of the Puerto Rican-Americans in their quest for decolonization and 

equality. All the benefits of the Union. without its responsibilities. 

Common History, Common Dreams 

Despite different origjns and different history until the closing of the past century, 

Pu.:no Ri.:o and the United States ba,·e now enjoyed a common history that started when 

the American troops were led by the Pueno Rican patriots throughout the island to rid it 

of'ipanish rule in 18Q8. E,·er since. Puerto Rico's destiny bas been linked to that ofthe 

United States. Within less than three years it will be I 00 years! Since this time, a new 

generation of Pueno Ricans li\·e in the island. It is a generation of native born American 

'itizens who bl\·e learned to lo,·e their two flags, their two anthems and who have bravely 

fight for democracy in World Wars I. II. Korea. Vietnam. the Persian Gulf and many 

ochers. It is a Puerto Ri.:an-American that bas cherished the same goals of liberty and 

tranquillit} and bas adopted the political culture of democracy and human rights. It is a 

generation of Puerto Ricans that share with their brothers and sisters of the others States 

the basic American dreams of home and the basic traditions of the pursuit ofhappiness. It 

is a Puerto Rican personality that bas outgrown the nationalistic approach to h"berty and 

has transform it into a broad quest for Liberty through the attainment of equality. 

The .\uti-Statehood Issues in the 1993 Plebiscite 

Ln I QQJ. the issues used against statehood were varied but all had the 

.:ommon thrust of using the fear of change or fear of the unknown. As the formulas 

presented to the voters had no definitions previously approved by Congress, planting fears 

and mistrust was a matter of publicity planning. Thus, generally, the anti-statehood 

.:ampaign promoted the following ideas: 

-the United Sutes don't really want Pueno Rico among the several states 

-Puerto Rico would lose its Spanish language because the enabling act 

would include an English-only proviso 

-Pueno Rico would lose its international athletic personality 

-Puerto Rico would pay high taxes to the federal government 

-Many Puerto Ricans would lose their homes because the fedenl 

go,·emment would cu property and people would not be able to afford it 

The Laboratory Conditions For .\ Free and Uncoerced Election Were Destroyed 
361 

4 

The vacuum created by the laclr. of definitions sanctioned by Congress and 

perverse campaign by the anti-statehood forces. fueled by the financing of the Section 

936 companies in Pueno Rico. desuoyed the laboratory conditions necessary for a free 

and uncoerced choice. The misinformation and the fear campaign aimed particularly at the 

poor rendered improbable the surface of a free choice and concealed the uninhibited 

desires of the people. 

Particularly crueL was the massi\·e radio .:ampaign by the Popular Party and the 

Section 936 companies that statehood would mean property taxes to the poor and that 

poor people would lose their houses that they bad acquired .,...ith so much sacrifice. Radio. 

the prime communications vehicle to reach the poor. was saturated with anti-statehood 

messages that threatened people that a vote for statehood meant losing their homes and 

their jobs. I invite the Conuninee to request from appropriate authorities and from radio 

stations, transcripts of the messages broadcasted and the frequency of those. 

The fear and misinformation succeeded. Thousands ofloyal Americans were 

forced. because of the threat oflosing their houses and jobs. to vote against statehood. 

For this reason. the .1W3 plebiscite is not an appropriate gauge to measure 

statehood sentiment. The people were so coerced and interference with their free choice 

was so deep. that the laboratol)' conditions for an uncoerced .:boice were destroyed. The 

commonwealth option gathered a slim plurality of~·. but lost its majority starus. Showing 

the increasing tendency of the statehood sentiment. the majority of Puerto Ricans for the 

first time voted for something other than commonwealth. 

Recommendation 

Puerto Ricans are in the last phase of their path to decolonization. Two things 

must occur first to help Puerto Ri.:ans take the final decision. Flfst. Congress must show 

its willingness to admit Puerto Rico as a state "hen so requested. This. based on the 

underlying truth that the granting of US dtizenship to Pueno Ricans was a promise of 

statehood. Secondly. although full definitions would a\ en the process and would limit the 

span of negotiating an enabling act by the new state. Congress must, at the very least. 

establish a framework for the options to eliminate the possibility of campaigns based on 

fear and misinformation. A framework for each option would esublisb general boundaries 

to promote an informed and intelligent vote. 

I recommend that Congress sponsors a new plebiscite to be held in 1997 or 1998 

with the options of statehood. free association as the tenn is kno'ol.n in international law 

and complete independence. The framework would eliminate the poSst'bility that the 

proponents of"free association" or "independence" could argue that American citizenship 

under these options is pennanent and of the same nature as the citizenship of any citizen in 

the current fifty states. Also. it would do away .,...ith tailored and false definitions that are 

misleading. 
362 

5 

I dwlk you ror the oppommiry to lddress the Committee IDd request that my 

paper be c011sidered by the Colllllliltee aad plac:ed with the official bearing record 

Very Truly Yours, 
363 

OCT23~ 

Rev. Francisco Jav1er Goitia Padilla 

Calle 2 Bloque 3 114 

Primera Secci6n Doraville 

Dorado. Puerto Rico 00646 

Telefono (809)278-0614 

---. ------- -----------

October 10. 1995 

Mister William Clinton 

President of the United States of Amer1ca 

1600 Pennsylvania Avenue 

Washington. D.C. 20500 

Dear Mr. President: 

Grace and peace to you from our Lord Jesus Christ. 

This letter is the expression of a deep pastoral concern reqardinq the •tuality ,,f life and fut<lre of Puerto Rico . It 

sprinqs out of my experience a~: a c1 t L ~<til .tnd from my voc:a t "ut. .,. pastor th-~t .,;har .. s th .. . Anqu1sh"s ~nd ;oy ,; ,,f my par isbion•.• . ~ud 

friends. It is an .att .. mpt to otf .. r huv" ~u tl~<- (.,,., a11d 

uncertainties that .are slowly fat1qu1n<J to dttath ·>Ut collectl''" 

beinq. 

The social, economic. and polit1cal situation 1n Puerto R1c~ 

is complex. We are strugqling for survrval ~nd coming, I believe. 

to a collapse. Economlcally, we surv"'Je •.hank:: '·" Olltg" ·..:cO:!::u•, 

apportionments . an act1vtt roltt of th¥ JOVernmwnt as an employer 

and to federal ta~ exemption benefit~ to U. S.A. ~ult:nati nal 

companies. As you can se"' . 1 t 1s a v.,r·y shaky .,,; onomy that 1s 

dependent and art1fic1al. Th1~ econom1c s1tuat1on Wlll be 

hardened by the federal budget adjustments . the economic 

aqreements Wlth Hex1co. Chll.,, and t!.e l1kt. and by "ehauqe ·'-'· 

foreiqn polic1es in the area. Socially we are in the midst of a crisis. Violence . lassitude 1n values. and h1gh st .. t.i.sLlcs ~~~, ...... tal illnesses a.:. few examples of this crisis. Unemployment . h1gh scholar desert; c.: . 

rates. druqs and poverty . 1dl~ness and lack of role models are causing frustration in our youth and collective anxiety . Add t~ 

this our 500-year old search of an identity and place among the 

peoples of the world and you will have a picture of our collective social situation. This social crisis is inherently 

united to our political and economic situation. 
364 

Before all these many of our leaders are simply playing 

politics and offering no real solutions. But even with the best 

of intentions they have no real space to act. This is why I am 

writing to you . Our econum1c model, our social condition , and our 

political situat1on are brok-n. The Puerto Rican political 

spectrum is fractioned. It is practically impossible , without a 

clear. concrete . and s1ncere effort of your government . to begin 

a unified process to find solutions . Discrete efforts such as to 

provide artific1al l1fe to section 936 of the IRS or it 

alternatives will only prolong our struggle . Polite rhetoric like 

ask1ng for consed3ous ot 4ffltming that u.s. will validate 

whatever Puerto Ricans decid~ are not solutions anymore . 

I am urg1ng you as prestdent of the United States of America 

and the Congress to beg1n a serious public process·in whi c h you 

offer an integral solut1on to the Puerto Rican dilemma . These 

efforts must include concrete options from which we Puerto Ricans 

can choose and begin s~lvtng our pclitical , economic . ~nd social 

situation. It u your responstbility . This is not to deny ours . 

In time we wtll assume 1t . as WE ALWAYS DO . In realit y, however . 

1t is 1mposs1ble for us to decide without your active and 

decisive role tn the matter . 

The lives, hopes. and a r~al chance for the pursuit of 

happiness for our people are at stake. It is time . As pastor , 

see the sadness and t1redness of our people. I also see the 

desire. pride . talents and human fiber of Puerto Ricans that are 

ready and able to bu1ld a d1gn1t1ed home for us all in t his 

beaut1ful 1Sland . Do not allow us to fall between the cracks of 

global1zat1on . Thank you . 

CC Jeff Farrow 

!!ton Galleqly 

In Jesus Christ, (J f»~a_J~~·- ,Jtfi 

Rev. Fr~co Javier Goitia Padilla 

Spec1al Co!Miltte., •lll o .. colonizatton, United Nattons 

2 
365 

Ruppo~s tha~ the CaRP awealtk par fede~el tazes to u.s. by Luis Penr.hi/RPB 

'l'hA tn:esident of the PDP, R4eto~: Luis Jlacvccio, CJAVe his 

supporL uu IDOnday so that the CJOVBl:lllllent of Puerto Ri nn pays federal taxca, Be denied that this measure b~:inga tbto la~la.&&d c:loser 

to statehood and nl.arified that be supports contributions -de by 

the state guvur1 .. nt and not by individuals. 

"This does nnt. bring us closer to statehood and what it doea 

is to prevent. Lbu ua~e of the argument that the island would receive aore funds uncle~: statehood. In Jll'f understanding this ends statehood 

because the only incentive th8t at.~tehooders now have to use.for 

pr0110ting annexation ia tbat. uudur statehood mgre federal funds are rAeeived•, Aeavedo said. '1'he -ror of San Juan o.rgv.ed that if 

Puerto lticans start receivinq the SIUIIB funds that are reae.ivwd i.n 

the statca, •statehood is finished", 

The CODIIIonweal th 1 A8der pointed to the fact that currant 

Resident Coaaiaaiuue.r.·, Carlos :ao.aro Barcel<S, every time he fails 

in an effo~ to get more fodcral funda, says that it is the fault 

of Commonwealth status•. Be indin8t.Ad that residant commiaaionars 

pz:ior to R01110ro BarcelO have be~tu able to obtain the funds for 

Puerto aico and not used aa an exouao that tho island is not a state. " All the previoul resident cOIIIIIiaaionara with thA same tools 

achieved more than hilll (Ra.ez:o Barcel6) Alld' hot 11huulcl not conceal 

his failure behind the Ca.DOnwealth because the other oollllllissioncro 

have gotten more with the aaae inltruaant•, he indicated. 

Suppo~a Celesta's Positioa 

In another -ttor, Acevedo suppo~ed tho posture of the 

p1atform director of t.he PDP, Celeste Benitez,who supported thea 

payment of fudu.r.·.J. !.;axes on the , part of the ialand as a way of oont~:ibuting to the nation mnd receiving .ore u.s. funds. 

•sin.: .. Lhu L.U. of ·Luis llulloz Marin it had been 1aic1 that at a determined moment of our development· we would look for an adequate form o:r contr:i hl't. i ng t.n dn 'AIOJ:I!I ju•tioe to Puerto aico and 

Gov. llern.tude" Culuu ua~puu•ed a very convenient formula to those 

effects for Pue~o Rico• 1 Aoovodo 11aid. 

U. a. w111 aut illpaae auather .aclel 

ACevedo also expressed that the u.s. qovar.n11111nt vm11 d nnt. 

iapoae on Puerto Rico a model ul auLuuUIIIUu" d11vulup•ml:. dl.f.ferent 

to the eom.onwealth or outside the oonoept of permanent union. 

Acevedo refer;r;ed to atat-nta attLlbuL..U Lu !uncLlu111u:lu11 ur the Depart.ant of the Interior who la•t waak said that the federal 

government would terminate ita "colonial· relation• with · ita 
366 

Ltt£L·ituritts and would seek foru of integration or free aa11oc.i.ation 

with th-. 

Acevedo recalled that today "there are -re }uriadictiona them ever before• with pacta of association with tha1r metropolis. 

"Jiot only do we have today auch -:re free and aeeociated 

states in the world, but we alao have an economic integration that 

respects diverse cultures and that is what Luis Muftoz Marin 

predicted in 1'50•, Acevedo aaid. 

Be said that the P:r11aidcmt. u! Lhtt tJulLttd Statee, Bill Clinton, waa very clear while affiraing that the will of the of Puerto Rico 

would be respected and that there il no indication that there could 

be a tendency contrary to that. 

• l'eople should be relaxed and should not despair, because here we are making inroads for variou11 people• of the world and here we anticipated the tendencies that we now aee wi t.h t.he European 

COIIIIUnity and lUI!'TA" 1 he concluded. 

BL VOCRRO- MAy 31 I 1994 
367 

USA Today, April 20, 1995 

End corporate welfare 

l•lil;lli!MJI !:;t:%:S::'h: 

business needs a briM. But taxpayers just can't afford lt. 

Give 'em a break- a tax break, that is. 

So goes the spiel of the 30,000 Washington lobbyists seeking special favors from 

Congress for businesses. Listen to them 

and you'd believe each bit of cotpOrate welfare taxpayers dole out is vital to job creation and people's living standards. 

And Congress buys that pitch. A study 

last fall by its Joint Committee on Taxation 

estimates the tab at nearly $60 billion a year in tax breaks for business alone - $240 for every American. 

And for what? Here's a small sample of 

the hundreds of breaks given businesses: 

Ill> Pharmaceutical makers and other investors in U.S. territories get a break called 

Section 936. Aimed at creating jobs, especially in Puerto Rico, it costs the Treasury more than $3 billion a year, aa:ording to 

the taxation committee's estimates. The 

biggest chunk - a billion a year -goes to 

drug companies, which employ a mere 18,000 Puerto Ricans. 

Ill> Huge agribusiness companies such as 

Archer-Daniels-Midland get tax breaks 

worth $500 million a year for producing 

ethanol. The breaks give the com-based 

gasoline substitute an advantage over other 

alcohol fuels, even though it may contribute more to ozone pollution. 

Ill> Exporters get tax subsidies worth near- ly $5 billion a year. That might help in- crease jobs. Except, by violating the spirit 

of trade laws the U.S. fought for, these 

breaks encourage other nations to violate 

them; too. Taxpayers finance the fight 

And so it goes. Timber, oil and mineral 

interests get billions off their tax bills 

through special measures not allowed other 

industries. Credit unions get tax advantages unavailable to banks and savings and 

loans. Insurance companies get breaks that 

stock firms don't 

Sometimes, favors go to a single company that's been able to influence a powerful 

Congress member, who hides the benefit 

deep in a tax bill. More often, they're the 

result of good intentions, such as promoting better housing or helping the environment or some segment of the economy. 

But most often these favors carry too 

high a price. They encoumge businesses to 

seek tax breaks rather than greater efficiency. They distort the political process as 

those with a stake in tax breaks give out 

huae campaign, contnbutions to influence 

tax decisions. Archer-Daniels-Midland 

alone contributed $2.5 million to both 

Democrats and Republicans in the last 

election. They add burdens to ordinary citizens for the advantage of the powerful few. 

And they never. seem to end The tax 

breaks to invest in Puerto Rico have gone on 40 years. That's plenty long enough. 

Congress needs to break business and itself loose from cotpOrate welfure and give 

other, poorer taxpayers a break. 
368 
369 

: Congress is urged 

to· get involved in 

, island status issue 

: Rossell6 proposes another plebiscite in 1998. .._, 

, Roxanne J 

1 wreaks 1 · · · havoc on . ·. 

Mexican : · · market' . .-., • ... ~ .... , ... , 

·:-..:=..:: . ~~;.-: ....... ,..c; ...... .... c.-..-.. .. .......,_, . .... .. .. TUIIHI,. t'ltoe 

"Wffll41 .. . 

.... .,., ..... , ............ ......... lllonnnel'lft, 

ltiW~IOCW.IOI 

-·- .......... vwr. 1.000 ill! "'" .... 
370 

LoCAL NEWs 

Rossello urges Congress 

to tackle P.R. status issue 

Governor calls for 

federally mandated 

plebiscite in 1 998 

Status hllllrlnlll 

The House subcommittees on Insular and Native Amerir:an 

Affairs and Westam Hemisphere 

Affairs hurd testimony Tuesda~ 

from these witnlls5eS: 

.,...ft.MftG.TMir:clli.C.·tU 

•liiiW.h4n:~ .... n•.prutc.,tor rhiN..,ProgreuNIPJny 

.IIIIJIIII...,.I 

HedW Ulls Acne''· J)lnitlm 

IIIIIII~IDillllleQ~cl'll1)" 

• IIII.AIIWIII~n .Ji1111111Ml. 

ptHiclcnl:oltMPu•~tt~ltiCOIII 

l~f'IIIV 

•r-&.w.LIIIs,Mt . 

..... lllea,ll•,_•hiwtrtti&IIOIIIM: 

•wM•·Li 

............. co-chM'oflll~ 

awGIIII'In*llsllaion's 

lnrlri61""YWOtlrln\)Groi!Don 

a ~L.KIIII.<~tlarm:-rSWI """"""' 

Dlplnmllllliewylf' 1n •• eu~h 

.,d!WOMidrnllllltrlll!llll 

•••• • IM.CUII$e .. *fi!IU,HPP 

. ,_ .................... . ..... ''" ,s..,_ ...... l!till • 

.U~OIUIII'I,. 

*M" 

.......... Cilllrll,lfl'l' 

•"'-·IMNC...,.T-.I'DP 

•AN-DMI ..... IIIP 

*¥"" 

• Mill .. RH*a .. r.... llftlilld«"-eno~Ucan~in 

.,..,_le~slllu. ""'""" 

~rnrCr.rnbic:O:! 

•w .. A. ... riWI, 

;o-dllltal~loUI 

._LidiWI .. II .. IS.I'ruELJ. 

STAAa..-.,~s.. .. 

... ~ wou 10 ~raormulolltc~ :S.:lioQ a 

a.d that I.U aJ t-lin; •• P-iblt. ,_ ..W I.Ut tile .-...u.t;.. or..- die nl'nllt prepDAd dla,_ to 

IMUIII .. al~W"fiPCt-"IM: 

~m.i-:l .=. ";;:.::r;.~ ~ cMac- lab ~Hi!' fllll tU~~rt 

"'TM: a..aalltntie -~ tM co- nuubc llrit~ ....,.w, WI'!UfiQo;t P'.v-

--lhaliOUMittlattllcWb.lleH-kl 

..,.;IIU!flauJ:I}oR.,UoDJiaJI~m-

::!:;:;.~~~~~!~ .,tkiSipNp'llm. 

"-""· 11'110 to-dlllrt lkoe lllttr-Oov-

=.:~~c:f..:.~= Dtzm~~~~g.tuilebllte 

.tlllra .... •tkbiU<Ltko~~e~lt4pd tUt 1bc :r.UlMia\1: .ill eooW.. uatD"CCIc 

~ 

........ ~me.=biiS 

Ia Udl mntar,-- dill 

~ •. ~A.INQI, !'~•_10 
371 
372 

/7-l'r .:>-4/Y ;7-0AIV 5IA/e _____ _,C)=,CL.LZ,_(_ '/9::r- lhe San Juan' Star· Tuesday, October 17, 1995 

LocAL NEws 

After 2 years, Congress 

hears plebiscite results 

Still, hearings in D.C. will be mainly informative 

Behind the News 

By JORGE LUIS MEDINA 0111'11!' SrAR Slall 

The concresslonal hearings on the 1993 status 

plebiscite opeu loday, almost two yurs after a plurality of Puerto IUcau 

vote1 s chuse the common- weallh foa·mula over stale· 

hood or lndet,endence 

The fact that the hear· 

lng• wilt be held by lloc 

Nall\·t Americans and In· 

sular Affairs and the \Vt'st· 

ern llemlsplu~ e ·Affairs 

statehood 1rew from the 

meager percentage It gar· nered In the 1967 plebiscite. 

'fhe leaden of the Puer· to Rican Independence 

Party and the rest of the 

pro-Independence seclor, meanwhile, antrm that 

both slalt'hood oud Jhe 

conunouweallh lost, be- cause uellher could obtain 

a convlnclnK majority 

And lo he<~r them talk, It 

would follow lhat a dra· 

lllatlc ne\Y developmenl Is 

to be ~xpected from the 

hearings 

subcummlttce, both subdl· Such a thins Is In the visions of the llouse Ways realm ol possibility, but 

and Means Commlttt'c, what will hap~n today is 

should give the casual ob· yet another procedural 

sen·u on hlu of how high step In the lone and wh•d· 

- or low - Puerto Hlro In& road of Puerto Rlcu· 

re~nk\ In the list of cungres- U.S. relations. The concept 

slonal priorities. of the he.:ulng, In the 

Dy the same token. the American system, rtrers to 

flurry ol charges and coun · ll1e rlgllt to be heard. Puer· 

terch:arges the local par· to Ricans voted In 1993; It's 

tlu :.re hurling at each now 1995, and Congress; 

other may give an Idea of ;e'~ilde: ear wb1t they 

just J•o\9 far they are will· lng to go In order to ob- 'rhe 1993 plebiscite was scure what's going on, and Implemented · without an 

to cover themselves along commitment from Con· the way, just In case sress that It \Vould abide 

Popular Democratic by whatevtr decision the Party president lll!ctor Puerto lUcan voters made. Luis Acevedo has made no Therefore, and since Con- bones or his belle( that It's gress Is not obliged to re· all a trap. Gov. Rosscll6 act In one way or another 

and ltesldent Commission· to the plebiscite, the House 

er C1tlos Romero Barcel6 hearings take on the char· 

claim statehood emerged acter of Informative bear· 

triumphant, because sup· lngs, that Is. a formal act In 

portlorthe commonwealth which Congress Is In· dlnn•tl h ... n~••h ...... M "'"-· formed about aomethlnt:. 

cen' marK 1na support for Not about the U.S. lOY· 

--· ernmenl's official doctrine 

I regarding Puerto Rico. That policy has been shaped by the pronounce- ments made rrom time .to 

lime by lhe president of 

the Untied States, from 

Dwtaht D. Eisenhower In the 19S0s to lhe present. 

The 1993 plebiscite did 

not happen ln 1 vacuum. Jt 

was· part of a process be· sun almost live years earlier, when thcn-Gov. Rahel 

Hernlndez Coldn got wl,>d that President Ou:;h 

11launed to act on the slo~tus 

~ue~llon and decided to 

jump the gun on lh:t U.S. 

chtel. 

llernjndez: Coldn's move 

dovetilled with developments In Consress that led 

to hearings, an aborted federal J.~leblsclte bill And 

1911 's nere.endum lot• 

Uemocrallc lll&hls, which 

was supposed to set ll1c 

1• ound t ulu for an ut>COIII· 

in& plebiscite but turutd 

out to be thf last nail on 

lfern~ndez Col6n"s political 

coif in. 

Aller dtleallng lhe I'IJI' 

In 1992, Jtosselhi made 

&ood on a promise to wrap 

up the unllnlshed agendill of 

the prior four years, aud 

called Immediately lor a stalus plebiscite. A plebi· 

scite law was enacted, del· 

lnlltons were drafted on 

the conapeUnc status for· mulas, and when the dust 

stllled, the Commonwealth 

1arnere:d 48.6 percent, 

statehood cot 46.3 percent and the Independence op· Uon 4.t percent. 

While there was no con· cresslonal committment 

on the plebiscite, the whole 

process was mounted on a reason1ble expectation 

that federal authorllles would r~ad. President 

'-IIUI.UU UIU act, appOIMUng 

1 task force to oversee 

possible areu of economic development for the Com· monwealth, a task Ioree presided over by Jeffrey Farrow. 

The local parties are not 

the only ones that will be 

heard. The autonomist 

wing ol lhe I'DP will be 

there, as will be groups 

like Camblo XXI and olh· 

en. In fact, one ollhe most 

salient elements · of the 

· hearlnes Is U1e lack of a 

consensus among those 

Puea-to Jllcaus wl10 will 

If' pear. 

Fur the Congress, the 

J.~Olltlcal conundrum Is rei· 

allvely simple: Puerto 

lllco voted. Congress 

hasn't, not yet. Other J'lebl· 

sclles may cume down the 

pike, but at this point Conctcss' duty Is to ope11 lhe 

oUldal reco1·d on the one 

held In 1993. There Is no 

obllg•tlon to do anylhlug 

about II. bul there Is a duly 

to Jtut on lhe recoa-d what 

the Puerlo lUcan people decided. 

Acevedo am.l lhe PUP, 

on the other hand, are 

oblige~ to delend the Commonwealth lonnula that 

won; whether ll's a feasible 

formula or not, It Is the one 

the people voted lor. II 

Rosselld aborted lhe 

t"hances for slatthood wl1h 

a prernature pleblsc:U<!-, U the hadependenliscos 

must lind balance the rec· 

ognlllon they say they have won from stateside leaders wilh the hard (act that lhe 

people voted for the per· rnanent union, that's all 

completely Irrelevant to 

the process. 

II Consress decides lhat 

"II It ain't broke, don't liz It," and supports lire as 

w~u•• wnu ru~nu niCO IS 

a low-priority Item on Its 

1genda, that's Us responslblltly. 

The thln1 Is lhat the record Is finally open, and after the hearings nobody 

can say they don't know 

what's solns on In Puerto 

Rico, because everyone has been 1lven due notlrp, 
373 

~ a ... 

c ... •• 

~ u :I . ~ p c ... 

.. 

-8 CD v ~ ·-

... ··. f~ en ~ :s cu 8 .. . en ca'-' . 

~ V1 CD a .. 

·.· ~ >.a 

.I CD 0 ~ :s· UJ C) . s:: 

w ~z . 
)a vida el Congreso a un 

Por LEONOR MULERO 

bt tL ~~o'Otvo biA 

WASHINGTON- La Comisi6o de llmanos de Ia camara de Represenllola auodo11oide- x propooe cdebrar co fetnro, eo Puerto 

Rico, alldicacia pflblicas !IObft d diiiiS de Ia Isla, dijo a~r cl ayudalllc 

conpaioul Manose MUSIII. 

Las allllioaciM licncn COIDO prop{is;to ~peobar una Icy pan Ia celelnci6n de un plebiscita de status politico co Puerto Rico y continuar aslla 

tarca de rapondcr a loa resultados del plebiscito que celcbr6 Ia Isla co 

1993, explil;6 Maruur, ayudantc priDCipal del pmidente de Recurso., el 

~ rcpublicaftO por A1ub, Doo You.,.. 

Youfll, quien fa¥01Ue Ia ntadidad para Pucrto Rico, csaara a e&f!IO 

de Ia r.dic:ac:iOrl en cste IIICS de II JDeCiida pan Yiabilizar d plcbiscito, 

illdic6 MaliSUr, tambita jefe de olicina de Ia Subcomisioa de los India~ 

11a1 ElladoDideoses y ASUDICII IIISIIJarea de Ia Comisi6n de R~ 

"Esla oo cs 11na coalrOvuaa oueva. Durante a11oa Puerto Rico ha 

ClladD di1puato a cambiar N S1alliS, pero el Co!llf'C$o no ha cstado 

~ ~o a aprobar una Icy co cse scnlido", eapmb Mansur. De 1989 a ;f 1991 d Cotllf'CSO sc involucr6 en una amolio discun.ln wbrc el status 
polllico de Ia Isla COD Ia idea de •'iabiliz.ar 1IR plebiscilo. Pcro DO IC pudo 

aprobu uulcy plcbia:ilaria porque. eotre DUal nzooes, cier1os concro- sislas republica- l!lpUCIIam- 10 8tciDOii2arota coo que Ia esladidad en l'loer1o Rico aumcatara d a6mero de caopaislas ~. 

Mllllllt dijo que ts1c ao a cl m-10 de IC6alar quito llizo ~ en 

d JIMado -CD Coapaol de IDI,oda dem6c:rala· pull DO caaWu ~ 

celebnc:i6ll del plcbilcilo de llatus.. Esta vel Ia Comi.si6o CUCIIID CDD Ia 

dilpalic:i6a de II Clsa Bluea de aleodcr cl ICmll del llatus, qio lo 

iii 11Cilal6 eJ coclinc1or del Gnapo latcn&CDdal de Clsa lllaDal • ~ de 

Puato Rico ea octubce paado a ¥isiDs IDlJre d raul1ado del plcbilcilo .._..IIIMu: ...,_.. de 199), cdebndas por dalsubcaalilioaa de Ia Comisi6a de Rcnnos. 

IMo ::=: =· :.:.=.- pr61ima cstarta IiilO eJ iDI'onlle lOin - auditac:iu. dijo 

IU- ESA COMISION ali~ a Ia idea de que te celebre DIU de 110 

plebiscito, eo cao de que Ia pri-. comuha oo c:ambie el -. 

MaiiSIH' coment6 que d praidaiC de Ia Subcomisi6a de As1111t01 del 

HemisiCrio Oa:idcatal de Ia Comisi6a de Recunos, el republicaDo por ladi&Da. Dan Blllloll, faYGRCC Ia idea del dem6a'a1D por Nuev~ Jeney, 

Robel1 Torricelli, de que "' apnoebe una ley para Ia celebnciOo de 

plebiscitos en las Areas iasulues ~ ciaco a40L 

NNo impo11a cubiO ticmpo tiXIle; lo importaate c:i atender d -- to", apun\6 Mansur. Recunos iaduy6 el rapoader a los resultados del 

plebUc:ito de 1993 eo Pua1o Rico eo d plllo de esa Comisi611. E1 status de EIIDdo Ubce Asociado prcYIIIeci6 eo esa consuiiD coovocada por el 

esiDdista f!bemador Pedro ao.DCI. Este ba dicbo que cometi6 d error de pennit.r que cacla partido politico dcfioiera su f6rmula y que, supueslamcote, cl Par1ido Popular Dcmocnltico pre~eoto uaa ~pelela de 

mejoras al ELA que 100 mnamplibles. 

Esas p!'OilleSU induyeo Ia r.eilic..:i6n del alcpdo p8(10 bilateral, a craves del ELA, encrc Puerto Rico y_ Eslados Uaiclos, Ia rcformulaciOn 

bacia mayorcs bencficios de Ia Sea:iOa 936 del Clxliao de Rcnw lniCr- ,.. .w federal, paridad eo beaelicios socialc:s fedcnlc:s y prolcoci6o para ~ 

produelos aartco~as. • La lqislatura de Pllcllo Rico, de mayoria CSiadisla, soliciiO al Con· g JRSO que rcsponda a loa rcsllhados plebilcitarios. E1 Partido loclependenlisla Pucnorriquftlo, que IUe cl primero eo anunciar semanas atnls I? Ia cercania del nuevo proyeciO de ley de You114- aco&e Ia disc:usi<m del ~ 

lema como una oportunidad bacia Ia descolooizaci6n de Pllcno Rico. z 

LA OPOSICION se coocenvm eo d PPD, quieo prcwleck) en d ..: paw1o plebiscilo y con$idera que ya el pueblo puertlllriq~~e6o ejc:rc:iO .., 

libre detcrmioacion. Micolras, RosseiiO ha prometido cclcbrar otro plebiscilo de status en 1991 de pnar las clccciooc:s de 1996. 

Dell Y_.g, qulen ... _. Ill

r~., esla -• de Ill me

lo. 
376 
~ 

'Falta' a su palabra el Go

•or I,.EC)NOR. MULERO 

1£ f.l. NUEVO DIA 

WASHINCTON - El conarnista pucrtorriqueiiO pur lticap, Luis Gutimn, dijo oyer qut tl sobemador Pedro 

:osscU6 tendri que uplicar por qut no cumpli6 su promesa e defc!MW Ia Sa:ci6o 936, squn lo plaCDJO eo su platal'or18 de Ia campau'la de 1992. 

Gutitrm: eapra6 quC"yo soy un ddcDsor de uaa Jljll1e : Ia pilld),.... del PNP que d GoberMdor DO defetldi6", 

firii:Dibe a que d programa de pbitmo q~~e Roudl6 

racot6 al pueblo puertotriquefto clttnote su campatla baa Ia 10bernaci6o indula Ia defensa de Ia Sttti6o 936 del 

6clito de Rencas lntcmas federal. 

E1 conpaista indiro que en cote al\0 electionario 11 936 ri un tema impurtantecl!e Ia campab pulltic:a de Puerto 

ico y de Ia$ paJ1n co &tados Unidos donde midao pue.-- .rriQueiiOa. Gut~m:z hizo loa c:omtotarios a Ia Pn:nsa CtiDniqwl\a luqo de mtrepr en c- Blanca 12,000 

tlaS y pdiciona de raidcnlcs de Cbiaoto que abopn pot 

~na. de Ia 936. Ellqislador ba entrqado rob.., 

,000 nrtas de dele- de Ia Stttillo, SCI(In dijcl. 

CtmEIUtEZ, ASJ como sus.coleps pot NIICYll York, los m6mcas N)dia V elizque:z y Josl> SetnOO, insiste m drlder Ia pennanencia de Ia 936, auoque ac:epta ciMO$ 

nbios aJ atditn pot i..,ao. Los 1m concraisw boric:uas ln m dcsiiCuerdo c:on Ia pane del plan de refonnulaciOO 

Ia 936 que preseot6 d picsiilcnsc Bill Oinloo aJ CoftF" 

&a pane trata de Ia deropciOn eo cinco doa del crtclito 

r iRCRSO. E1 tCSIO del plan de QiotOA .eJ 110"- sq(ln 

•titmz- Dllftlietle loa crtclitos de actividad ccoo6mica 

IIOC:ido como crHito salarill) y atdiiO par las pn.ociu i"'das de iowniooes hel:bas ooo inpaos pasivos 936 a 

ttaves de Ia baDca en Pucno Rico (QPSSII). 

"ObviaiiiCIIIC, Ia propuesta de Oiotoo cs Ia luz del sol 

comparada coa Ia oac:uridad de Ia propuesta del CoftiR$0", 

••P«s6 Gutiemz. La propuesta c:onpaiooal bwca eliminar de inmtdiato los bcftftaciO$ 9 36 y coo cede I 0 a lies de ttansi- cion a las ac:tuales empraas 936, coo Ia eacepciOo del 

QPSSII, que es elimioado de inmediaiO iDclliso paB estas compallias. 

Los tres concmiolas propoMn que sc ln&lltenca Ia Sec- cion y que, 1 lo .,mo, sc impclp un lOpe de S8S,OOO pot 

ernpleo al beneficia que p~~edan devenpr las manufacture- res cstadouniclenJe$ acocicJas aJ atdito pur inareso, el cual 

ha sido acusaclo de "numten&o corporativo". En cambio, Rossrll6 busca ht eliminaci6n de Ia 936 y Ia creaciOn de uo 

nuevo in~ntivo canlributivo federal que sc base priocipal- monte en emplcol treados. 

EL GOBER.'IIADOR arsumenta que Ia 936 es vis&a como 

un mantenao ~ntivo, incluso cl crtdito salarill que el prcsidente Bill Chnton cre6 bajo Ia Sc<:ci6n on 1993. AdemU, Rossd\6 considera que el atar a Ia 936 a las posesiones 

unicamtnle le da un maliz politico que tambitn fomenta Ia ioestabilidad de los incentivos. 

Gurierrez, que sc reline hoy junto roo 1111 colcps puertorriquetios L"OII el sccrelario cJd Tesoro, Robert Rubio, rcsalt6 

qaoc Ia propuesta pn:sidencial oonlicnc ufucrzos pur darle al 

crtclito salarial demenros del crtdito pur illlfc:so, para facilitar Ia lransicil>n de un henefacio a otro. Mention6 las deducciona cantribulivas municipales )" las mejons capitales. 

Mucllos scilalan, incluso el propio aobicruo de Puerto 

Rico. que Ia pnlpUesla presidencial y Ia propuCIIa de Rosscll6 son pridic:amcJIIc i&otic:as y que las separa fuoda- rMnlalmeo~e el ol'lmero de Ia Sccci6a. AI prquoiAQele por 

que oo aceptar Ia propuesta de Rossell6 si ts1a podria implicar I

que p

936 

las f

AI 

Oint

Gul~r

prcsi

crtdi

habia 

es un

los e

mayo

siaui

Secci

GU

Guhe

admi

Stubb

rales 

biane

ta" e

puert

Ru

Gulim

do a 

n6mi

llame

prece

rada 

cbo d

punto
ISBN 0-16-052610-8